There’s this article at the Gatestone Institute – a source I’m wary of, because I don’t know how reliable it is, but it provides some material I don’t see anywhere else.

After weeks of diplomatic wrangling and recrimination, the Saudi government on March 27 announced that it would reinstate its ambassador, Ibrahim bin Saad bin Ibrahim al-Brahim, to Stockholm. The ambassador had been recalled on March 11 as a protest against Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s criticism of Saudi Arabia’s legal practices and treatment of women.

“Weeks” of diplomatic wrangling is a strange way to put it, because March 11 to March 27 is 16 days. It’s two weeks; “weeks” sounds like more than that. Anyway, Saudi said the ambassador could go back. Did Sweden do any backing down to make this happen? Hard to say.

It is not exactly clear what motivated the Saudi king to resume diplomatic relations with Sweden. What is known is that Foreign Minister Wallström and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven have been quick to stress that is had never been their intention to slight Islam, which they now claim has made great contributions to human civilization, nor the Saudi kingdom.

Yes but they can say that while still criticizing the human rights mess. That’s what diplomats do.

Three letters to King Salman — one from Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf and two from Prime Minister Löfven – were hand-delivered in Riyadh by Björn von Sydow, a high-ranking emissary of the Swedish government. Their contents are unknown, following a decision by the Swedish foreign office to classify them as secret. This decision came after the foreign office claimed it could not find the letters.

Prime Minister Löfven and Foreign Minister Wallström have said repeatedly that the letters do not contain any apology to Saudi Arabia. According to the daily Expressen, however, Saudi Arabia demanded a number of concessions from Sweden –­ one of them, an apology. It is clearly the impression in the Arab world that Sweden has in fact apologized.

Well, I hope not. I hope they gave some kind of ersatz apology while sticking to their position that Saudi Arabia shouldn’t do things like flogging people for talking about human rights and secularism.

On March 28, Expressen quoted Löfven as saying: “We have explained [to the Saudis, ed.] that we regret if there is something that has been perceived as if we have criticized Islam, which we have never done.” The Prime Minister added that Sweden has no intention of ever criticizing Islam. He continued: “We have the greatest respect for Islam as a religion.”

Löfven was keen to emphasize that “Sweden still stands for human rights. It is immensely important for us to do that. At the same time we also wish to develop cooperation with Saudi Arabia.”

Ah well there you are, you see, there’s the escape clause. “We wouldn’t dream of criticizing Islam. We’re criticizing you.” Of course they said it in a more oily and flattering way than that, but it’s what Löfven seems to hint.

The rest of the piece is speculative bullshit, thus confirming my doubts about Gatestone.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally two comments by Tom Foss on The words spoken.

“We need to stop spending our money on military and police and start spending it on education.”
“He wants to eliminate the whole military and all police! It’s exactly what he said!”

There’s a phrase missing from your strawman here that would actually make your “charitable” reading accurate: “so much.” We need to stop spending so much of our money on military and police and start spending it on education.

We keep hearing all this about charitable readings and giving people the benefit of the doubt when the people in question have given no indication that they deserve it. Regardless of whether or not she meant the actual words that she said, her claim about the “worst thing that can happen” to a gay person in the US is insultingly, dismissively false. There is literally no reason for her to so blatantly distort the actual situation for gay people in the US to make her point, because the death penalty as actual policy is worse whether American gays are being denied cake or being denied employment. The same is true for her comments about women’s rights. Why dismiss these issues if your point isn’t to say that we need to switch our focus to the real problems? Which, again, is what she actually said.

It’s the same bullshit Patricia Arquette was peddling a few months back, it’s the same bullshit intersectional feminists and civil rights activists have been talking about for ever. Some outside observer sees that a civil rights movement has made some high-visibility victories and declares that the war is over, so now we can focus on the issues that really matter (to me).

Maybe it’s uncharitable to read the words as they were actually said. I suggest that Ali’s comments about the “worst thing that can happen” to gays are far less charitable. At least our reading has a basis in reality.

Funny how charity and benefit of the doubt never go both ways. Ali apparently wasn’t writing her speech thinking “gays in the US still spend a lot of time lobbying and campaigning for rights reforms. Maybe they dohave worse things to worry about than Christian bakers.” No, it was all “they must not know about how bad it is in Iran. I need to tell them how silly this cake nonsense is by comparison, and then they’ll totally see it my way.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A news story from what must be a colleague (so to speak) of the Onion.

The catering team on BBC quiz Have I Got News For You have been placed on ‘high alert’ after increased chatter surrounding Jeremy Clarkson’s appearance later this month.

With the risk of serving cold food higher than ever before, the catering team are said to be undergoing extensive training and new performance drills ahead of his 29th April appearance to ensure all food in the green room remains warm at all times.

Caterer Simon Williams told us, “This is not normally a dangerous job, but frankly we can’t afford to make the terrible mistake of serving Jeremy Clarkson cold food. Real human lives are at risk.”

Me, I’d put on a fencing mask and serve him piping hot melon and barely-thawed grilled salmon on a bed of stone cold arugula purée.

One former HIGNFY guest told us, “I once had a luke warm sausage roll in the green room, so I hope for all our sakes they’ve managed to rid themselves of such sloppiness.”

“If Clarkson goes off, it could cost hundreds of lives.”

Give the man some nice warm raspberry gelato for dessert.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

C J Werleman claims that New Atheism – all of it, not just Sam Harris and Bill Maher – is pro-white supremacy.

[The New Atheist movement has] become a pro-white supremacy movement. New Atheism is anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry dressed up with a thin veneer of fancy sounding words.

That’s not a very effective way of making his claim, since white-supremacy isn’t the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry which is not the same thing as anti-Arab bigotry. There’s overlap, but it’s possible to be one of those things without being the others, and it’s possible to be two of those things without being all three.

Individually, and on a personal level, however, New Atheists can be good people. Collectively and unwittingly, however, they not only espouse white supremacy but they also speak in a language that is every bit as crude and racist as fascist, neo-Nazi, movements. Although a little more discreetly.

Hm. He’s really not good at noticing when he contradicts himself between one sentence and the next, is he. If the language is a little more discreet, then it’s not every bit as crude and racist. The language can’t be both a little more discreet and every bit as crude and racist.

While New Atheists don’t use the overt racial epithets of say the Ku Klux Klan in the US, or Pegida in Europe, they use dog whistle terms like “barbarians,” “backwards,” and “violent”.

Some do; some don’t. Also, “violent” won’t do as a dog whistle, because it’s an indispensable word. If you treat “violent” as racist-dog whistle, you’ve made it impossible to use a necessary word.

Moreover, New Atheists enthusiastically, and often unintentionally, promote western imperialism, and any individual who supports an erroneous narrative (“clash of civilisations” is the theme of New Atheism) that, by design, attempts to justify western intervention in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia is, ergo ipso facto, a white supremacist.

Jesus – what a terrible writer he is. No wonder I’ve never bothered with him before. Again with the confusion – “enthusiastically, and often unintentionally” – that doesn’t really cohere. And then the random jumble of clauses, and then the silly “ergo ipso facto” – what a mess. Oh and a wrong factual claim – no, “clash of civilisations” is not the theme of new atheism.

Like their anti-theistic genocidal forefathers of the middle 20th century, New Atheists dabble in the dark arts of scientific racism. “The cult of science promises to eradicate or reform the tainted and morally inferior populations of the human race,” warns Chris Hedges. Today’s New Atheists proclaim science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation. On the way to this imagined utopia, however, and again like their genocidal, anti-theistic forefathers of yore, they champion those who urge violence and discrimination.

Which anti-theistic genocidal forefathers of the middle 20th century are those then? And name one new atheist who says “science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation.” Just one. He offers Bill Maher as an example but forgets to include the part about how  science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation, so that’s not an example of what he just said.

As for Hirsi Ali, no New Atheist alive in America today is unfamiliar with her story. But it’s not the retelling of her story they seek. They want to rehear again and again how “Islam is one of the world’s great evils”, or “the mother lode of bad ideas”, or the greatest threat to Western civilisation, a “nihilistic, cult of death” and so on. They want to be made afraid of Islam in order to justify their hate of Muslims.

Except that maybe, just maybe, that’s not true. Just maybe it really is Islam that they dislike, and that leads some of them into rhetoric that does look anti-Muslim, and sometimes is anti-Muslim.

Sam Charles Hamad is a journalist with great expertise on the Middle East and US foreign policy. On the day Hirsi Ali spoke and received “a standing ovation” at the American Atheist’s convention, Hamad posted on Facebook:

“You’ll find that the vast majority of Ali’s fans are white males who hate Muslims and, in her, have found a perfect little brown-skinned conduit for their bigotry. I’m not a racist or prejudiced, they can say as they spout racism and bigotry. I’m a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The fact that she’s a complete fraud making a shitload of cash at the expense of these slobbering white bigots would be rather funny if she also didn’t appeal to genuine fascists and demonise Muslims in such a fascistic and potentially dangerous manner.”

Notice the sexism that slipped in there? That Werleman apparently didn’t notice? That tell-tale “little”?

There are plenty of assholes in the atheist/new atheist movement, for sure. I wouldn’t dream of denying it. Lots of them are sexist men, and some are also racist. But is the whole movement “white supremacist” (or sexist)? Nope.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jeremy Clarkson is baaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaack.

Jeremy Clarkson is set to make his first appearance on the BBC since losing his job as co-presenter on Top Gear.

The controversial broadcaster will appear as the guest host of Have I Got News for You on 24 April.

“Jeremy’s contract has not been renewed on Top Gear but he isn’t banned from appearing on the BBC,” a BBC spokesman said.

Oh. There was me thinking the BBC actually didn’t want him around any more, on account of that thing he does where he hits underlings in the face and calls them fucking cunts at the top of his lungs in posh hotels. But no, they just didn’t want him around on that one programme any more.

Clarkson has hosted the satirical news quiz on numerous occasions.

During one appearance in 2008, he threw a pen at regular panellist Ian Hislop that left the latter with a cut on his face.

So I guess they’re hoping he’ll do more of that kind of thing, because it’s so amusing for the audience.

Following an internal investigation, the BBC announced on 25 March Clarkson’s contract on Top Gear would not be renewed.

More than a million fans signed a petition to reinstate the presenter, but BBC director general Tony Hall said “a line has been crossed” and “there cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another”.

When it comes to this one programme. When it comes to other programmes – oh well that’s completely different. Then there totally can be one rule for one and a different rule for another. On Top Gear Clarkson is totally persona non grata – the BBC has dissasociated itself from Jeremy Clarkson, you might say – but on everything else he’s as welcome as gin at a picnic.

On Tuesday, North Yorkshire Police said there was “no need for further action” against Clarkson following an inquiry into the “fracas”.

Because all he did was punch someone in the face and split his lip. No biggy – unless a poor or foreign or black person does it, of course.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I too have a very low opinion of Karen Armstrong, Debbie Schlussel, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan. I’m likely to use harsh adjectives and/or swear words to describe them.

I’m just saying.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Good to know sexism is dead and we can all move on n shit.

Via Peter Cohen on Twitter –

Me? No. No, you’re not.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Polly Toynbee pointed out last December that everybody’s favorite soap opera Downton Abbey is staggeringly dishonest about the reality of servants’ lives in the early 20th century.

To control history by rewriting the past subtly influences present attitudes too: every dictator knows that. Downton rewrites class division, rendering it anodyne, civilised and quaintly cosy. Those upstairs do nothing unspeakably horrible to their servants, while those downstairs are remarkably content with their lot. The brutality of servants’ lives is bleached out, the brutishness of upper-class attitudes, manners and behaviour to their servants ironed away. There are token glimpses of resentments between the classes, but the main characters are nice, in a nice world. The truth would be impossible without turning the Earl of Grantham and his family, the Crawleys, into villains, with the below-stairs denizens their wretched victims – a very different story, and not one Julian Fellowes would ever write.

Yup. I’ve been grumbling about that all along. The Crawleys are way too interested in their servants, and way too friendly toward them. It wasn’t like that. It was programatically the opposite of that.

Much attention is paid to detail. Place settings are measured to perfection with a ruler, the footmen’s buttons absolutely correct, yet everything important is absolutely wrong. Start with the labour: what we see is pleasant work by well-manicured maids in fetching uniforms, healthy and wholesome, doing a little feather-dusting of the chandeliers, some silver polishing, some eavesdropping while serving at table and some pleasant cooking with Mrs Patmore. There is even time for scullery maid Daisy to sit at the kitchen table improving herself with home education. In Downton the hierarchical bullying of servants by one another is replaced by the housekeeper and butler’s benevolent paternalism: what a nice place to work.

Except for Thomas and O’Brien. But still, she’s right – it’s all very prettied up and sentimentalized. (I wasn’t there, but I have read a good deal on the subject, and I’m familiar with the way the upper classes talked about servants.)

What we never see is bedraggled drudges rising in freezing shared attics at 5.30am; slopping out chamber pots, heaving coal, black-leading grates, hauling cans of hot water with hands already made raw by chilblains and caustic soda. We never dwell on the hardship of scrubbing floors, or scrubbing clothes, or scouring grease; in pre-detergent days, they were up to their elbows all day long. And yet they had virtually no water or time for washing themselves. Servants were often sooty and dirty. They smelled strongly of sweat, with few clean clothes, says Dr Lucy Delap, author of Knowing Their Place: Domestic Service in Twentieth-Century Britain.

Of course they did. They couldn’t nip off to Boots for deodorant and lavender soap.

Downton’s conservative aristocrats would have been far more abusive – verbally and actually: mocking, sneering and complaining about their servants was standard Edwardian and inter-war conversation. Instead we see the Crawleys’ deep concern for their staff’s welfare, compassionate when one is charged with murder and another revealed as jailed for jewellery theft. In life, they would have been turfed out without references at any whisper of scandal.

Definitely…although I can perhaps just buy it that Bates is an exception because he was with the Earl in the Boer War. But all that friendly chat and confiding between Anna and Mary, as if they were buds? Please.

Anachronism stalks every corridor of Downton, polishing up history to make the class divide less savage. The Crawleys’ prejudices and snobberies exposed in the raw would be as unbearable to the modern ear as if they were speaking in authentic 1920s accents. Then, as now, upward mobility is a necessary part of the myth, to hide the reality of class rigidity. So the Crawleys see their daughter marry their chauffeur, only for him to ascend upstairs with barely a ripple in the social fabric. Another Crawley daughter bears an illegitimate child, but is befriended by her starchy grandmother, the child accepted by his lordship who divines the truth with hardly a blench. Rose marries into a rich Jewish family, but only one absurd relative expresses the antisemitism that was so rife – and still is, in upper-class circles.

On the other hand Cora is based on an actual Rothschild, so that complicates the picture. On the other other hand would the Crawleys have allowed an American Jew into the family if they hadn’t been desperate for her money?

History is important: it was funny when a plastic water bottle was left on Downton’s mantelpiece, but Downton’s plastic social history is misleading whitewash.

Does it matter? Isn’t it just a bit of fun? Well, what would we think of a prettified series about British colonialism, whose heroes were cleansed of racism, violence, oppression or imperial snobbery? The implanting of falsely comforting memories of a better bygone era disguises fundamental things about the way we live now.

As it is, there is still a widespread misperception of the nature of class and destiny. Inequality is rising on an ever upward trajectory, yet people are easily deceived by a veneer of modern classlessness: the end of deference and forelock-tugging makes class less obvious and more insidious, though every statistic shows how deeply entrenched it remains.

Give me Poplar any day.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

And here’s more background from last September, by Qasim Rashid in the Huffington Post.

It is no secret I’ve been critical of Muslim leadership for their deafening apathy and silence over the 125-year worldwide persecution of Ahmadi Muslims. To add insult to injury, every time a new atrocity emerges I’m bombarded with standard anti-Ahmadi talking points in a shameless attempt to justify the violence. Just recently in Gujranwala, Pakistan where four Ahmadi Muslims (including three young children) were murdered when their homes were burned down, insults followed the anemic condemnations. Those who bothered acknowledging the attack refused to recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, thus holding the same view as those who attacked and murdered the young children in the first place.

Well the first step here would be to say it’s not ok to murder people for being or not being any particular religion or non-religion. It’s not ok to persecute people or attack them or murder them. All of that is right out.

As one Sunni Muslim friend confessed–his own family told him “not to worry about it” because Ahmadis were “wajib ul qatl” (required to be killed) anyway.

No no no no no, that’s where people go wrong, thinking anyone is “required to be killed.” Get rid of that kind of thinking. Nobody is required to be killed.

This misinformation and prejudice must stop. If the Muslim world expects to advance in pluralism and tolerance, we must embrace principles over prejudice. This must start from the top, i.e. from Muslim leaders; otherwise Muslim youth have little hope of developing into positive well-rounded individuals.

Quite. No killing! No persecuting! However much you disagree with people over religion, you do not get to kill them. If god wants them dead god can make them dead. Leave it to god. What good is a god who needs your help?

He gives a list of 10 fabrications about Ahmadi Muslims.

Fabrication 1: Ahmadiyya is a new religion

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a sect of Islam. It is not a new religion. It was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian in 1889. Ahmad claimed that he was the awaited Messiah and Mahdi prophesized by Prophet Muhammad and foretold by the Holy Qur’an. Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, are known as Ahmadi Muslims. We adhere to the same Islamic declaration of faith, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. We likewise observe the same 5 Pillars of Islam and same 6 Articles of Faith.

In short, it’s a sect of Islam, not a new and different religion.

Of course many people will insist on seeing a sect as worse than a truly different religion, because it’s a betrayal and insubordination and disloyal and god knows what – but they need to get over it.

Fabrication 2: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be greater than Prophet Muhammad

In an effort to arouse anger in the minds of unlearned Muslims, clerics make this fabrication often. In reality Ahmad considered himself insignificant compared to the grandeur and majesty of Prophet Muhammad. Ahmadi Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, and therefore God’s greatest creation. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad famously wrote, “The Prophet is Muhammad, the chosen one, who is higher and more exalted than all Prophets and is the most perfect of Messengers and is the Khatam ul Anbiya, and the best of men.”

Bottom Line: The Messiah Ahmad was clear that Prophet Muhammad was the greatest of God’s creation. You can read Ahmad’s extensive writings in praise of the greatness and perfection of Prophet Muhammad here.

Well that sounds tedious. I have a hard time sustaining a sympathetic view of this kind of thing, because honestly – all this stuff about perfection, and then extensive writings in praise of the perfection – what is even the point? If it’s perfect what is there to say? It’s complete, it’s lacking in nothing, it’s perfect – end of story.

It’s not for me. I’m too human. All I know is imperfection; perfection is just like a blank smooth wall, and I can’t get interested in it, much less in extensive writings about it.

But the fundamental point remains – killing and persecution are not ok.

Fabrication 3: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad insulted Jesus Christ

As with the previous fabrication, this is a common allegation some Muslim leaders espouse to create anti-Ahmadi Muslim sentiment. As Islam requires Muslims to love and revere all God’s prophets, Jesus Christ is no exception. Ahmadi Muslims love Jesus more than we love our own parents or children.

There again – I think that’s terrible. It’s terrible to love a character in a book more than one’s own parents and children. It’s also terrible to make a virtue of it.

Nevertheless – no killing.

That’s enough background for now, I’m afraid. It’s not my idea of a good time.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

In 2010 the BBC offered some background on the Ahmadi movement, aka the Ahmadiyya community.

[I]t is regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because it does not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet sent to guide mankind, as orthodox Muslims believe is laid out in the Koran.

Well there’s your problem right there: thinking “heretical” is a meaningful and useful word. Let’s face it, nobody knows whether Mohammed was the “final prophet” or not, or whether he was a “prophet” at all, or how they would know he wasn’t one. It’s all just claims all the way down. That, I suppose, why there’s so much venom about the claims.

The Ahmadiyya community takes its name from its founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who was born in 1835 and was regarded by his followers as the messiah and a prophet.

Ghulam Ahmad saw himself as a renewer of Islam and claimed to have been chosen by Allah.

It was ok for Mohammed to do that in the 8th 7th century but it’s not ok for Ahmad to do it in the 19th. Why’s that then?

In 1947, the community moved its religious headquarters from Qadian in India to Rabwah in Pakistan.

Then in 1953, orthodox Muslim groups in Pakistan came together to form what they called the “anti-Qadiani movement”.

Described by rights organisations as one of the most relentlessly persecuted communities in Pakistan, the Ahmadiyya have seen their personal and political rights erode steadily over the years under pressure from orthodox Muslim groups.

So six years into Pakistan’s existence as a country, they got started on persecuting the Ahmadiyya.

In 1974, under severe pressure from clerics, Pakistan’s first elected prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, introduced a constitutional amendment – known as the second amendment – which declared Ahmadiyya non-Muslims.

A decade later, a new law was brought in barring Ahmadis from calling their places of worship mosques or from propagating their faith in “any way, directly or indirectly”.

Anticipating the impact of the new law, the community moved its headquarters to the UK.

According to Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jamaat, by Simon Valentine, the movement stresses non-violence and tolerance of other faiths.

Well we can’t have that. No wonder the “orthodox Muslims” hate them and persecute them.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

We have a crappy public sphere in the US, as any fule kno. Public schools, public libraries, public parks, public broadcasting – they all have to struggle and beg to get minimal funding. They’re public, you see, and that’s socialism, and that’s the devil.

Norman Lear in the New York Times points out that PBS is starving its documentary shows in favor of soapy entertainment like Downton Fucking Abbey.

At issue are PBS’s two flagship independent documentary series: “POV,” founded in 1988, and ITVS’s “Independent Lens,” started in 2003. Both take on huge topics of public urgency. “Food Inc.” (2010), from “POV,” exposed harms in the food industry. “Me Facing Life: Cyntoia’s Story” (2011) cast a spotlight on harsh prison sentences for minors, while another “Independent Lens” film, “The Invisible War” (2012), led to changes in the military’s handling of sexual assault.

In October 2011, PBS moved the two series from Tuesday to Thursday evenings. Ratings plunged, by as much as 40 percent.

There was an outcry, and PBS blushed and put the series back where they could thrive.

Inexplicably, the two series are under assault again. In December, PBS’s flagship station, WNET (Channel 13) in New York, proposed bumping the series from Monday and shifting them to the same time slot on its much smaller sibling station, WLIW (Channel 21). The two programs would be broadcast on WNET as reruns — nearly a week later, at 11 p.m. on Sundays. WNET wants to devote Monday night to arts programming, a driver of financial support for member stations; its decision could prompt PBS to shift the two series away from the prime-time schedule across much of the country. Amid a new outcry, PBS and WNET have put off a decision until May.

This is crap. Downton F Abbey is commercial; it’s a pretentious soap opera that appeals to everyone’s fantasy of living in a huge house with a large butler. The Public Broadcasting Service shouldn’t be treating that as its showpiece.

Moving the films out of prime time means fewer reviews, and less publicity. It also threatens funding: When filmmakers apply for grants from foundations or philanthropies, the promise of a robust distribution platform is crucial. The proposal also sends the signal that nonfiction films on challenging subjects are less important to PBS and WNET than costume dramas.

“Independent Lens” and “POV” take on critical social issues overlooked by commercial outlets. They leverage the power of television to expand freedom of expression for people whose voices are not easily heard in American media. Freedom of expression is hollow if you can’t be seen or heard.

Yeah but they’re not Luxury Porn, so the hell with them, right?

At town-hall-style meetings inSan Francisco, New York andChicago, filmmakers and their supporters have called on PBS and WNET to go back to their roots: serving diverse audiences and expanding the national dialogue on critical social issues. The controversy has also been debated at the Sundance Film Festival and South by Southwest.

In a world of expanding mobile platforms, high-speed streaming, infinite cable channels, iTunes, Netflix and YouTube, broadcast television still counts. It’s still one wireless technology available to nearly every American.

PBS, for almost a half-century, has been one place on the spectrum in which decisions were based on something far more fundamental and timeless than ratings and earnings: the public interest. Its member stations and programs get substantial government funding. Diversity, community and accountability are cornerstones of its founding charter. PBS should keep those principles in mind and keep independent documentary films where they belong: in prime time.

But as long as everyone’s more interested in where Lady Evangelina left her underpants, PBS probably won’t.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Kashif Chaudhry is tired of seeing his friends and relatives jailed for being Ahmadis.

Yesterday, a very close family friend – someone I have always considered an uncle – was arrested in Pakistan. His crime: he had printed verses from the Holy Quran in an Urdu publication.

My uncle is an Ahmadi, and under Pakistan’s notorious anti-Ahmadi laws, he committed a ‘crime’ punishable by at least three years imprisonment and a fine. The law states that an Ahmadi who “poses as a Muslim hurts the religious feelings of Muslims”.

In the late 80s, three of my maternal uncles spent time behind bars under these same anti-Ahmadi laws for the crime of saying the Kalimah. Thousands of Ahmadis – and every Ahmadi family have their own story to tell – have been imprisoned for their basic religious profession since the promulgation of these laws in 1984. Tired of my friends and family being jailed for their religious freedoms, I am writing this to seek answers. I am addressing you, the constitutionally accepted Muslims of Pakistan.

The state shouldn’t be deciding who is a Muslim and who isn’t.

The Pakistani state claims that you, the constitutionally recognised Pakistani Muslims, are hurt by my religious freedom.

As an Ahmadi, I am not permitted to refer to myself as a Muslim in Pakistan, not even in many otherwise liberal publications. The state tells me that this “hurts your religious feelings”.

I am not permitted to refer to my place of worship as a mosque because the state tells me that this also “hurts your religious feelings”. I cannot risk being caught reading the Holy Quran or saying my prayer because I am told this offends you too.

I cannot say the Islamic creed or Kalimah openly. Apparently, such profession of the oneness of God and the truth of Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) message also “hurts your religious feelings”.

I cannot use Islamic epithets. I cannot risk saying the Salam openly. I have to make sure I only say it in the presence of people I trust. I cannot risk printing words like Insha Allah and Masha Allah on wedding cards. The state tells me you find this equally distressing. It tells me that you have the sole copyright to these epithets. As a constitutional kafir, I have no right to use such sacred terms.

In fact, any statement or act of mine that can remotely be interpreted as “posing as Muslim” hurts you in one way or another. And for hurting your feelings, the state believes I must be punished with at least three years in jail on top of a hefty fine.

That’s what you get with a theocracy. As we see every day, it’s a terrible arrangement.

Kashif Chaudhry suggests that the people of Pakistan should protest the arrangement.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

On the other hand, the interview with Ayaan HA alerted me to this article by Asra Nomani on the silencing of criticism of Islam which tells me some things I didn’t know.

In 2004 a Muslim man she knew told her to stop writing. She did not comply.

It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.

I’m well aware of that, of course, but what I didn’t know is that it’s organized by the OIC.

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.”

And on it went from there.

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com and Ikhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion…

The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

There’s also the political aspect – being called “Islamophobic” is akin to be called a racist, so many people back down.

The OIC helped give birth to a culture of victimization. In speeches, blogs, articles and interviews widely broadcast in the Muslim press, its honor brigade has targeted pundits, political leaders and writers — from TV host Bill Maher to atheist author Richard Dawkins — for insulting Islam. Writer Glenn Greenwald has supported the campaign to brand writers and thinkers, such as neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris, as having “anti-Muslim animus” just for criticizing Islam.

…

Most of the criticism takes place online, with anonymous bloggers targeting supposed Islamophobes. Not long after the cable, a network of bloggers launched LoonWatch, which goes after Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and other Muslims. The bloggers have labeled Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a born Muslim but now an atheist opponent of Islamic extremism, an “anti-Muslim crusader.” Robert Spencer, a critic of extremist Islam, has been called a “vicious hate preacher” and an “Internet sociopath.” The insults may look similar to Internet trolling and vitriolic comments you can find on any blog or news site. But they’re more coordinated, frightening and persistent.

One prominent target of the honor brigade’s attacks was Charlie Hebdo, the French newspaper where several staffers were recently killed by Islamic extremists. According to some accounts, as the killers massacred cartoonists, they shouted: “We have avenged the prophet Muhammad.” The OIC denounced the killings, but in a 2012 report, it also condemned the magazine’s “Islamophobic satires.” Its then-secretary general, Ihsanoglu, said the magazine’s “history of attacking Muslim sentiments” was “an outrageous act of incitement and hatred and abuse of freedom of expression.”

That’s how it’s done.

[I]n so many Muslim communities now, saving face trumps critical thinking and truth-telling. This is why reform from within Islam is so difficult. In my experience, if you try to hold the community accountable, you’re more likely to be bullied and intimidated than taken seriously.

…

Two years ago, Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress, was so battered by online attacks aimed at silencing her that she experienced a physical response to the stress and anxiety, and ended up in an emergency room. When I met her in her office near the White House, she pulled up her sleeves to show me the marks left by IV injections that the hospital staff had administered to get her necessary fluids.

“The attacks just killed me,” Al-Suwaij said, wearily.

Bullying this intense really works. Observant members of the flock are culturally conditioned to avoid shaming Islam, so publicly citing them for that sin often has the desired effect. Non-Muslims, meanwhile, are wary of being labeled “Islamophobic” bigots. So attacks against both groups succeed in quashing civil discourse. They cause governments, writers and experts to walk on eggshells, avoiding important discussion.

It’s very interesting to know that some of this is being orchestrated by the OIC. Very interesting indeed.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)