Doctor who has left Iran tells Die Zeit that Kazemi was raped and tortured.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Rape, Torture, and Lies
Dr. Shahram Azam found a skull fracture, wounds, bruises all over Kazemi’s body.
-
Kazemi was Tortured and Raped
Doctor’s account contradicts Iran’s official position that death was caused by a fall.
-
Dr Azam to Speak at Ottawa Press Conference
Azam told the Globe he wants to renew worldwide attention on Kazemi’s case.
-
Muslim Thinker Calls For End To Brutal Punishments
Tariq Ramadan has called for a moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Muslim world.
-
Krugman on Religious Extremism
Jeb Bush sent cops to seize Schiavo; Judge in case needs armed bodyguards.
-
Flying North
It’s one of those peculiarly gorgeous days here, when it’s difficult to stay at the desk tap-tapping. You know the kind of thing. After several days of rain, an interval, of scrubbed translucent dazzling blue sky and white clouds. So I gave up the struggle and went out for a walk along The Wall overlooking the water, islands, mountains, all that. And got a bonus. I was half-aware (my mind was elsewhere – probably musing on Richard Rorty) of hearing bird calls overhead, but I paid no heed – but then I noticed a couple of people ahead of me gazing upwards, so I looked, in plenty of time to see two large Vs of snow geese flying north. The two Vs scattered, regrouped, reformed into one V while I watched, and off they all went – maybe a hundred or so – towards the Skagit for a rest stop, then towards Canada and the Arctic. Man, it was beautiful.
-
Yet Another Twist in Schiavo Case
Appeals court agrees to hear petition to re-insert feeding tube.
-
Mugabe: Opposition Victory Will Not Be Tolerated
Robert Mugabe called the Zimbabwean opposition “traitors” yesterday.
-
BBC Governors Reject Springer Opera Complaints
Dissenter disagreed that artistic significance outweighed offence caused.
-
DFW Science Museum to Show ‘Volcanoes’
Reverses bad decision to heed complaints of evolutionphobic whiners.
-
Armageddon is Fun and Entertaining
Why does Jesus decide to wear a dress while riding a horse? And other puzzles.
-
Fear of ‘Playing God’ on Only One Side of Equation
Ignoring patient wishes for no heroic measures is perfectly all right.
-
What’s Up With Harvard? And Larry Summers?
Is it all a ‘cleavage between coastal elites and certain mainstream values’?
-
Panda’s Thumb Round-up
[Mopping streaming eyes] This is very amusing. Over at Panda’s Thumb.
Prof. Steve Steve holds the B. Amboo Chair in Creatoinformatics at the University of Ediacara. He has been nominated five times (only twice by himself) for the Nobel Prize and has received six Barnes and Noble gift certificates.
Read the whole thing. Admire Steve’s picture, too. And there’s the one on Scientific American’s surrender to the creationists. About time – elitist bastards!
Oh just read the whole site – there’s one good item after another. What do they think, that I’ve got all day to read their posts?!
And there is the NY Times article on the Imax theatres rejecting evolooshun movies.
People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including “Cosmic Voyage,” which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; “Galápagos,” about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and “Volcanoes of the Deep Sea,” an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor…Hyman Field, who as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of “Volcanoes,” said he understood that theaters must be responsive to their audiences. But Dr. Field he said he was “furious” that a science museum would decide not to show a scientifically accurate documentary like “Volcanoes” because it mentioned evolution.
The Times article apparently prompted other articles, which prompted protests, which prompted the Dallas/Ft Worth science museum to reverse its decision – so that was a useful Times article. Good. The Times irritates me often, for instance by patting itself on the back all the time, but that was useful. Props, and all that.
-
Sham Inquiry
A bit from an essay of Susan Haack’s in Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate, page 8.
And to inquire is to try to discover the truth of some question. But pseudo-inquiry is a phenomenon no less common than pseudo-belief…Peirce identifies one kind of pseudo-inquiry when he writes of ‘sham reasoning’ [Collected Papers, I. 57-58]: making a case for the truth of some proposition your commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof.
Yes. A neat summing-up. Also a neat expression of the basic, the as it were foundational principle of B&W – which could be called identification of and opposition to sham inquiry.
Also a neat, succint description of how Margaret Mead went wrong. I’ve just been re-reading Derek Freeman’s book on the subject, as well as a brilliant long article on Franz Boas in The New Yorker last year (not online, unfortunately) by Claudia Roth Pierpont. It’s an interesting and somewhat conflict-inducing subject – because Boas was so right, from a moral and political view; he was so admirable, and often so isolated. And yet. From an epistemic point of view, he did get things backward. And yet – what else can one do in a situation like that? When racist ‘eugenic’ ideas are sweeping the intellectual landscape and you’re convinced they’re both harmful and false, what can you do but look for evidence to back up your conviction? And yet – if you do that, you are getting things the wrong way around, and you are very likely – you may indeed be consciously determined – to ignore any evidence you don’t want. Politically, it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do (and I’m sure I do it all the time); in terms of inquiry, it’s just not the way to go.
Haack goes on,
He has in mind philosophers who devise elaborate metaphysical underpinnings for theological propositions which no evidence or argument would induce them to give up. I think of Philip Gosse’s tortured efforts to reconcile the evidence Darwin adduced in favour of the theory of evolution with the literal truth of the book of Geneisis – and of the advocacy ‘research’ and politically motivated ‘scholarship’ of our own times. The characteristic feature of sham inquiry is the ‘inquirer’s’ prior and unbudgeable commitment to the proposition for which he tries to make a case.
Something to watch out for.
-
Why so much fuss about ‘a piece of clothing’?
Why so much fuss about ‘a piece of clothing’? In France and elsewhere in the west, teachers have a hard time with girls who come to school wearing the veil, who refuse to attend gym or biology courses, and who won’t read Voltaire because he was a non-believer.
In my speech, I will argue for banning the veil for young girls. I will refute views that promote and support veiling for young girls and try to demonstrate how banning the veil is vital for the advancement of children’s rights and the progress of our civil society.
Some feminists oppose the law to ban the veil in state schools and institutions on the grounds that the ban will strengthen Islamism. But high-ranking Islamic clerics strongly dispute this assertion, and argue that banning the veil is a direct attack on Islam.
Western leftist intellectual apologists for Islamism say that “whatever the rationale among progressives for supporting the ban, it cannot be judged apart from its role in the rising tide of racism against Muslim populations throughout the world.” They further argue that “In this context, France’s ban on the veil can only further inflame anti-Muslim racism and that no law reeking of such racist hypocrisy is intended to advance the cause of women’s equality.” They conclude that it is just a short leap from the assumption of Christian religious and European cultural superiority to outright hostility to Islam.
Apologists claim that veil is worn voluntarily by millions of Muslim women around the world as a symbol of cultural pride and in opposition to western imperialism. Along with the Islamists who marched against the ban in the streets of Paris and London, these apologists call the ban a ‘racist law.’
Apart from these bizarre apologies for the Islamic reaction by western ‘intellectuals’ and ‘feminists’, when one sees girls as young as four years old wearing the veil in the street of Paris and London, for example, can anyone seriously claim that they are doing this voluntarily, expressing their own religious beliefs? Is this heated debate surrounding the veil “a fuss about a piece of clothing”? Is banning the veil in schools and state institutions, as proclaimed by Islamists and apologists for Islam, a ‘restriction of religious freedom’? Is it a ‘restriction of freedom of expression’? Or is it ‘religious intolerance’? Or is it ‘a violation of Muslim women and girls’ rights’? Or is it ‘racist’?
I start with the law banning the veil and other religious symbols in state schools and state institutions in France. In my the view veil must be banned for young girls not only in schools but altogether. Public institutions belong to all citizens: schools and universities, in particular, are open to all. They are places from which all external marks of denomination and distinctive signs should be excluded. I believe that secularism is essential for maintaining our civil society. It means that states are duty-bound to ensure that all state schools, state institutions and government offices work in a neutral and impartial manner. Government officers, teachers, legal authorities and people working in the education system must not use their position to impose their beliefs and values on other people. This would be against the essence of a civil society. For this reason, I believe that religion and religious symbols are private affairs of adult individuals, not the business of a state. One’s religious beliefs are a private affair and public employees shouldn’t promote or impose their beliefs in school, in state institutions and in public life.
In my view, veiling in general, and veiling of young girls in particular, is not about a piece of clothing; and banning it, is defending the essence of the human rights of young girls and women in Islamic communities across the world. Banning the veil is essential and an important step forward in the defence of secularism and the rights of children and women.
Of course, Islamists, ardent Muslims and apologists will tell us that the girls themselves ‘choose’ the veil: ’Freedom of the Veil’! This is absurd! How can one believe that a little child would don ”attire” that prevents her from playing freely and openly with her friends? Not to be able to adjust her dress to the changing weather, not to be able to swim, climb a tree or pat a cute animal or do what children always have done all over the world! I ask why subject any young girl to this ancient curse? But, sadly and unfortunately, it has become a standard in our society to force and coerce a young child under a veil. It really is inhumane and socially unacceptable. It is said that girls choose the veil willingly. How do we expect a girl child to resist the veil? Can anyone really expect a loyal and loving child stand up and rally against the strong will of her parents and thus be able to escape from being confined inside the veil?
Up to the age of about sixteen, most children merely reflect the religious views of their parents. Most children do not have sufficient education and knowledge at early ages to make an informed belief choice. Their parents should be restricted from imposing religious attire on them. For children the veil is not a matter of choice. If they are veiled, it is their parent’s decision, not theirs. Banning the veil for children is similar to banning child labour, and protecting children from abuse and providing them with access to education. What seems often to be overlooked in discussion about the French ban is that dressing children in religious attire imposes a belief system upon them, and is therefore a form of indoctrination. Do we support the rights of parents and schools to indoctrinate children or do we uphold the rights of children to be free from indoctrination?
It has been argued that “freedom of belief includes the right to manifest your faith in public and Muslim girls should be free to choose whether to wear the veil or not.” The key question however is this. Whose freedom is being exercised? For many girls and women living in Islamic communities, it is the Islamic regimes, sheiks and mullahs; the elders, or husbands, fathers and male relatives who decide for them; they have virtually no freedom of personal expression outside the home – and young girls none at all. For women from Muslim origin everywhere, the veil is a symbol of oppression and religious domination. Contrary to what apologists claim, their veil is anything but a choice. Veiling women and the Koran’s and Sharia’s edicts on women separate them from any right, and brutally violate their basic human liberties. Women have ‘accepted’ the veil under an enormous pressure, and often through acid-throwing, threats and intimidations. Few women have the real freedom not to wear the veil. The very same Islamists who brutally impose the veil on women and girls through acid-throwing, flogging, imprisonment and torture in Iran, Iraq, Algeria and Afghanistan, oppose the banning of veils for young girls in schools in the West, and call it a restriction of freedom of expression. This is utterly hypocritical.
Contrary to what the opponents of banning the veil claim, maintaining secularism has nothing to do with racism. It is in fact racist to create different legal systems for different religious communities in the West. This would hinder women and girls’ access to the advances of civilized societies. Defending the ban on the veil is not defending the imperialist French government. It is about progressive human values, and it is about children’s rights.
Here, I would like to briefly address one related issue which is that of Islamic schools. I believe that protecting minors, particularly young girls, from undue influence by bizarre metaphysical dogmas, at least in their formative years, will ultimately benefit society. Moreover, it may well stop certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation.
The most fundamental freedom we should seek to protect is freedom of thought. To deprive children of this most basic human right is unethical. Children are not “born Muslim” or anything else. Rather, juvenile indoctrination is the primary mechanism of religious propagation.
Religion is illogical, irrational and harmful – especially to young, impressionable minds. It has no place in the public school system, which remains the last, desperate hope to establish an open-minded quest for knowledge in our kids. Religious dogma should be strongly countered in schools. Funds should be allocated for this very purpose. The importance of rational thought, critical thinking, and the scientific method is enormous, and theocratic worldviews are harmful. Theocratic views do not deserve equivalency. Let’s not turn our schools into balkanised religious cliques. Children must be free from religious indoctrination. So, Islamic schools must be banned altogether.
Looking closely at this business of veiling, we realise that it doesn’t simply violate secular and modern law and culture; it is above all, an insult to oneself; it is a violation of human liberties. In conclusion, let me say that religious beliefs that impose the veil on girls and women, reveal a mentality that is not content merely with veiling girls and women, but seeks to shroud men, society and life.
Veiling must be banned for young girls. It is the duty of the state to safeguard children rights by banning the veil and enforcing the ban.
Adapted from the speech delivered at the third international conference of Children First, on 11 & 12 February 2005, in Stockholm, Sweden.
Azam Kamguian is the editor of the Bulletin of Committee to Defend Women’s Rights in the Middle East.
-
IMAX Nixes Darwin for Fear of ‘Offending’
Decision also affects science museums.
-
Trivers’ Rhetoric of Maximum Affront
Trivers’s legendary papers of the early 1970s changed many disciplines.
-
Cult Studs Condemned Adorno as an Elitist
Dislike of American mass culture doesn’t make Adorno a political conservative.
