Category: Notes and Comment Blog

The BBC on Tariq Ramadan three days ago:

French prosecutors are investigating allegations by two women who say they were raped by Tariq Ramadan, a renowned Islamic scholar and Oxford professor.

One of them, Henda Ayari, told a French TV interviewer that Mr Ramadan had assaulted her in a Paris hotel in 2012.

“He literally pounced on me like a wild animal,” she said.

In a Facebook post Prof Ramadan denied the accusations, calling them “a campaign of lies”, and said his lawyer was suing the women for “slander”.

Just like Trump.

He is a controversial and influential figure among Muslim scholars. He challenges fundamentalist Islam, but some critics accuse him of promoting political Islam.

A Swiss national, he is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since 2009 he has been professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St Antony’s College, Oxford. He has also sat on a UK Foreign Office advisory group on freedom of religion.

That’s fairly typical BBC waffle. Ramadan “challenges fundamentalist Islam” only so far, and it’s not just a few eccentrics who can see that he promotes Islamism aka political Islam aka theocracy. And he’s been professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St Antony’s College, Oxford in a chair funded by Qatar.

Tendance Coatesey has a great deal of background and commentary.

I didn’t know Scott Pruitt had invoked the bible in his move to gut the EPA.

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy.

On the journey to the promised land, “Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve,” Pruitt said. “This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do.”

Yet he is appointing people from industry to the panels. He’s pretending to think that EPA grants distort the research of scientists but also that a salary from an industry that the EPA regulates does not distort or shape the views of industry shills. Scientists have to choose between grants and panels, but industry shills don’t have to choose between salaries and panels.

“Greed is good.” I’m sure that’s in the bible somewhere.

April Ryan asked Sarah Sanders about the Civil War and “compromise” and slavery again yesterday, and it went as well as you’d expect.

Ryan initially asked what the White House thinks is the definition of compromise as it relates to slavery and the Civil War.

“Look, I’m not going to get in and relitigate the Civil War. Like I told you yesterday, I think I’ve addressed the concerns that a lot of people had and the questions that you had and I’m not going to relitigate history here.”

What are the chances that Sanders knows anything about it? Or knows anything about it other than the most reactionary Southern myths?

Ryan pressed again: “But my question was still lingering when you left, so I’m going to ask the question again,” she said. Sanders cut her off, telling her to not ask it in a way that “you’re apparently accusing me of being.”

Ryan asked, flat out, whether the President and administration believes slavery is wrong. Sanders rolled her eyes.

“And before you answer,” Ryan said. “Mary Frances Berry, historian, said in 1860 there was a compromise. The compromise was to have southern states keep slavery, but the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter that caused the Civil War and because of the Civil War, what happened, the North won—.”

Sanders cut her off.

“I think it’s disgusting and absurd to suggest that anyone inside of this building would support slavery,” she said, moving on to another reporter.

That’s how it’s done: a show of righteous indignation to disguise the fact that you have no idea how to argue the substance, then move on to something else.

https://youtu.be/BslyJsInFWw

Is there any merit to this?

Every believing Muslim says Allahu Akbar every day during prayers. We cannot criminalize "God is great." Prosecute the criminal not a faith.

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) October 31, 2017

I don’t know of any plans to “criminalize” saying “Allahu akbar,” or to prosecute the religion that says it. On the other hand it does get pointed out when guys who drive trucks onto bridges or bicycle paths or shoot up editorial offices shout the phrase as they do so. Should journalists suppress that fact?

No. It’s evidence of motive, for one thing. The perpetrators themselves want us to know that that’s their motive; that’s why they shout it. We’re supposed to be converted, or frightened, or deeply impressed.

But for another thing it’s part of the picture. No doubt Linda Sarsour is worried that it’s not flattering to Islam, and of course she’s right, it’s not – but that’s not the fault of reporters who report the phrase or the rest of us who discuss it.

It’s fucked up. Thinking a shout that “God is great” equals a reason to murder a lot of random people is very fucked up. Human beings need to think about that fact. We need to understand that kind of god so that we can avoid it, and urge other people to avoid it. Sarsour doesn’t like that, because she likes her religion, but that’s not a good reason to expect the rest of us to shield it.

In honor of Tariq Ramadan – last week’s Jesus and Mo:

Support J and M on Patreon

Oh good god.

A French official has admitted knowing Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan was “violent and aggressive” sexually, but denied hearing anything about rape.

Bernard Godard, who was considered the “Monsieur Islam” of the French Ministry of the Interior between 1997 and 2014, was well acquainted with Mr Ramadan, a prominent Islamic scholar and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

A prominent Islamist scholar, albeit one who disguised himself to some extent as a sophisticated academic and deep thinker – but he’s the guy who refused to condemn stoning out of hand but instead called for a “moratorium” while serious theocrats debated the issue. He’s awful but with a veneer of okayness.

And now there are claims he’s rapey.

When asked whether he had any knowledge of the rape and sexual assault that Mr Ramadan is now being accused of, Mr Godard insisted he had “never heard of rapes” and that he was “stunned”.

“That he had many mistresses, that he consulted sites, that girls were brought to the hotel at the end of his lectures, that he invited them to undress, that some resisted and that he could become violent and aggressive, yes, but I have never heard of rapes, I am stunned,” he told French magazine L’Obs.

Mark that. Mark it well. Let it be seared into your memory. Some resisted and he became violent and aggressive, but Monsieur Islam never heard of rapes. Violence toward resistance, yes, but not rapes. One wonders what exactly he thinks rape is.

Mr Ramadan, who is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, has been accused of rape and sexual assault by three women in the past 10 days.

One of them, French writer Henda Ayari, says Mr Ramadan raped her in a Paris hotel room in 2012. Ms Ayari, 41, who lodged a rape complaint against the 55-year-old Swiss national on October 20, claimed that for Mr Ramadan, “either you wear a veil or you get raped”.

“He choked me so hard that I thought I was going to die,” she told Le Parisien on Monday.

But that’s just violence and aggression, not rape.

The Swiss scholar became at professor at St Anthony’s college, which is part of the prestigious British university, in 2009. His appointment was tinged with controversy given Qatar is a major patron of the establishment, and in 2013, Mr Ramadan was forced to deny that he was using his role to promote the ideas of the emirate.

In an interview with Liberation, he said: “My Oxford Chair is a permanent chair, which Qatar has financed, but whose management is under the exclusive authority of Oxford.”

Give the chair to Taslima Nasreen, instead.

Scott Pruitt cut the EPA off at the knees yesterday.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, stripped a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions Tuesday and issued new rules barring anyone who receives E.P.A. grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.

The move will effectively bar a large number of academic researchers, many of them experts in fields ranging from toxicology to epidemiology, from advising the E.P.A. on scientific matters, since the agency is one of the largest funders of environmental research.

They get the grants because they know the subject – so Pruitt throws them out. Let’s not have any experts on environmental science in the EPA, because who needs the environment, right? It’s there to be used until it’s worn out and useless, and then we’ll

uh

What is it we’ll do then? I forget.

Mr. Pruitt was expected to appoint several industry representatives to the panels. He did not impose any new restrictions to prevent them from offering advice on environmental regulations that may affect their businesses.

Industry reps have the right kind of vested interest – profit. The wrong kind is evidence about harm to the environment that we all depend on for survival.

In an announcement at agency headquarters surrounded by conservative activists and Republican lawmakers who have long called for an overhaul of the advisory boards, Mr. Pruitt said he made the decision to ensure the agency would receive data and advice free from conflicts of interest or any appearance of a conflict. He said that people currently serving on E.P.A. advisory boards had received $77 million in grant money over the past three years as they were issuing advice on policy.

The industry people on the other hand have no conflict of interest, or appearance of same. Also, chocolate makes you immortal.

Mr. Pruitt is expected to ask about two dozen people to replace advisers whose terms have ended or were removed under the new rules, according to a list provided by several people close to the process. Among the expected appointees, several are state regulators and private consultants; one is a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, a trade association; another is the chief environmental officer for Southern Company, an electric utility; and one is the vice president of technology for Phillips 66 Research Center in Oklahoma, and previously worked for ConocoPhillips.

The E.P.A. did not confirm the full list of new appointees, but did announce that Michael E. Honeycutt, the top toxicologist at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, would chair the E.P.A.’s Scientific Advisory Board. Dr. Honeycutt has sparred with the E.P.A. over ozone standards, and was a co-author of a study in an air and waste management magazine arguing that the agency has inflated the health benefits of more stringent air quality standards.

Yeah, pollution is good for you.

Here’s something I bet you didn’t know: women dressing up in exaggeratedly “feminine” clothes is appropriation.

Across the globe, men, women and non-binary individuals practice cross-dressing and drag as a form of expression. The encyclopedia Britannica identifies individuals in drag as performers dressing as the opposite sex or rather, outside of their assigned gender. It is a way of experimenting with the aspect of “the other” in terms of identity.

This practice can be seen in a myriad of settings, including the television show, Ru Paul’s drag race. Individuals who practice drag and cross-dressing have often been persecuted throughout history, resulting in violent discrimination that can even lead to death. Although it has become more socially acceptable over the years, the stigma against it persists. Drag performers have been associated with the LGBTQA community, as it gives individuals the freedom to explore gender identities outside of the norm.

That’s a sloppy (and wrong) generalization, actually. Cross-dressing was a carnivalesque thing to do for centuries before it was called drag or “associated with the LGBTQA community.” It did not result in violent discrimination. There was also of course the tradition in the theatre of having boys play women’s roles; that too did not result in violent discrimination, although it did get up the Puritans’ noses, as did everything else.

One recent event I found out about was that of cis women dressing in “drag” by wearing dresses and excessive makeup while identifying as drag queens.

They sum it up as a form of experimenting with “extreme femininity”. I was confused as to why cis women would choose to identify as drag queens when all they are doing is putting on dresses and makeup, which is something within their gender norm. I discussed this odd occurrence with some non-binary individuals and one of them quickly pointed out that this can even be considered homophobic.

Sure it can, if you work really hard. That’s the great thing about women – you can accuse them of everything, even “appropriating” that which they’ve been bullied into doing since forever. You can call women femmephobic if they refuse to wear skirts and appropriators if they wear skirts – they’re wrong no matter what they do, it’s awesome! And women are so stupid and weak they put up with it. Or else they don’t and then you can call them TERFs and kick the shit out of them while saying it’s all their fault.

When cis women perform as drag queens, they are dipping their feet into the performance of it, this being the positive experience, without receiving any of the backlash of stepping out of their gender norms and being discriminated against for it.

Bitches! Women can do any damn thing they want to and never receive any backlash. No domestic violence, no harassment or abuse, no public mockery and trolling, no rape, no wage or hiring discrimination, no pay gap, no insults, no questioning of their intelligence or stamina or courage or ambition or determination – none of that. They should be locked up.

In addition, cis women are justifying this action by claiming they do it out of admiration for drag performers. So again, why is this act to be considered homophobic?

Because appropriation is a form of discrimination. Essentially, individuals outside of that culture, conveniently steal certain aspects of it, for their own use, without receiving the prejudice and discrimination individuals from that culture are faced with

How dare women steal skirts and makeup from other cultures. They should be executed.

NPR on John Kelly’s twisted understanding of the Civil War:

During an interview Monday night on Fox News, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said that “the lack of the ability to compromise led to the Civil War.”

His comment was swiftly countered by confounded observers, who pointed out that the Civil War was fought over slavery and that compromising on slavery would be morally unconscionable — and that the country did strike such compromises for decades and they did not, in fact, prevent war.

They did prevent war for several decades. Lots of people died in time to miss the war, so from that point of view, the compromises were a big success…except of course for the people who were slaves who died in time to miss the war.

Kelly said he thought applying contemporary standards of ethics to the past is “very very dangerous” and demonstrates “a lack of appreciation of history.” He praised the “men and women of good faith on both sides” of the Civil War who followed their “conscience” in their fight.

That really is an incredibly stupid thing to say. We should apply contemporary standards of ethics if we have reason to think they’re better standards. We can still understand that people are stuck with what’s available to them, but that doesn’t mean we have to say oh well slavery was seen as a fine thing by people who owned slaves so mustn’t judge.

After Kelly’s remarks, scores of commentators responded with rebuttals, their tone ranging from bafflement to shock to weary repetition.

John Podhoretz, the conservative editor of Commentary magazine, wrote on Twitter, “80 years leading up to the Civil War were a history of efforts to compromise with the South. And then the war came. Started by the South.”

As Vann Newkirk, a writer at theAtlantic, put it succinctly, “the entire fabric of American law was a compromise with slavery.”

The idea that the Civil War was caused by a failure to compromise was expressed by historian Shelby Foote in Ken Burns’ 1990 documentary The Civil War. Foote, who once wrote that he “would fight for the Confederacy today if the circumstances were similar,” was criticized by fellow historians for, as The New York Times put it, playing down “the economic, intellectual and political causes of the Civil War.”

…

“Compromise on what?” asked Joshua Zeitz, a historian and the author of Lincoln’s Boys, asked on Twitter. “Extending chattel slavery throughout the western territories?”

“The only compromise on the table in 1861 would have given slavery explicit constitutional protection,” writes Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent at Slate.

“Focus on compromise only makes sense if you view slavery as bad but not *that* bad,” Bouie later wrote.

The way the Magdalene laundries were not that bad…if you were a male Catholic apologist at no risk of being held captive in one.

[Ta-Nehisi] Coates also directly rebutted Kelly’s assertion that “we make a mistake … when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more … and apply it back then.”

The “notion that we are putting today’s standards on the past is, in itself, racist — implies only white, slave-holding, opinions matter,” Coates writes. “Majority of people living in South Carolina in 1860 were black — they did not need modern white wokeness to tell them slavery was wrong. Majority of people living in Mississippi in 1860 were black. They knew, in their own time, that enslavement was wrong.”

Oh but that’s some of those terrible contemporary standards of ethics, thinking that the people enslaved or held captive or exploited or tortured should be heeded at least as much as the people who did the enslaving or torturing. We should stick with the Eternal Truth that only people like John Kelly and Brendan O’Neill get to have standards of ethics that count.

10. That said, pro-Islamic State channels on Telegram are hungrily sharing updates on their supposed "brother." See below: pic.twitter.com/vd5f1eZ66R

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) October 31, 2017

The crying with laughter emojis are nice.