W00t!! I’ve lined up a copy of Charlie Hebdo I get to have!
Bulldog News on the Ave in the U District in Seattle.
It will be mine! I will have it!
And a little more will go into the pot for the victims’ survivors.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Newsweek has a story on sexual harassment in Silicon Valley, with a cover illustration that some people see as pretty sexist itself. Other people don’t see the problem.
I’m not sure. At the first look I thought it was one of those having it both ways things – tutting about sexism but getting jollies from sexism all the same. Wink wink nudge nudge type of thing. But given the words right next to it…I think my first look got it wrong.
You?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The BBC alerts us to a new global campaign by humanist organizations against blasphemy laws.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) says that, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France, the time is right for countries to abolish laws that protect religious sensibilities. But blasphemy laws nevertheless remain popular in many parts of the world.
We know, Beeb, that’s why the campaign is needed.
Sonja Eggerickx is the president of IHEU which works to promote an evidence-led ethical society.
She says the campaign is intended to support local people on the ground already working against blasphemy laws.
“The idea that ‘insult’ to religion is a crime is why humanists like Asif Mohiuddin are jailed in Bangladesh, is why secularists like Raif Badawi are being lashed in Saudi Arabia, is why atheists and religious minorities are persecuted in places like Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and the list goes on,” she says.
It certainly does. It’s a very long list indeed. It has Lars Vilks on it. It has Elisabeth Wallin on it – the Swedish photographer who did the photo for the cover of the Swedish translation of Does God Hate Women? It has Taslima Nasreen on it. It has Salman Rushdie, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, Wendy Doniger, M. F. Hussain – and on and on.
The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Islamic states, has repeatedly tried to get United Nations support for an international measure to outlaw insults to religion.
It says that such a resolution would protect groups from discrimination.
Last year, the organisation’s secretary general, Iyan Ameen Madani, said that freedom of expression was clashing with Islamic teachings.
He criticised countries who refused to limit free speech, which he said was harming religious minorities.
“Muslim countries enacting laws to ensure respect for the sanctity and reputation of religious values, scriptures and personalities for promotion of peace in society, are criticised on account of limiting this freedom through blasphemy laws,” he said.
That’s right. That’s because humanists, in contrast to theocrats, think religious values, scriptures and personalities must be wide open to criticism and mockery, because otherwise people aren’t free or able to decide for themselves whether or not to accept and obey them.
Some European countries also criminalise anti-religious sentiments in some form.
In 2012 there were 99 convictions for “public blasphemy” in Malta, with punishments ranging from fines to imprisonment.
And in 2014, Russian MPs voted for a new law against offending religious feelings.
It followed a political protest by members of the group Pussy Riot in Moscow’s Orthodox cathedral.
The charge against the three included “insult to religious feelings”.
Russia is famous for its long and glorious history of human rights.
Oh wait, no it’s not. More the opposite.
Those who want to extend religious insult laws are also making plans.
The UN Human Rights Council says it is likely that the issue of insulting religions will be raised at the council’s upcoming sessions in March, at the request of Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, let’s pay attention to what Saudi Arabia says about human rights!
On second thought let’s kick it off the HRC.
The IHEU campaign, though, is not about encouraging discrimination, says Bob Churchill, its director of communications.
“Our campaign does not target laws against incitement to hatred, which are legitimate,” he said.
Mr Churchill also rejects the charge of cultural imperialism.
“The reality is that minority voices for change and reform are there. The problem is they often cannot be heard.”
Because blasphemy laws make them so very very quiet.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Another action we can take, via Amnesty – send an email to Simon Collis, the new UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, asking him to
- Prioritise Raif’s case in all meetings with the Saudi Arabian authorities
- Meet with the Minister responsible in the Saudi Arabian government and ask permission to visit Raif in prison.
That will be a pain in the neck for the new ambassador, so he will want the Saudis to free Raif and let him leave the country immediately.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A thought has occurred to me about Saud-family Arabia and the torture of Raif Badawi.
They’re boxing themselves in. By repeatedly postponing the torture, they’re admitting that they can’t do it without causing permanent damage. They have no qualms about doing that, of course, but they know they’re under a spotlight, and it must be getting quite warm there.
Hello Era of Social Media.
They’re stuck. This isn’t going away, and in fact it’s doing the opposite – it’s both growing and intensifying. They clearly don’t feel happy about just going ahead and flogging Raif again anyway…but nor do they feel happy about letting the horrible infidels and apostates win.
They should have thought of that sooner.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The lashes were postponed again, with no reason given.
I wonder if they’re getting anxious about the rapidly spreading global odium.
I certainly hope so.
Raif should be in Sherbrooke with Ensaf and their three children.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
I did a podcast a couple of days ago, talking about Does God Hate Women? It’s AtheistAirwaves, out of Corpus Christi, Texas.
The first 36 seconds is Susan Turpin (one of the four presenters) reading part of the angry summation at the end of the book. I enjoyed listening to that – it’s quite cool listening to someone read aloud words that you wrote. She did it with just the kind of biting emphasis I wrote it with.
I see PZ was on it a few months ago.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Today a bunch of people from Sherbrooke accompanied Ensaf Haidar to Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault shared photos.
That’s Ensaf on the left edge.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Sam Harris talks to Michael Shermer about morality, or meta-morality. They’re both experts in the subject, so the combination must be super-expert.
Shermer: The criterion I use—inspired by your starting point in The Moral Landscape of “the well-being of conscious creatures”—is “the survival and flourishing of sentient beings.”
He says that as if the idea originated with Sam Harris. It didn’t.
Today we no longer accept the witch theory of causality because science debunked it. In its stead science created natural and more accurate explanations for such phenomena as weather and diseases. Science has also debunked other superstitious beliefs, such as demon possession; the need for animal and human sacrifice to appease God; that Jews caused the Black Death; that African Americans are an inferior race; that women are the weaker gender…
Wait.
Science has debunked the superstitious belief that women are the weaker gender…but not the superstitious belief that being intellectually active is more of a guy thing?
Why? Why the one and not the other? Aren’t they linked? Aren’t they variations on a single theme? Aren’t both equally stupid?
I think the answer to all those questions is Yes. Given that, I would love to know why Shermer got in such a rage at me for criticizing him for making that claim.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Heina is disappointed with the Sunday Assembly Los Angeles.
When I was invited to be the main speaker for the first-ever Sunday Assembly Los Angeles, I felt very optimistic. The people with whom I worked were so incredibly helpful, I got to cover an awesome topic that gave me an excuse to further educate myself, and the event went swimmingly. The press coverage wasn’t bad, either. I later spoke at the first Sunday Assembly Orange County as well.
As rarely happens, I had hope about something. But, as always happens when I do have them, those hopes were dashed. I have recently found out that this April, Sunday Assembly Los Angeles is hosting Michael Shermer. His talk is promoting the latest of his many books.
The topic? Morality. Yes, really.
So, with regret, she has cut ties with them.
When I brought up my concerns with one of the SA-LA organizers, I was told that the content is vetted rather than the speakers and that there is no “publicly available falsifiable evidence” against Shermer.
There are easily-accessible, multiple accusations against Shermer, some of them by women who are known, named entities and very much a part of the movement (or were at the time). Many of the other allegations were made by women who didn’t want to be named but who were vetted by known, named entities who are part of the movement. Women have been warning each other against being alone and/or drinking around Shermer for years in the Southern California skeptic scene. Apparently, it’s more likely that all these people are lying through their teeth and making it all up than that a powerful man is doing what more than one powerful man has done with said power.
It’s all so…papal.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Sophy Ridge at the Telegraph says what I more or less assumed – that Michelle Obama’s non-compliance with the Saud family dress code was an intentional snub. I more or less assumed that simply because there’s not really any way it could be just neutral, given what everyone knows about “the kingdom” and how many people are available to tell her all about it.
Make no mistake: this was a deliberate decision by the First Lady.
She and her advisers will have been well aware of expectations in the ultraconservative Saudi Arabia. They will have known her outfit choice would attract attention away from the role of her husband, Barack Obama, who cut short a trip to India in order to lead a parade of dignitaries in Riyadh, paying respect after King Abdullah’s death.
Right. That.
In a way it’s a little surprising that it happened at all, given the need Barack Obama apparently felt to suck up to the sadistic monarch despite the ongoing outrages against human rights in “the kingdom.”
Before arriving in Riyadh, Barack Obama was on a trip to India where he spoke about the importance of women’s rights. Hours later, he was all smiles and warm hand-shakes in a country where women are forbidden from travelling, marrying and working without express permission from a male guardian.
The President is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Saudi Arabia is a key ally of the US in the Middle East and criticism is politically difficult.
The UK government decided to fly flags at half-mast to show respect for the death of King Abdullah for the same reason. But while the men carefully stepped around the prickly issue of women’s rights, the First Lady made her own pointed political statement.
Other people’s rights are always expendable, I guess.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Saudi Arabia wants to host a men-only Olympics. What a fun idea.
Saudi Arabia has proposed holding a gender-segregated Olympic Games.
In comments made by Prince Fahad bin Jalawi al-Saud – a consultant to the Saudi Olympic Committee –it was suggested the country could bid jointly with Bahrain, which could host the women’s events.
“Our society can be very conservative. It has a hard time accepting that women can compete in sports,” the Prince told French website Francs Jeux.
“Wearing sports clothing in public is not really allowed. For these cultural reasons, it is difficult to bid for certain big international events.”
Right – and that’s as it should be. It should, in fact, be 100% impossible for Saudi Arabia to host any big international events of any kind. Saudi Arabia bans half of its population from public life altogether. That should make it a pariah state.
In recommendations for reform, published last November, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) opened the door to joint bids in 2020.
But it moved to quickly shoot down Saudi Arabia’s suggestion.
IOC President Thomas Bach released a statement explaining that Saudi Arabia would be denied the chance to bid, unless it complied with rules barring discrimination.
“A commitment to ‘non-discrimination’ will be mandatory for all countries hoping to bid for the Olympics in the future,” Bach said. “This was made very clear in the Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms and will even be in the host city contract.
“If this is not applied, the bid would not be admissible. Countries like Saudi Arabia must really work to allow female athletes to ‘freely participate.”‘
And IOC spokesman added: “You cannot simply ‘outsource’ certain issues to another territory”.
Good. That’s as it should be.
London 2012 was the first time that Saudi Arabia had sent female athletes to an Olympic Games, under pressure from the IOC. But the two women chosen -judoka Wojdan Shaherkani and and 800m runner Sarah Attar- were widely denounced as ‘prostitutes’ on social media by conservatives. They competed with their hair covered and were accompanied by male guardians. The country sent a male-only team to last year’s Asian Games in Incheon, South Korea.
They shouldn’t be allowed to participate at all on that basis. Just say no.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A report commissioned by Amnesty International says – entirely unsurprisingly – that further lashes to Raif Badawi would cause permanent damage. Ludovica Iaccino gives the details.
Now, a medical expert from from the charity Freedom from Torture has warned in a report commissioned by Amnesty International that more lashes are likely to cause permanent damage.
Dr Juliet Cohen, head of doctors at Freedom from Torture, explained: “When the cane strikes, the blood is forced from the tissues beneath… Damage to the small blood vessels and individual cells causes leakage of blood and tissue fluid into the skin and underlying tissue, increasing the tension in these areas.
“The more blows are inflicted on top of one another, the more chance of open wounds being caused. This is important because they are likely to be more painful and at risk of infection, which will cause further pain over a prolonged period as infection delays the wounds’ healing.”
Which is the goal, isn’t it. Cause lots and lots of pain, and do serious and cumulative damage. Do as much harm as possible, in as visible a way as possible – do it in public, in front of a crowd, right after “prayers,” in front of The Holy Building. Make very very sure that everybody within reach of this vile regime
It’s not just the skin and muscle on the back, either.
There is also the long-term damage done to the victim’s mental health caused by flogging.
“Psychologically, flogging may cause feelings of fear, anxiety, humiliation and shame. Anticipation of the next scheduled flogging is likely to cause heightened emotions especially of fear, anxiety and difficulty sleeping… pain and fear together over a prolonged period have a deeply debilitating effect and recovery from such experiences may take considerable time,” said Cohen.
And all this is not for someone who tortured a bunch of people to death. It’s not for a murderer. It’s not for a génocidaire. It’s not for a Bernie Madoff type who stole the savings of thousands of people and left them broke. It’s for a guy who said something the rulers and the clerics dislike. That’s all. That’s all this murderous sadism is about.
Speaking to IBTimes UK, director of Amnesty UK Kate Allen said: “The world should be shocked and horrified by what’s happening in Saudi Arabia.
“The flogging is going to happen as long as Badawi’s health holds up. We are campaigning worldwide, to have this flogging stopped and to have him freed from prison. Because he is a prisoner of conscience.
“We will continue to campaign and we need to make sure that the international community raises its voice.
“There is no freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia, where the government uses torture and death penalty in a shocking way and human rights are not observed.”
It’s a government of murderous sadists. It’s the Kingdom of Murderous Sadists. Sadist Arabia.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
So let’s ask an actual female ghostbuster, shall we? Is it totally weird and off the wall to remake Ghostbusters with women in the eponymous roles? Is it weird the way it would be weird to remake Lone Star with frogs playing all the parts?
Ask her. Ask Hayley Stevens. Or don’t bother to ask her, because the answer is already there on her blog.
Throughout the history of paranormal research women have often been the leading figures despite being under-represented at every step of the way.
Eleanor Sidgwick was a leading figure in the Society for Psychical Research – easily the most established organisation dedicated to paranormal research in the country, if not the globe. Sidgwick was the president of the Society from 1908 to 1909. She had a huge hand in the work that went into theCensus of Hallucinations, described by the SPR as ‘a survey on a very considerable scale which set out to establish the probability of reports of crisis apparitions being due to chance coincidence; the report on this work, prepared largely by Eleanor Sidgwick, ruled out this possibility.’
Whether you agree with the researchor not isn’t the point here. The point is that the contribution of women is not ignorable. Other female SPR presidents have included Edith Balfour Lyttelton and Deborah Delonoy who, by the way, was also the president of the Parapsychological Association.
And there’s Susan Blackmore, she goes on; there’s Caroline Watt, there are Ann Winsper, Jenny Randles, Mary Rose Barrington. They are there.
We need more women to get involved in the field though, and we need to make those are involved in the field more visible because they often go without the credit they deserve – Becky Smith is just one example. Smith conducted a sort-of 21st Century version of the Census of Hauntings and has a Ph.D on ghosts and yet gets hardly any attention. I hope this will change because at paranormal research-related conferences male speakers routinely dominate and they don’t always deserve to (I’m looking at you, Malcolm Robinson.)
Sound familiar? The availability heuristic in action. Male speakers dominate so when people organize another conference, male speakers come to mind, so they continue to dominate, so when people organize another conference, male speakers come to mind, on into infinity. No, Dr Sommers, it’s not just preferences, it’s also invisibility, it’s also what comes to mind easily, it’s not being invited once becoming not being invited ever.
I’m not an academic and probably never will be. I am a ghost geek though and although I don’t believe in ghosts I actively investigate and research alleged paranormal activity using rational inquiry and scientific scepticism. I literally bust ghosts in my spare time, looking for rational causes for weird things people experience and detecting hoaxes. I’m not the best and I’ve still got loads to learn but I do my bit.
I am a ghost buster. A female ghostbuster.
This is not as startling as it would be if a frog said the same thing.
At school we would play Ghostbusters in the playground and I would be the receptionist, Janine. I would stand in the playground and shout “Ghostbusters! We got one!” and the boys would come to the rescue.
That’s why I think it is so bizarre that a number of people are angry at the recent news that a Ghostbusters film with an all-female cast has been announced. I’ve seen a small number of people say “I grew up with male ghostbusters and I find it difficult to accept an all female cast” Yeah? I grew up with an all-male Ghostbusters too and I don’t find it difficult to accept an all-female cast so I wonder what the difference must be?
What oh what could it be?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Hmm.
It’s about their childhoods??
How? Is the remake of Ghostbusters (with – shudder – women playing the parts formerly played by men oh god I’m frightened) going to cause the original to disappear? Every single copy, including pirated copies, just poof gone like that?
No. So how can it be about anyone’s childhood?
Nobody’s going to arrest all the men and force them to watch the new pussy-based Ghostbusters. Nobody. They can all just ignore it. They can laugh and jeer and call it a chickflick, or Cunthunters, or whatever they want to call it. They can go on remembering the Ghostbusters of their childhoods, the manly man one, the one without all the bitches.
There there. It’s all right. It will be ok.
Manboobz collected some ragey commentary. I stole the meme from him.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Turkish authorities want Facebook to block pages that insult Mohammed. If it doesn’t, Turkey will take its toys and go home.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
On the one hand there are the censors in the University of Manchester Student Union, and on the other hand there are seven scholars of religion who have offered to take 100 lashes apiece in Raif’s place.
[T]hat is the proposal which seven members of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom have made to the government of Saudi Arabia, in the hope that Raif Badawi, a young Saudi blogger who has already endured 50 strokes, will be spared further suffering.
The signatories wrote in their personal capacities to the Saudi ambassador in Washington, DC, about a case which has focused attention on the uniquely harsh way in which the kingdom deals with religious and philosophical dissent. In a letter dated January 20th, they noted that Saudi Arabia had participated in a vast gathering of world leaders and ordinary people in Paris, who had come together to defend free speech and protest against the terrorist attacks of the preceding days. The signatories asked how that could be reconciled with the cruel way that Mr Badawi, the founder of a liberal web forum, is being treated.
Seriously. I said that at the time. What were they even doing there, since they don’t believe in free speech as commonly understood. It was insulting. There they were, the floggers of Raif Badawi, there to soak up some of the cred of people who object to theocratic censorship – insulting. Raif did not “insult Islam” but Saudi Arabia insulted Charlie Hebdo and the people at all those protests.
To drive home their concern, they told the ambassador that each of them would be prepared to endure 100 lashes with a Saudi cane if it could bring leniency for the blogger.
…
The signatories are religiously diverse. They include Katrina Lantos Swett (pictured), who is chairman of the USCIRF, and also runs the Lantos Foundation, a human-rights NGO which commemorates her father Congressman Tom Lantos, who was a Holocaust survivor. There are also two prominent Catholic intellectuals, Robert George and Mary Ann Glendon, respectively associated with Princeton and Harvard; Zuhdi Jasser, who heads a groupof conservative (in the American sense) Muslims; Hannah Rosenthal, head of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation; and Eric Schwartz and Daniel Mark, both professors who are active in Jewish affairs. Although Ms Lantos Swett’s parents were Jewish, she converted to the Mormon faith.
Ms Lantos Swett said all the signatories had agreed that they would not put their names to the document unless they really were willing to undergo the penalty. Signing it had given her a “deeper sense of how terrifying it can be to stand at the mercy of a despotic government.”
This isn’t going to go away, Saud family.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Via the University of Manchester Free Speech and Secular Society on Twitter – here we go again.
Students Union told us not to display the Charlie Hebdo paper at refreshers fair at Uni of Manchester
#JeSuisCharlie
Contemptible.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Wow. This is one I couldn’t have imagined if I’d tried for a week. (That’s a silly hypothetical really, because I get bored with trying after about ten seconds so I stop. But if I had tried…) Gwyneth Paltrow says women and others in possession of a uterus should steam their innards. Yes steam them. Squat over some steam and let it scour out the uterus. Jen Gunter has the story.
On today’s episode of ask the experts we pit the gynecologic advice of Gwyneth Paltrow, a consciously uncoupled actress and self-professed lifestyle expert who dabbles in vaginal health, against that of yours truly, a board certified OB/GYN who has completed a 5 year OB/GYN residency and a fellowship in infectious diseases and is an expert in vulvovaginal disorders.
Ms. Paltrow, recommends a V-steam. Her words: “You sit on what is essentially a mini-throne, and a combination of infrared and mugwort steam cleanses your uterus, et al. It is an energetic release—not just a steam douche—that balances female hormone levels. If you’re in LA, you have to do it.”
What, because LA is uniquely full of uterus-targeting microvermin? Because the smog gets all up in there and dirties everything? Because the desert is roughh on the equipment?
Jen says don’t.
Here’s why.
The vagina (and uterus and vulva for that matter) should be viewed as self-cleaning ovens. We know that douching is harmful, heck, even seminal fluid can be harmful (exposure to multiple partners without condoms is a major risk factor for imbalance of the vaginal ecosystem). The upper and lower reproductive tracts have very intricate mechanisms for regulating local health and they are very easy to mess with. It’s a delicate garden, if you will. So one needs to be thoughtful, nay conscious about what one uses in said garden.
We don’t know the effect of steam on the lower reproductive tract, but the lactobacilli strains that keep vaginas healthy are very finicky about their environment and raising the temperature with steam and whatever infrared nonsense Paltrow means is likely not beneficial and is potentially harmful. Some strains of lactobacilli are so hard to cultivate outside of this very specific vaginal environment that growing them in a lab is next to impossible. There is also the possibility that the “steam” from these plants could contain volatile substances that are harmful to lactobacilli or other aspects of the vaginal ecosystem.
Also? There’s the fact that it’s…how shall I put this…steam. Um, no?
I do wish movie and tv stars would stop using their fame to promote pseudomedical bullshit. I’m looking at you Mayim anti-vax Bialik.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
