The defendant insulted the beloved and revered Thai monarchy

Apr 1st, 2015 4:51 pm | By

And let us not forget Thailand.

A Thai military court sentenced a businessman to 25 years in prison on Tuesday on charges of defaming the country’s monarchy in what appears to be the longest sentence handed down in recent years for the crime of lese majeste, a civil liberties lawyer said.

Yingcheep Atchanont of the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights Center said the court in Bangkok found Thiensutham Suthijitseranee guilty on five counts of lese majeste for postings he made on Facebook, and handed him a 10-year sentence for each count. It cut the total 50-year term in half because Thiensutham pleaded guilty to the charges.

Thailand’s lese majeste law is considered the harshest in the world, with those accused of defaming, insulting or threatening the monarchy facing jail terms ranging from three to 15 years on each count.

25 years in prison for saying things about people labeled majesty.

“The defendant insulted the beloved and revered Thai monarchy,” Prachatai quoted the judge saying. “The sentence handed down by the court is already light.”

After last year’s coup, the military decreed that any new cases of lese majeste would be tried in military courts, and that they could not be appealed. The military-installed administration declared defense of the monarchy a priority, and in addition to vigorously pursuing prosecutions at home, it has vowed to seek the return of critics abroad it considers to have insulted the monarchy.

Never forget Thailand.

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



Trevor Noah pushes boundaries

Apr 1st, 2015 4:27 pm | By

But hey, don’t worry about it, that was a year ago, which is like, a lifetime, pretty much, and he was only young then, and people change, and besides it’s comedy, and what’s more comedy than laughing at Jews and “fat chicks”? NPR presents the minimizations:

Updated at 4 p.m.

Comedy Central has now responded to the criticism directed at comedian Trevor Noah. In a statement cited by Politico, it said:

“Like many comedians, Trevor Noah pushes boundaries; he is provocative and spares no one, himself included. To judge him or his comedy based on a handful of jokes is unfair. Trevor is a talented comedian with a bright future at Comedy Central.”

Ah yes, he pushes boundaries and is provocative, and what’s more boundary-pushing than laughing at Jews and “fat chicks”?

Almost anything. There are few things more conventional and within the boundaries than making fun of people for being things like fat or Jewish or ugly or Chinese or short or ill or ragged or in any way a deviation from the meritorious norm of being an attractive tall strong prosperous white male of the correct ethnic origin.

That’s what. (Since Trevor Noah isn’t white you’d think that would occur to him, but whatever.)

But hey, it’s comedy, he’s a comic, so lighten up and get over yourselves and join the fun.

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



What, was Tosh already booked?

Apr 1st, 2015 3:39 pm | By

Silly me, I was assuming this Trevor Noah they said was going to replace Jon Stewart was one of the regulars on his show and I just happened not to have seen him. But no – apparently they just wrote a bunch of comedians’ names down on file cards and threw them all up in the air and then stabbed one with a spike and that was the new Jon Stewart. Because guess what, it turns out he’s

  • an asshole
  • not funny

Now if they had sat down and carefully thought about who would be good for the host of the Daily Show, they could have found someone who was neither an asshole nor unfunny. There are people like that. Instead they zeroed in on someone who is both. How inept of them.

Jessica Winter at Slate shares some of the ways he’s an unfunny asshole.

Then people—notably BuzzFeed’s Tom Gara—started combing Noah’s Twitter feed.

There were tweets that showcased Noah’s breezy anti-semitism.

Behind every successful Rap Billionaire is a double as rich Jewish man. #BeatsByDreidel

Messi gets the ball and the real players try foul him, but Messi doesn’t go down easy, just like jewish chicks. #ElClasico

There were tweets that put a spotlight on the polyglot Noah’s fluency in fat-chick jokes.

“Oh yeah the weekend. People are gonna get drunk & think that I’m sexy!” – fat chicks everywhere.

So now that Adele is singing, does that mean it’s over?

And there’s lots more like that.

Smart shopping, Comedy Central.

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



Guest post: But what war are they fighting?

Apr 1st, 2015 2:56 pm | By

Originally a comment by Kausik Datta on “Because he humiliated my Prophet.”

The situation becomes even more chilling when you consider the situation as reported in Bangla news channels.
1. These three assailants did not know Washiqur, did not know of Washiqur, and didn’t even know how he looked like, where he lived and what he had done to warrant the wrath of the fundies.

2. These three assailants didn’t even know each other. They are students of Islam, in their middle to late 20s. Of the two who have been captured, one (Zikrullah) is a student of a Madrassah in Chittagong, the main seaport in southern Bangladesh, and the other (Ariful) is a student of another Madrassah (under same management) in a district in more centrally located Dhaka. The distance between the two is about 180 miles, but because of the terrain, by road the journey from one to the other takes about 6 hours. They must have been motivated enough to make that journey.

3. The same person called all three of them to Dhaka. He explained to them that Washiqur had to be killed because he had insulted Islam and the Prophet. He brought the trio to Washiqur’s locality and pointed out his house, as well as familiarized them with a photo of Washiqur. They had detailed discussions on the daily routine of Washiqur and the pathway he follows to work. Next, he gave three machetes (“choppers”) to the three of them and told them to go ahead.

I don’t know what kind of hold this person had on the three, but apparently, his words were good enough. The captured two have stated that they belong to no religious or fundamentalist organization. They committed this horrific act simply at the behest of that person, the organizer, and they showed no trace of remorse – something I cannot wrap my head around.

What kind of hold can one human have on another human, so that the latter can – without compunction – go and commit an act of ultimate violence, murder, upon a stranger? The obvious parallel that comes to my mind is soldiers, who sometimes go to foreign lands and wage war on people – doing exactly as they are instructed by their commanding officers, without question or dissent. These three assailants seem very soldierly in that respect. But what war are they fighting? What do they represent? If religion or religious belief supplies the kindling that can burst into flames of murderous violence, how does that religion claim to be a philosophy or practice of “peace”?

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



“Because he humiliated my Prophet”

Apr 1st, 2015 11:59 am | By

The Australian has more on Bangladesh’s way with atheist bloggers:

Of his part in the gruesome ­machete murder on Monday of a Bangladeshi blogger — the ­second in five weeks — Jikrullah, a 20-year-old madrassa student offered only this as explanation: “I stabbed him because he humiliated my Prophet”.

In a country at war with itself over whether to identify first as a nation of Bengalis or as a Muslim state, that — it seems — for many is explanation enough.

Jikrullah made an eight-hour road trip from Chittagong in ­Bangladesh’s south east corner on Sunday to join two other seminary students in the Monday attack on Washiqur Rahman…

Because Rahman “humiliated” a man who’s been dead for 14 centuries. Humans your petty little passions and devotions aren’t worth killing people over. I love sunsets, but I don’t get to kill people who prefer to watch tv.

For many Bangladeshi writers Rahman’s death, five weeks after a similar fatal attack on blogger Avijit Roy, is a terminal blow to free speech in a country that fought a brutal war with Pakistan for the right to independence and a secular constitution.

Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasreen, forced into exile in 1994 over death threats following the publication of her book Lajja and now living in New Delhi, posted a series of angry tweets in the hours after his death including gruesome pictures of Rahman’s body, lying in a pool of blood where he was felled.

“Look how Islamists killed free thinker Washiqur Rahman Babu. Islamists claim ‘Islam is a religion of peace’,” she tweeted.

She knows they would do that to her if they could.

More than 100 people have been killed in recent clashes ­between supporters of the nominally secular government under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her Bangladesh Awami Party and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Khaleda Zia who boycotted last year’s general elections and has since called for fresh elections to be held.

But an editorial in the Dhaka Tribune said the latest murders fit a pattern of attacks over the past decade in which “15 academics and writers had been murdered in similar circumstances … for their views on religion”, and warned more would follow unless the ­government ended a culture of impunity for those who “praise threaten or incite violence”.

“Failure to do so only emboldens individuals who are minded to carry out such acts,” it said.

But they also don’t mind being executed, because they think they’re going to paradise.

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



They think they have done a very good job for their religion

Apr 1st, 2015 10:47 am | By

The New York Times points out, accurately, that the murders of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh sends a chilling message to atheist bloggers in Bangladesh.

When the steamy, clamorous evening had settled over this city, and Oyasiqur Rhaman had finished his day’s work at a travel agency, he would turn to one of his favorite pastimes: Poking fun at fundamentalist Islam.

Mr. Rhaman, 27, blogged under the name Kutshit Hasher Chhana, or The Ugly Duckling, and he specialized in sharp-edged satire. In one post, he adopted the persona of a self-important believer fielding questions from an atheist. (An example: “See, the captive women, impressed at the heroism of the Muslim fighters, used to engage in sex with them willingly. Don’t you see that it gave pleasures to them as well?”) He posted photos of sausages wrapped in pastries, labeled “pigs in a burqa.”

Here where I live, we can do that without fear. We don’t expect to be killed for it.

Two men were captured by local residents and handed over to the police, according to Mohammad Salahuddin, who heads the district police station. Those men said an acquaintance known as Masum had instructed them to kill Mr. Rhaman because “he made some comments against Islam” on social media, but that they had not read the comments themselves.

Where was their due diligence?

The deaths of Mr. Roy and Mr. Rhaman this month have sent a chilling message to the country’s secular bloggers, who say they are competing for the hearts and minds of young people exposed to oceans of material promoting conservative Islam.

Mr. Haider, Mr. Roy and Mr. Rhaman were all swept up in the 2013 Shahbag movement, which called for the death penalty for Islamist political leaders who were implicated in atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence from Pakistan. The movement was met with a passionate response from young Islamist activists, deepening a divide among members of the same generation over whether Bangladesh is, or should be, a Muslim state.

Aka a theocracy. No state should be a theocracy. Theocracies are a terrible idea – for theists as well as atheists. What good is your religion if it’s not voluntary? How persuasive is it if people aren’t allowed to refuse it or leave it?

It has always been risky for Bangladeshi intellectuals to criticize Islam, but when they fled the country, it used to be to avoid prosecution, not extremist violence, said Sara Hossain, a Bangladeshi supreme court lawyer.

“People who have lived in conflict zones will describe how you move from being a society where you attack people verbally and try to invoke the law against them,” she said. “Now our society is increasingly going toward one where you murder your enemies.”

Here it’s mostly abortion doctors. So far.

Monirul Islam, a police official who is overseeing the investigation into Mr. Roy’s death, said the police have seen a pattern of attacks on writers and intellectuals. Those involved are often well-off, Internet-savvy young people, he said, and not the impoverished men who typically committed such crimes in the past. Mr. Islam said the attackers operate in small groups and have been active so far in eight to 10 of the country’s 64 districts.

“At this stage, their strategy is silent, targeted killing,” he said.

So far the police have arrested only one suspect in the murder of Avijit Roy: Shafiur Rahman Farabi.

Mr. Islam said Mr. Farabi “disclosed some information,” and that the police have identified additional suspects, a group of men not directly connected with Mr. Farabi. He said he believed more than five people were involved, and that several of them probably attended North South University.

The authorities were luckier on Monday, when bystanders caught two men trying to flee the scene; a third man escaped. In an exchange with journalists, the two suspects seemed remorseless, according to Mohammad Jamil Khan, a reporter for The Dhaka Tribune.

“They were talking with me very happily, that they have done a good job by killing the blogger,” Mr. Khan told the BBC. “They don’t feel any guilt. They think they have done a very good job for their religion.”

Allah is merciful.

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



Precedent

Apr 1st, 2015 10:13 am | By

The disgust at the prosecution and sentencing of Purvi Patel has spread to the UK. The Independent has a story:

Her lawyers say Patel, who is from a conservative Hindu family, had concealed her pregnancy from her parents and panicked when she realised she was in labour. Patel lived with and cared for her parents and infirm grandparents in a house in South Bend, Indiana.

Patel maintained that the foetus was stillborn but the prosecution argued that she gave birth to a live foetus that died within a few seconds.

“I assumed because the baby was dead there was nothing to do,” the South Bend Tribune quoted her as saying during a police interview. “I’ve never been in this situation. I’ve never been pregnant before.”

The prosecution said the fetus (or baby) died within a few seconds? I didn’t know that part. In that case wtf was she supposed to do? Perform a miracle?

Patel is the second woman to be charged with feticide in the US, but the first to receive a prison sentence. She was prosecuted under state laws that are otherwise intended at targeting illegal abortion providers and prosecuting crimes against pregnant women, Al Jazeera reports.

Women’s rights activists have condemned her conviction and the subsequent sentence.  They say the law is being used to prosecute women who miscarry, have stillbirths or try to terminate their own pregnancies.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service described Patel’s case as “tragic” and warned it could set a dangerous precedent for other pregnant women.  A spokesperson told The Independent: “Purvi Patel is sadly the latest victim of the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women’s behaviour in America.”

Creeping Saudi-ization.

 

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



Not another hour in prison

Mar 31st, 2015 6:03 pm | By

A piece of good news.

Petition Update · VICTORY FOR GHONCHEH #FreeGhoncheh · Change.org

Iman Ghavami

London, United Kingdom

Iman Ghavami

London, United Kingdom
Mar 31, 2015 — I have big news for you.

Today I can tell you that Ghoncheh is free! As we were celebrating Iranian New year, Iranian Government wiped out the rest of my sister’s sentence. Ghoncheh will not have to spend another day, another hour in prison.

This is amazing news and I wanted you to hear from me directly. You stood by us during those difficult months. You gave my family courage and hope. The uncertainty of autumn and the dark clouds of winter have gone. And the sun once again is shining for my family. Spring is here.

My mum has finally become her old happy self and has found peace again. My mum and I will not forget your generous support and thank you sincerely. Together we brought Ghoncheh home. Ghoncheh also asked me to thank you all for your support.

This has been the best spring for my family. Hopefully this spring brings happiness and peace to all Iranians and all of you.

Iman

I have no idea if the petition had anything to do with it or not, but who cares; it’s good news.

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



The tightrope

Mar 31st, 2015 4:58 pm | By

About those low numbers of women in STEM fields. It’s a pipeline problem, right – more recruiting will fix it? Or it’s not a problem at all, it’s just what women choose, because they want to Spend More Time With The Kids. Right?

Not according to Joan C. Williams.

Several new studies add to the growing body of evidence that documents the role of gender bias in driving women out of science careers. A 2012 randomized, double-blind study gave science faculty at research-intensive universities the application materials of a fictitious student randomly assigned a male or female name, and found that both male and female faculty rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hirable than the woman with identical application materials. A 2014 study found that both men and women were twice as likely to hire a man for a job that required math.

That can’t be right, because that’s political correctness run mad. All sane people know that there is no gender bias any more. Just ask Christina Hoff Sommers, she’ll tell you.

We conducted in-depth interviews with 60 female scientists and surveyed 557 female scientists, both with help from the Association for Women in Science. These studies provide an important picture of how gender bias plays out in everyday workplace interactions. My previous research has shown that there are four major patterns of bias women face at work. This new study emphasizes that women of color experience these to different degrees, and in different ways. Black women also face a fifth type of bias.

Pattern 1: Prove-it-Again. Two-thirds of the women interviewed, and two-thirds of the women surveyed, reported having to prove themselves over and over again – their successes discounted, their expertise questioned. “People just assume you’re not going to be able to cut it,” a statistician told us, in a typical comment. Black women were considerably more likely than other women to report having to deal with this type of bias; three-fourths of black women did. (And few Asian-American women felt that the stereotype of Asian-Americans as good at science helped them; that stereotype may well chiefly benefit Asian-American men.)

Guess what the next one is. We were just talking about it. It’s that too quiet-too loud thing. That you can’t win; that you’re too girly and too ungirly both at once.

Pattern 2: The Tightrope. Women need to behave in masculine ways in order to be seen as competent—but women are expected to be feminine. So women find themselves walking a tightrope between being seen as too feminine to be competent, and too masculine to be likable. More than a third (34.1%) of scientists surveyed reported feeling pressure to play a traditionally feminine role, with Asian Americans (40.9%) more likely than other groups of women to report this. About half of the scientists we surveyed (53.0%) reported backlash for displaying stereotypically “masculine” behaviors like speaking their minds directly or being decisive.

“I’ve gotten remarks like, ‘I didn’t expect someone Indian…and female to be like this,” said a micro-biologist. An astrophysicist told us she’d had to “damp down” her ambition and “become as amiable as possible,” going as far as to hide prizes and media attention. On the other hand, if women are assertive, direct, outspoken, or competitive, they may face dislike or even ostracism. “I’m pretty aggressive,” said a Latina bioengineer. “I find that both men and women…are going to immediately call [you a] witch. I’d use another word but it would be rude.”

I get that a lot.

And there are other patterns, including ones that especially affect women of color.

It’s so tempting the attribute the paucity of women in STEM to pipeline problems or personal choices. But it’s time to listen to women scientists: they think the issue’s gender bias, and an increasing amount of research supports that view.

Or, they could just listen to Christina Hoff Sommers.

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



What mean “social justice warrior”??

Mar 31st, 2015 4:06 pm | By

Brian Leiter has only just discovered the term “social justice warrior,” and has had its meaning explained to him by someone with what looks to me like an incomplete (or tendentious) understanding of it.

Functionally defined, “SJW” designates someone who monitors cyberspace for slights or miscues that reveal bias, and then exploits the various tools of social media to shame the offender, express outrage, and summon the digital mob, whilst achieving for themselves a righteous fame that ties their identities and their actions to the heroes and achievements of the civil rights movement, the landmark moments of which preceded their adulthood.  SJWs divide the world, GWB-like, into the evildoers (“shitlords”) and the oppressed, with the possible, but problematic remainder, being allies, whose status is ever tenuous and usually collapses into shitlord. SJWs do not distinguish between major and minor offenses — unintentionally using “transgender-ed” instead of “transgender” is as unforgivable as any other act of oppression — nor do they distinguish repeat and systematic from first-time offenders.  They employ a principle of interpretation that is something like the opposite of charity. (If the utterance gives offense under one interpretation, that interpretation is correct.) It is a harsh “justice”.

Well, no. There are people who fit that description, certainly, but that is not the primary meaning of SJW.

Leiter quotes a reader pointing out the inadequacy of the above definition in an addendum:

I wanted to send you a quick note with regard to your most recent post on “social justice warriors”. Whilst I am entirely sympathetic to your criticisms of the online mobs, vague identity politics, etc. I thought that seeing as you hadn’t heard the term before you might want to be made aware that it originated and still continues to be used almost exclusively (to the best of my knowledge) as a pejorative by so-called ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ (read: genuinely horrible and regressive misogynists) to describe anyone with a liberal or progressive disposition. Without impugning your correspondent, I am immediately suspicious when the term is used as it suggests (and originated from) an entirely different and also toxic version of identity politics. I think the most mainstream use of the term so far has been in the ‘Gamergate’ movement, which many (myself included) think was a thinly veiled attempt by the same misogynists to create an aura of legitimacy around their sending of rape and death threats to relatively benign (if sometimes mistaken) critics of video game tropes/culture.

And so on. A useful corrective, I think, but Leiter pretty much brushes it off by saying (basically) that he still likes the first definition. There are more correctives in an open thread, along with some endorsements of the more tendentious first explanation.

With regard to “Social Justice Warrior”:

The term was coined with something like the interpretation that Brian’s correspondent indicated. It still has this use, but I think is now somewhat disfavored among honest participants in the debate, due to semantic poisoning.

What semantic poisoning? There was (and still is) this internet thing called ‘gamergate’. Supposedly it was about ethics in video game journalism, but mostly it was entitled male gamers sending death threats/ rape threats/ persistent harassment to women who criticized the rampant misogyny both in the companies that make video games, and in the content of those games. “Social Justice Warrior” as used by the gamergaters, came to be a pejorative for “feminist/ lgbt activist/ anyone who actually cares about actual social justice.” Google ‘Anita Sarkeesian” + “social justice warrior” and you will find how nasty the people who use the “SJW” label are. Google ‘Anita Sarkeesian’ and you might learn how little that term applies, if you are using it with the original meaning.

I personally think “SJW” is more of a taunt than a criticism, and its current use seems mostly to be to bully women and to justify bullying them. If someone has bad arguments, you can just point them out. It’s not ideal, in my opinion, to use terminology that (nowadays) most clearly aligns you with 4chan and the gamergaters.

In other words, if in doubt…don’t use it. It’s the same as that endless argument over “cunt” and how it’s used in the UK and why should we listen to Americans on the subject and yadda yadda yadda. I don’t see the point of defending epithets unless you’re very sure your particular treasured epithet is not more loaded than you realize. (And sometimes not even then, because some people can be very sure of things that are 100% obviously wrong.)

Leiter, rather surprisingly, completely missed the point.

BL COMMENT: The definition my correspondent offered had nothing to do with these usages.

Yes but that’s the point. That definition was incomplete at best, and the point is, the term has a lot more baggage, of a different kind, than the correspondent explained.

Another commenter tried to help.

My own impression is that the term “social justice warrior” followed a trajectory similar to “politically correct”, although much more rapidly.

As readers here are no doubt aware, PC was originally coined by the left to mock a certain type of ultra-doctrinaire Marxist back in the 70s, and by the late 80s the term was being used in earnest by conservatives to attack leftist thought.

Similarly, my impression is that SJW was coined by progressives during the early days of social media as a term of (mild) mockery. It referred to someone on twitter/tumblr, usually young, who had just discovered activism last week and was REALLY REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT IT EVERYONE!!! The term was subsequently adopted by the right as a genuine insult aimed at online progressives. Although this story is complicated by the fact that progressives have “reclaimed” the term and now unironically self-identify as SJWs in a way they didn’t before.

Do they? I don’t. For a start, why would I call myself any kind of “warrior” unironically?

Yet another tried:

From my experience, “social justice warrior” has nothing like limited meaning the correspondent describes (someone who cannot distinguish between minor and major offenses, participates in cybermobs etc.) but is actually used against anyone who advocates on issues like racism and sexism to disparage their concerns. (Which I think is really exactly what the term suggests) I have never, ever heard the term “Social Justice Warrior” used by anyone that thinks social justice issues are real and to be taken seriously, and it’s very often directed against anyone who brings up any social justice concerns at all.

One of the easiest ways to get called a SJW is to disagree with a racist or sexist joke online. I’m not talking about calling a mob in response to a slightly sexist joke, I’m talking about voicing disagreement with blatant racism and sexism that’s “just a joke.” I’ve been called a SJW a handful of times, every time because of something along these lines.

BL COMMENT: Given the evidence already adduced in this thread about the myriad uses, I don’t understand how the preceding can be seriously asserted. The term obviously has different meanings as used by different people. This is a familiar phenomenon in language.

Right…so if some people used “nigger” to mean “congenial amusing comrade” would it make sense to adopt the word oneself to mean that? No, it wouldn’t, because it would almost certainly be misunderstood. This too is a familiar phenomenon in language.

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



Water

Mar 31st, 2015 3:12 pm | By

News Asia reports on the water shortage in Taiwan.

Taiwan will further tighten water supply as the island is suffering from its worst ever drought. Starting April 1, Taiwan will cut water supply in the northern Xinbei and Taoyuan cities for two days a week. Nearly 3 million people are expected to be affected.

Taiwanese Premier Mao Chi Kuo said: “Based on what the Central Weather Bureau has told me, this is probably the worst drought in Taiwan’s history.” Taiwan started a second phase of water rationing in February by restricting supply to industrial users by 5% in nine cities and counties.

But the efforts have failed to ease the drought as water levels for major reservoirs across the island continue to hit new lows. For instance, Shihmen Reservoir – a key to water supply in northern Taiwan – now has less than 44 million tons of water, which could run out in 40 days without rain.

Drought is really frightening. Drought means crop failures, and crop failures mean famine and war. Drought also means death from not enough water to drink.

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



They were just kidding

Mar 31st, 2015 12:26 pm | By

Lynn Paltrow on the implications of the conviction of Purvi Patel.

The prosecution and verdict in this case demonstrate that, despite their claims to the contrary, the real result of the anti-abortion movement —if not the intended goal—is to punish women for terminating pregnancies.

The anti-choice movement’s long-term strategy goes beyond just limiting access to abortion. It also includes passing feticide laws that recognize fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as having a separate legal status and creates special penalties for causing them harm.1

As historian and legal scholar Reva B. Siegel has documented, many “pro-life” activists promote anti-abortion measures as “women-protective,” ensuring “women’s informed consent, women’s health, women’s welfare, and women’s freedom.”2 Feticide laws fall into this category: They are presented as a means of protecting both pregnant women and their “unborn” children, and they have overwhelmingly been introduced in the wake of violence against pregnant women. No Indiana law, including its feticide law, has ever been proposed and enacted that claimed it could or should be used as a basis for prosecuting and incarcerating women who have abortions. 3

And yet, that’s exactly what happened.

The feticide charge was based on the claim that Patel “did knowingly terminate a human pregnancy, to wit: her own pregnancy, by ingesting medication,” and that this conduct was not a legal abortion performed in accordance with Indiana abortion law.6

To many observers, it was a shocking new application of Indiana’s feticide law, which was intended to criminalize “knowing or intentional termination of another’s pregnancy.”7 Turning this law into one that can be used to punish a woman who herself has an abortion is an extraordinary expansion of the scope and intention of the state’s law. Nevertheless, a jury convicted Patel on both the feticide and neglect charges; she now faces as many as 70 years in prison.

Even though abortion is legal.

The outcome of this case is noteworthy and alarming for another reason as well. It directly contradicts the repeated claims of anti-abortion leaders that their efforts will not lead to punishing women. Several years ago, 17 anti-choice leaders participated in an online symposium hosted by the conservative magazine National Review, addressing the question of whether there should be “jail time for women who seek abortions.”23 Overwhelmingly the writers assured readers that this was not their goal and moreover, that it would never happen.24 One of the contributors, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-choice group Susan B. Anthony List, argued that fears of women being prosecuted and jailed were just a pro-choice tactic to malign abortion opponents. 25

It will never happen. It will never never happen. Except when it does.

 

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



What happened next should frighten everyone

Mar 31st, 2015 11:37 am | By

Dr Jen Gunter discusses the Purvi Patel case from the point of view of an OB who wouldn’t dream of calling the police on a patient and is appalled that some would and do.

For those unfamiliar with the case Ms. Patel received no prenatal care and was an unknown gestational age when she delivered at home. She thought she had delivered very prematurely and that the baby was stillborn. Not knowing what to do, ill from bleeding, and psychologically affected from delivering unassisted in her bathroom she deposited what she thought was a pre-viable stillbirth in the trash.

Ms. Patel continued bleeding and so sought care at the hospital and what happened next should frighten everyone. After determining she had been pregnant the medical staff called the police and one of the OB/GYNs, Dr. McGuire, abandoned her to search with the police. Because that’s what doctors do, leave patients and play junior CSI. When the body was found Dr. McGuire told the officers he believed the fetus was 30 weeks, even though he had no qualification to make that determination. These actions starting the ball rolling as a potential homicide.

Dr. McGuire, a pro-life OB/GYN, was of course wrong. The autopsy indicted 23-24 weeks which is borderline viability and a gestational age when parents can make the decision to resuscitate or not. That didn’t matter to the prosecutor who either thought 6-7 weeks made little difference (it make all the difference in the world) or didn’t care.

The medical team handed Patel’s records over the the police while she was in surgery. The police were there to confront her almost as soon as she woke up.

I’ve had the police show up several times to interview inpatients and when I felt the patient wasn’t capable I told the police they would have to wait or come back or discuss the matter with the hospital’s legal counsel. My authority to make this determination was never questioned. If I wouldn’t let my patient drive a car then she isn’t medically fit to speak with the police. I can’t even fathom turning over medical records. That’s why there are court orders and hospital lawyers and medical correspondence departments.

But there’s little patients can do if the medical staff decides to violate their privacy. They can sue, but it might be from a prison cell.

This violation of privacy and zealotry towards viewing pregnancy loss as a crime should worry every woman of reproductive age with a uterus. There are cases of police traipsing though hospital rooms of women who have delivered 21 week stillbirths in toilets (that is typically what happens) all because the medical personnel had suspicions. Christine Taylor, early in her second trimester (before viability) fell down the stairs and later confided to her nurse at the hospital that she was ambivalent about the pregnancy. Her nurse called a doctor who called the police. She was jailed for two days. Bei Bei Shua tried to kill herself due to profound depression while pregnant in the third trimester, her baby died three days after delivery and she was charged with murder. All because her social worker called the police before she even delivered.

Because the fetus is everything and the woman is a presumed criminal.

In cases like these it’s the hospital personnel going out of their way to involve the police and hand over information. If a doctor, or a nurse, or a social worker says this is a crime the police aren’t going to question it. Once the police and prosecutor get it into their head someone need to be punished the legal locomotive loses its brakes and apparently even incorrect accusations and medical facts can’t stop it.

Oh well, it’s only women.

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



Guest post: How does a rain soaked island have a drought if there isn’t climate change?

Mar 31st, 2015 10:15 am | By

Originally a comment by left0ver1under in The withdrawing room.

I make it a point to avoid rants, profanities, insults and “aggressive words”, but there are times when some people deserve to be called blankety-blanks and smacked across the face with frying pans.

Today in the news here in Taiwan, it was reported that the main reservoir in Tainan is down to 38% of capacity, and was only that full because of recent rainfall. And the main reservoir in Taipei is low enough that the government has issued severe water restrictions. (Unfortunately, the restrictions are being delayed because of a holiday.) It’s gotten so bad that people – including me – are actively wishing for Supertyphoon Maysak to hit the island. It’s already 30C on most days and dryer than I’ve seen in nine years of living here.

The fact that there’s a typhoon in late March/early April should be a clue, but not to the clueless. It’s the fourth typhoon in this area of the Pacific Ocean since January 1. I spoke recently to the parents of my employer (they’re both over 60) and they tell me they’ve never seen a typhoon past December, never mind four after the new year. Typhoon Tembin in 2012 did a figure four, crossing Taiwan east to west, going south, then crossing a second time south to north. No one had ever heard of that happening anywhere on Earth, not just here.

How exactly does a rain soaked island like this have a drought if there isn’t climate change? It doesn’t help that last typhoon season (August to November) Taiwan did not have a single day of government ordered closure of schools and businesses due to rain. Typhoons are annoying because of the damage they cause, but they are a big part of filling the water table on this island.

Climate change deniers suck.

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



Reaping the whirlwind

Mar 31st, 2015 9:53 am | By

Poor Saudi Arabia. The BBC reports it doesn’t want Daesh luring away its people or bursting in to attack the Saud family itself. But how is it to go about resisting it when they have so much in common?

According to the Ministry of Interior, some 2,600 Saudis have joined extremist groups in Syria since 2011, around 600 of whom have returned. Last year alone, 400 were arrested in relation to IS activities inside the Kingdom.

“Extremist groups” – but the government of Saudi Arabia is an extremist group. There’s nothing mild or average about Saudi Arabia.

It is a relatively low number, says Interior Ministry spokesman General Mansour Sultan al-Turki, but still a matter of deep concern.

“Whoever made [IS] made it for purposes and one of those purposes is really to attack Saudi Arabia,” he says.

“They know that our borders are very well-protected so their idea is to do their best through propaganda, like inspire young Saudis to carry out any terrorist act on their behalf.”

But Saudi Arabia carries out terrorist attacks on its own citizens. It beheads some of them, it whips some of them.

Last year Riyadh made it a crime to join IS. And it mobilised Saudi clerics, who now condemn the group as un-Islamic.

But that has not included any soul-searching of their own ultraconservative creed, one that advocates harsh Islamic punishments which have been taken to extremes by IS.

Precisely. If even the BBC admits it, it’s not much of a secret any more.

The recent sentencing of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam prompted Western comparisons between the ideologies of Saudi Arabia and Islamic State.

“This is the basic problem we have with media like yourselves in mixing apples and oranges,” countered the former intelligence chief Prince Turki al Faisal.

“Fahash is a terrorist group, it has no legal system,” he said, using an Arabic word for obscene that rhymes with Daesh.

“The kingdom is a state, it has a judicial system that traces its history even longer than English common law.”

Yes. Saudi Arabia is a state, and it has a judicial system. But it’s an absolutist totalitarian theocratic state, with a theocratic judicial system. It has the formal trappings, but the laws and practices are fascistic. And Daesh of course calls itself a state, indeed a meta-state, a caliphate. If you asked it it would no doubt assure you it has a judicial system. The outcomes are much the same.

Saudi Arabia’s puritanical version of Islam does share a strain of religious intolerance that IS has used to justify its killings of Shia and non-Muslims, says Jane Kinninmont, a London-based Middle East analyst.

“The tendency to declare other Muslims as ‘kafir’ or non-Muslim, that’s something you see advocated by some officially sanctioned and tolerated Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia,” she says.

Damn right. And all those Saudi-funded madrassas? You think none of their graduates have joined Daesh? It is to laugh. Saudi Arabia has spent billions in oil money to spread Islamist fanaticism around the globe, and now it’s quaking in its boots because Daesh is on its border. This is the world you built, you fucks.

The Kingdom’s frontline with IS, its northern border with Iraq, is demarcated with a double fence that undulates across a vast windswept desert, monitored by high-tech surveillance cameras.

Members of Islamic State did clash with a border patrol early this year, killing three guards. But the threat is more internal than external.

And the Saudis are not questioning whether their ideology is in any way to blame.

It’s good to see the BBC finally notice.

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



Wisdom literature

Mar 30th, 2015 4:40 pm | By

Hm. Time for some Stupid Posters, because I have seen some and I wouldn’t want them to go to waste.

You can see them yourself if you visit the Facebook page of someone who calls himself David Avocado Wolfe. Yes, he really does. He says he’s a  public figure, too. Well I don’t believe that.

Piffle. Not common sense at all. Think of all the African and Middle Eastern and Indian and Chinese foods the names of which I can’t pronounce properly – that’s hardly a reason not to eat them.

Nope. That’s not true.

“Pushes off the body’s dirty electricity”?

Please.

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



Attention must be paid

Mar 30th, 2015 4:17 pm | By

CFI has a statement on the horrific murder of Washiqur Rahman.

Barely a month following the brutal murder of our friend, freethought writer Avijit Roy in Bangladesh, and the near-killing of his wife Rafida Bonya Ahmed, atheist blogger Washiqur Rahman has been killed by a group of Islamic extremists in Dhaka. A young man at age 27, Rahman was far less well-known than Dr. Roy, but his public expressions of admiration for Roy, and his courageous criticism of religion were sufficiently threatening to these extremist thugs that they tried to silence him as they silenced Dr. Roy.

But they will find that just as was the case with the murder of Dr. Roy, the power of the ideals and principles Washiqur Rahman championed will now only become a more potent force, and the hateful and backward ideology of his killers will be exposed to the world. Violent Islamic extremists think they will scare their critics into silence and submission, but their barbarity will only serve to strengthen the unity and resolve of those who believe in the fundamental right to free expression — which includes the right to criticize, question, and reject religion.

The rest.

The American Humanist Association also has a statement.

The American Humanist Association mourns the tragic death of Bangladeshi blogger, Oyasiqur (Washiqur) Rhaman, who was brutally murdered in Dhaka, Bangladesh, for advocating freethought and progressivism.

Rhaman was described by his friends and fellow bloggers as a humanist and atheist. On social media, he criticized religious extremism and expressed solidarity with Avijit Roy, another humanist blogger and Bangladeshi-American who was killed only a few weeks ago for espousing secular views. The vicious nature of these two murders underscores the oppression and harassment faced by humanists around the world. The American Humanist Association reaffirms its commitment to free speech and to ending the prejudice against humanists and other nonbelievers by advancing secular values and human rights and opposing blasphemy laws.

In the wake of these appalling tragedies, the American Humanist Association is continuing to demand that U.S. Senators and Representatives hold hearings on the global persecution of humanists and other nontheists by religious fundamentalists. A copy of the letter sent to legislators can be viewed here.

Image result for Washiqur Rahman

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



The killers don’t speak for Bangladesh

Mar 30th, 2015 3:50 pm | By

Some people protested

Embedded image permalink

Student associations protested.

Embedded image permalink

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



Not a religion of peace??

Mar 30th, 2015 3:27 pm | By

The Huffington Post has a video from a few days ago on “Muslim women” saying why Ayaan Hirsi Ali is all wrong about Islam. Quel shock. From the abstract:

Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been extremely vocal in her critique of Islam. In her new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, she details her issues with its teachings and even declares “Islam is not a religion of peace.”

*gasp* You don’t mean it! She even says Islam is not a religion of peace???! How can she possibly think such a thing, given all the peace spread by Islam right now? Think of those three peace-loving men who chopped Washiqur Rahman to death a few hours ago.

I get that people don’t want to pick on Muslims but let’s be reasonable, ok? Of course Islam is not a religion of peace.

Embedded image permalink

 

 

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



He pays the rent, it’s his place, he can do whatever he wants to

Mar 30th, 2015 2:57 pm | By

An Indiana business owner went on the radio to say he’d gotten an early start on the discriminating against people even before the governor signed Indiana’s RFRA into law.

The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.

“Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it,” he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”

So he can keep out the Nigras and the Jews and the wetbacks and anyone else he doesn’t like, because this is god’s country.

Georgia. Nineteen other states, including nearby Kentucky and Illinois, have adopted religious liberty laws.

These laws try to codify some of what was established when the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case last year.

Let’s keep this up. Maybe soon we too can be talking about the latest atheist blogger who’s been murdered by fanatics wielding meat cleavers.

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