The Independent reports on a worrying trend.

The proliferation of “beautiful young vampires” in TV series and Hollywood films including True Blood and the Twilight movies is encouraging young people to dabble with occult forces, a leading authority on demonic possession has warned a Vatican-backed exorcism course.

What’s a leading authority on demonic possession? What’s there to be a leading authority about?

“There are those who try to turn people into vampires and make them drink other people’s blood, or encourage them to have special sexual relations to obtain special powers,” said Professor Giuseppe Ferrari at the meeting in Rome, which heard that the number of such possessions is rising globally.

So he could be an authority on people who think, or pretend to think, they’re turning people into vampires. He could be a skeptic, in short…except the part about warning a Vatican-backed exorcism course doesn’t sound like a skeptic.

To Google then. Most of the top entries are related to this same conference. But there’s one item from May 2014, so let’s see what the authority was up to a year ago.

Organizers of a recent exorcism conference in Rome spoke to the Telegraph Newspaper about the growing problem of demonic possession:

…Giuseppe Ferrari, from GRIS, a Catholic research group that organized the conference, said there was an ever growing need for priests to be trained to perform exorcisms because of the increasing number of lay people tempted to dabble in black magic, paganism and the occult…

Ok, so he’s that kind of authority, the kind who takes it seriously. That makes it slightly odd that the Indy calls him an authority.

Professor Ferrari, who heads an Italian occult watchdog, The Group on Research and Socio-Religious Information, said exorcisms should only be conducted by properly trained priests. Although the Vatican regards genuine demonic possession as rare, with many suspected cases proving to be people with mental illnesses, Pope Francis has urged dioceses to ensure that they follow Catholic law and have at least one trained exorcist each.

Just in case. Demonic possession is rare, but rare isn’t the same as non-existent.

Funny, that. If it happens, then why doesn’t it happen constantly everywhere? If it’s something De Debbil can do, why doesn’t De Debbil do it full-time? Why is it rare?

Swiss exorcist Father Cesare Truqui told The Independent that this week’s course, attended by exorcists, priests and lay people, was vital in order to raise awareness and hone priests’ skills in fighting evil.

Hey, here’s an idea – they could forget about demonic possession and just look at their colleagues and themselves. They could think hard about why they’re so determined to keep women subordinate. They could think hard about why they’re so rabidly opposed to same-sex relationships.

“The ministry of performing exorcism is little known among priests. It’s like training to be a journalist without knowing how to do an interview,” he said, noting that dioceses in Italy and beyond were experiencing a surge in reports of symptoms of possession.

No, it isn’t like that, because doing an interview is real while doing an exorcism is just fantasy.

Father Cesare is a protégé of Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years, who claims to have dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession. Father Amorth said that sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church were proof that “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican”. He took a similarly dim view of fantasy novels and yoga. Practising the latter, he once warned, was “satanic; it leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter”.

Gay rights and IVF fertility treatment were listed as signs of existential evil in society by Monsignor Luigi Negri, the Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio. “There’s homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, IVF and a host of other things. There’s the clamorous appearance of the negation of man as defined by the Bible,” he declared.

No no no. All backwards and twisted around. I know this, because I’m an authority.

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

More stupid dreck about how clever and original and rebel-like it would be to use more sexist and racist epithets to liven things up. Annalisa Merelli preaches a sermon on the gospel according to Žižek.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek isn’t one to shy away from provocative observations. In a video published on the portal Big Think, he takes on something that is commonly employed as a sensible cultural practice: Political correctness. The academic calls it a form of “cold respect.” He argues that giving space to an occasional exchange of “friendly obscenities” allows for more closeness and gives way to honest exchanges.

If it’s genuinely friendly, then maybe so, although obviously there’s always the risk that the recipient of the friendly obscenity won’t see it the way the sender sees it. We know that can happen, right? What you intend as a jokey insult comes across as a real insult? It’s not “cold respect” to be aware of that, and to think the risk might not be worth it.

There’s also the fact that real aggression can hide behind pretend joking. We know that can happen too, right? I frankly don’t think the risk is worth it.

Žižek reports several episodes in which his lack of politically correct boundaries has served him well, from dealing with the ethnic tensions in former Yugoslavia to becoming friendly with two black Americans after jokingly making a racist remark: “You blacks, like the yellow guys, you all look the same” he reports saying to them, adding, “they embraced me and they told me, you can call me nigga.”)

And I can report a great number of episodes in which I’ve seen that kind of thing go horribly wrong, and another great number of episodes in which I’ve seen non-joking racist or sexist remarks made with dead seriousness. I don’t think the world is suffering from a shortage of people who lack politically correct boundaries. That would be a nice shortage.

Merelli gives her analysis of the idea:

Political correctness stems from the understanding that racism and inequality exist, and that in lieu of fixing those problems, prettier language will do the trick—as if by using inoffensive words and avoiding crass jokes we are to paint over the filth of reality. Politically correct expressions, to Žižek, become patronizing because they actually highlight inequalities. As the philosopher notes, “one needs to be very precise not to fight racism in a way which ultimately reproduces, if not racism itself, at least the conditions of racism.”

No. That’s wrong. Nobody thinks “prettier language” will do the trick all by itself. That’s a canard. It’s a very familiar stale tedious canard, and I’m sick of hearing it.

And it is not just race, of course, that Žižek talks about. Gender, disability–anything that diverges from norms presented in society or media–are all coated with neutral words and behaviors, by the very people who claim to be accepting of it. This special language, despite its intentions, serves to reinforce certain conditions as special, fragile, and weak.

Can we dare to see differences for what they are—nothing else than differences? And can we ever safely name them, perhaps even with the occasional offensive joke?

Perhaps adopting a little of Žižek’s attitude would indeed result in what he refers to as a “wonderful sense of shared obscene solidarity.” It might generate misunderstanding, but if a more light-hearted approach is adopted in a genuine way, that would reflect a profound belief that the other isn’t weaker, doesn’t need anyone’s protection, and is at our level—hence can openly be made fun of, just as we do of ourselves.

Yeah. You know all those ugly people you know? Start telling them how ugly you think they are. That’s the way to a better world. Clumsy people? Boring people? Short? Fat? Old? Disabled? Foreign? Working class? Poor? Badly dressed? Start telling all of them that. Do it “light-heartedly” and that will reflect a profound belief that the other isn’t weaker, doesn’t need anyone’s protection, and is at our level.

God, people can be so fucking stupid sometimes.

If Annalisa Merelli were here in front of me I wouldn’t tell her what she said is fucking stupid, but it would be very hard not to.

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

From a New Statesman review by Sophie McBain of Shami Chakrabarti’s book On Liberty last December:

This book is above all a treatise against David Cameron’s pledge that a future Conservative government would create a British bill of rights to replace its international commitments – a dangerous attempt to “redefine our fundamental rights as citizens’ privileges”, in Chakrabarti’s view.

Speaking in October 2013, Cameron promised that this British bill would be “rooted in our values” and he singled out a European ruling that prisoners should have the vote: “I’m sorry, I just don’t agree. Our parliament – the British parliament – decided they shouldn’t have that right,” he said. The problem is that human rights are too precious to entrust to party politics and external institutions – such as the European Court of Human Rights – act as an important safeguard to keep democracies liberal.

Human rights shouldn’t be national, because they shouldn’t be particular – they should be universal. If they’re particular rights they’re no longer human rights, they’re just whatever the local particular is – British rights, Muslim rights, capitalist rights, Hindu rights. That’s no good. They have to be universal to do the job they’re meant to do.

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

The Indy has an explainer piece about what the (UK) Human Rights Act is and why the Tories plan to ditch it.

The Human Rights Act is a piece of law, introduced in 1998, that guarantees human rights in Britain. It was introduced as one of the first major reforms of the last Labour government.

In practice, the Act has two main effects. Firstly, it incorporates the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic British law.

What this means is that if someone has a complaint under human rights law they do not have to go to European courts but can get justice from British courts.

Secondly, it requires all public bodies – not just the central government, but institutions like the police, NHS, and local councils – to abide by these human rights.

So, speaking from the pov of a Yank, it’s somewhat like the US Bill of Rights, but also unlike it in that here the court of appeal is still a national court rather than a transnational one. As I understand it that’s part of what people on the right dislike about it: it messes with national sovereignty. The trouble with that thought is that national sovereignty is only as good as it is. If you have a government that flouts human rights, then national sovereignty is no way to protect human rights. History has one or two examples of this actually happening.

What rights are we talking about?

The Act covers all the rights included in the European Convention.

These rights are: Right to life, right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, right not to be held as a slave, right to liberty and security of the person, right to a fair trial, right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime, right to a private and family life, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to freedom of expression, right to freedom of assembly and association, right to marriage, right to an effective remedy, right not to be discriminated against, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property, and the right to an education.

National governments don’t always strictly honor every one of those rights. Not absolutely always. I’m sure they mean well, but they stumble now and then.

Ok so what is this here European Convention on Human Rights?

The European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement that all countries in Europe will respect human rights. It was drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The Convention was spearheaded by Britain and the committee that drew up its final draft was chaired by British Conservative MP  Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The UK was a founding signatory and ratified the Convention in March 1951.

That’s after the UDHR. Both were drawn up “in the aftermath of the Second World War” – i.e. in an effort to prevent repetitions of the kind of thing that led up to, caused, went on during and after that war.

Different countries implement the Convention in different ways. The Human Rights Act is the British way of implementing the convention into domestic law.

So why do the Tories want to ditch it?

The Conservatives say in their manifesto that they want to scrap the Human Rights Act. They would replace it with what they call a “British Bill of Rights”.

They say this new bill will “break the formal link between British Courts and Human Rights”.

Um…what? Could they say anything more sinister?

Do they have any more brilliant ideas?

The Home Secretary Theresa May has said Britain could leave the ECHR if British courts were not allowed to overrule the decisions of the Strasbourg court, which ultimately decides ECHR cases.

Oh ffs –  of course they wouldn’t be allowed to overrule the decisions; that’s the whole point!

Mind you: again, the ECHR is only as good as it is. We in the US have a mostly-Catholic Supreme Court now, and a majority with some quite peculiar ideas about human rights.

Tell us about the political background, Indy.

The ECHR has told the government it can’t do various things – such as deport prisoners to countries where torture is routinely used – because such moves breaches human rights.

The Human Rights Act is also subject to a lot of negative reporting in the right-wing press, with regular inaccurate or partial stories about cases brought under the Act.

That’s freedom of the press for you. Ironic, isn’t it.

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

Taslima reports on a recent Supreme Court ruling in India.

The Supreme Court delivered a verdict against Section 66 A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The Section gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.

I was one of the petitioners .

A win for free expression online, and Taslima was one of the petitioners.

She talks to a reporter starting at about 1:30:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8TcliQqRsk

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

Here is today’s The Big Questions, with Maryam Namazie and Peter Tatchell and Andrew Copson. The question is

Have human rights laws achieved more for mankind than religion?

Hahahahahaha yes of course they have, that’s an easy one, thank you for watching, good bye.

I’ve paused it at 4:00 because Nicky Campbell – the presenter – just said

The 10 commandments is often cited as a perfect distillation and perfect example of human rights.

That’s the most ridiculous claim I’ve heard in whenever. The what? The 10 commandments have almost nothing to do with human rights, apart from the very minimal right not to be murdered or robbed or lied to. Most of it is about god’s rights, not our rights. What a completely absurd thing to say.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0YKq5gn3yg

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

This again.

FIFTEEN non-Muslim women have trialled hijabs in Dandenong this afternoon as part of a social experiment, slammed by some as promoting separateness.

The experiment by two Minaret College schoolgirls was part of a short documentary being filmed for Greater Dandenong Council’s “Youth Channel” program aimed at “providing awareness, insight and education”.

The Council called on women to wear the Islamic headdress for three hours today as part of a “social experiment” for National Youth Week.

Awareness of what? Insight into what? Education about what?

Notice the Council called on women to wear it. Just women. The Council called on women to wear a hot smothery head-and-neck covering, to provide awareness of…how dirty they are? How necessary it is for women to be muffled and submissive? How women are second-class citizens?

Centre for Multicultural Youth regional services co-ordinator Heather Stewart, who wore a hijab back to her workplace, said she found the experience enlightening and was surprised by the backlash.

“I think it’s really sad that there seems to be such a lot of fear about Islam,” she said.

“I saw it as an opportunity for non-Muslim women to understand a little bit about another culture.”

But why only non-Muslim women? Why is it only women who are asked to do this? Why aren’t men also asked to do this?

Well because there is no male equivalent of the hijab.

Right, and what does that tell you?

Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad said Muslim women couldn’t go around without their hijabs.

“It is part of our religion for women to cover their hair … it’s a statement of religious observance; it’s saying, ‘I am a devout Muslim woman’,” he said.

Women couldn’t go around without their hijabs. We’re always being told it’s a “choice,” but it isn’t, is it, not when there are enough presidents like Keysar Trad around. I also love the forumlation ““It is part of our religion for women to cover their hair” – it is part of their religion for other people to do what they’re told. That’s kind of like saying “It’s part of my religion for you to buy me dinner.”

Also? That claim that “it’s a statement of religious observance; it’s saying, ‘I am a devout Muslim woman’” is bullshit. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about “covering up.” It’s about filthy harlots covering up so that men won’t be forced to rape them.

Mr Trad said the council project would be criticised by some, but it was a positive way for non-Muslims to get a different perspective.

No, it is not, because – to repeat – it’s directed only at women.

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

George Galloway has begun legal proceedings to have the result of the Bradford West byelection set aside.

Well naturally. He lost, so naturally he’s demanding that his loss be set aside. Never let it be said that he takes such an insult lying down.

Galloway won the Bradford West seat for his Respect party in a byelection in 2012, but he was defeated on Thursday by Labour’s Naz Shah, who secured a majority of more than 11,000 following a bitter campaign.

On Sunday night, Galloway said on Twitter: “We’ve begun legal proceedings seeking to have result of the Bfd West election set aside. I cannot therefor discuss my own election for now.” His spokesman said the legal action was at an early stage but was a complaint under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This relates to candidates making false statements during campaigns.

Oh yes? Galloway’s the one who said Naz Shah’s marriage wasn’t forced because her mother attended the wedding. What about that for a false statement?

A Labour spokesman said: “This is pathetic and without any foundation. George Galloway should accept he was booted out by the people of Bradford West. They saw through his divisive politics and made a positive choice, by a majority of well over 11,000, to elect a brilliant new MP, Naz Shah.”

The guy is a skunk.

⇑ Opinion. ⇑

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

A feminist student was murdered in April. It looks likely that she was murdered because she was a feminist. The university didn’t do much to prevent her murder.

The University of Mary Washington’s campus in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was hit by a spate of violent threats against a feminist student group for months leading up to the alleged murder of a group member in April. Documents provided to The Huffington Post show the administration was keenly aware of the continued harassment, which was posted on the anonymous messaging app Yik Yak, but a federal complaint filed Thursday alleges the public university failed to act on this knowledge and permitted a hostile environment against female students.

Police have not revealed a possible motive for student’s killing and the complaint does not state the school is responsible for her death, nor does it explicitly connect the threats to her killing.

A feminist club had complained to the student senate about fraternities; harassment ensued.

The harassment continued and escalated in the spring, when complaints from club led the university to suspend its club rugby team over a sexist chant some of its members had performed at a party.

Grace Mann, a Feminists United Club member who had been subject to Yik Yak threats of physical and sexual violence, was killed on April 17 by asphyxia by strangulation. Steven Vander Briel, Mann’s roommate and a former member of the rugby team, was arrested later that day and charged with first-degree murder in connection with her death.

Maybe there’s no connection between the two.

Also at the Nov. 23 party, the complaint alleges, a member of the rugby team shouted he wanted to hit a woman. A male who told the rugby member that was not an appropriate joke allegedly was then bullied by rugby team members who called him a “pussy,” according to the complaint. A copy of the complaint and dozens of related emails and screenshots were shared with The Huffington Post.

Men in the UK still try to tell me that “pussy” is absolutely not a sexist epithet in any way, it just means fraidy-cat.

Julia Michels, a club member, emailed the UMW administration on March 25 to explain how members were threatened “with both physical and sexual violence, and have had countless derogatory and misogynistic slurs directed at us.” The club had collected 200 examples of violent posts on Yik Yak directed at them, Michels said. A week later, that number grew to 700.

On March 27, the campus received an email noting the university “has no recourse for such cyber bullying,” but urging students to report direct threats. One student sent a response on March 30 stating, “We have evidence of these posts and have showed them to administrators, and your response is to ‘report them to yik yak’? an app that was created by two fraternity guys? We have been trying to do this for months and this approach clearly has not worked in the slightest.”

That’s so typical. The response almost always seems to be “oh gosh, that’s terrible, if it gets any worse be sure to report it.” When they just did report it! It’s always jam tomorrow.

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

Punch up.

Cartoon by Chip Bok.

H/t Pieter Breitner

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

CEMB partay on June 20th.

Join us for appetisers, drinks, music, speeches and laughs to celebrate the CEMB’s 8th anniversary.
Saturday 20 June 2015, 1500-1800 Hours at a location near London Kings Cross/St Pancras stations

Speakers and acts include: Philosopher A C Grayling, Iraqi British Singer Alya Marquardt, Secular activist Aliyah Saleem, Council of Ex-Muslims of Morocco Founder Imad Iddine Habib, Comedian Kate Smurthwaite, Author Kenan Malik, Southall Black Sisters Director Pragna Patel, CEMB Spokesperson Maryam Namazie and more.

Tickets: £18 (waged); £10 (unwaged)

To register, please email your name and mobile number to exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com. You can purchase your ticket(s) via Paypal or by sending a cheque made payable to ‘CEMB’ to: BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX.

Space is limited so buy your tickets today.

No tickets will be sold at the door.

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

What’s wrong with this picture?

The caption on the page:

Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK

To insult someone, to be offensive, provocative or racist is not only uncivilised, rude and disrespectful, but also causes societies to live in misery with anger and tension. Those that find this acceptable or support this concept should enlighten us why this is beneficial to society/an individual. How can we expect to build civilised, unified societies if we encourage everyone to insult one another? To respect others is a basic human property.

What rule exists for one community, should exist for others too; the double standards of free speech controlled by those in power against the powerless needs to be eliminated. There needs to be recognition that ‘Freedom of speech’ is not the starting point, rather respect should be the starting point, and both go hand in hand.

That’s thoroughly confused.

“Muhammed” stands for an intrusive oppressive religion that treats women as inferiors and persecutes outsiders as “kuffar.” The power of the “Muhammed” is illegitimate and harmful. We need to resist it, and criticizing or mocking “Muhammed” is one way of doing that. It is not at all the same thing as insulting Muslims as a group.

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

One silver lining…

Norway has scrapped its longstanding blasphemy law, meaning it is now legal to mock the beliefs of others, in a direct response to January’s brutal attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The proposal to rush through the change was made in February by Conservative MP Anders B. Werp and Progress Party MP Jan Arild Ellingsen, who argued that the law “underpins a perception that religious expressions and symbols are entitled to a special protection”.

“This is very unfortunate signal to send, and it is time that society clearly stands up for freedom of speech,” the two wrote in their proposal.

Quite right. To an American it seems strange to see a Conservative proposing it – conservatives here want to force their religion on everyone every chance they get. Or rather, some of them do, but the ones who don’t vote for the ones who do, because taxes, baby.

But the change will be largely symbolic.

The last time anyone was tried for blasphemy in Norway was back in 1933, when the writer Arnulf Overland was prosecuted for giving a lecture titled “Christianity, the tenth plague” to the Norwegian Students’ Society. He was acquitted.

The last time anyone was actually convicted was in 1912, when the journalist Arnfred Olsen was taken to court for an article criticising Christianity in the radical magazine Freethinkers.

Oh yes? Snap. G W Foote, The Freethinker:

Charles Bradlaugh, then the leader of the secularist movement, soon recognised Foote’s abilities and allowed him to play an increasingly important role in the British freeethought movement. Foote contributed many articles to Bradlaugh’s National Reformer and in 1876 founded his own magazine, The Secularist. This was followed by his major publishing success, The Freethinker, which began in 1881 and is still in existence today.

In 1882 Foote was charged with blasphemy for having published a number of biblical cartoons in The Freethinker. These had been modelled after a series of French cartoons that had appeared earlier.

Eerie, isn’t it.

And I have the honor of writing a column for that same The Freethinker. Last month’s was about Garry Trudeau and Charlie Hebdo.

After a series of trials Foote was found guilty in 1883 and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment by Justice North, a Catholic judge. (“The sentence is worthy of your creed,” Foote responded.)  The Freethinker carried the banner headline “Prosecuted for Blasphemy” during this period, probably increasing its sales.

Yes, persecution will do that.

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

Originally a comment by veil_of_ignorance on A sneer too many.

I have now read this obscurantist, condescending, self-indulgent essay several times, trying to find some sentence, which resolves its apparent, more than prominent contradictions.

Many other commenters have already pointed out that Zakaria never mentions Islamism, never speaks of the heterogeneity of opinion in the Muslim community regarding CH, regarding blasphemy, regarding religion and politics; instead she speaks of Muslim opinion and Muslim subjectivity as if there was only one. All while permanently lamenting the fact that Muslims are ‘otherized’ in Western society, i.e. viewed as monolithic group and represented in malevolent terms. The irony of this was of course not lost on me; and it struck me that ‘otherization’ is crucial for Zakaria’s argument. While she is certainly opposed to the malevolence against Muslims in Western society [let’s call it negative ‘negative otherization’], she fully buys into the [positive] ‘otherization’ of the ‘cultural studies’ variety, which is justified with the concepts of postmodern différence or contextual epistemology or contextual schemes or whatever. If you take away the idea of collective Muslim otherness and special treatment as a group, her essay would fall apart. Zakaria is self-orientalized.

Zakaria talks a lot about subjectivity and moral aversion/moral hurt (I see these terms as mutually redundant and also see a large congruence with Martha Nussbaum’s concept of moral disgust). She then uses the poststructuralist / postcolonialist commonplace that moral judgments – in these concepts the ones made by Western liberals regarding free speech, by Walzer regarding FGM and by Touraine regarding cultural rights – are always informed by subjective or cultural sensitivities and that our “universal moral values” are in consequence hegemonically Western. The main argument of the first half of the essay is then – in my view – that while Western liberals are allowed to present their “objective”, “rational” (a.k.a. subjective and affective) ideas about moral issues such as free speech, Muslims are not able to do so without being called irrational and illiberal.

A general critique of this idea was delivered elsewhere, e.g. by Jürgen Habermas in 1981. Specifically, the problem with the ‘Human rights / liberal ideas / universal values / objective ideas are imperialist/racist/hegemonic’ is that they are themselves based on universal normative sentiments (that imperialism, racism and hegemony are morally objectionable) and on objective truth claims and thus create a problem of self-reference. Why should I give a shit that Muslim subjectivity is branded as irrational while Western subjectivity is not? The answer to that question must necessarily be linked to some kind of universalized, moral “truth”.

While Walzer’s and Tourrain’s writing might be poisoned by the language of disgust, they provide arguments in the end. Walzer for instance invokes the harm principle (as Nussbaum did to contrast the morality of disgust). Zakaria on the other hand never even tries to argue beyond her call for the recognition of Muslim subjectivity.

The main point here is however, that even if Zakaria’s idea about the implicit subjectivity of moral statements would be true, the way that we treat Muslim interlocutors in this debate is not extraordinary all. Whenever we argue and strongly disagree with somebody, we tend to question their objectivity, the consistency of their ideas, and so on. The racist lady in the subway that Zakaria describes in the beginning was acting correctly according to her own subjective ideas (otherwise she simply would not have acted that way). When Zakaria criticizes the behavior of that lady, she deems the subjective opinion of that lady irrational. This is what happens in everyday discourse all the time – simple as that.

So when Zakaria laments that Muslims are treated like this, she is arguing in favor of a positive ‘othering’ – i.e. of a privileged treatment of Muslim subjectivity (the concept of which is absurd in itself) in discourse. Self-othering is central to Zakaria’s worldview. Accordingly, she is not even able to see this debate beyond the Hungtingtonian West vs. Muslim antagonism. She is not able to see Westerners and Muslims as heterogeneous political interlocutors who are defined by more than their religious identity. While she clearly realizes that the CH cartoonists and the many journalists in the MENA region were killed by the same political actors, she is unable to make a link between both because that would require a rearrangement of the political fault lines beyond her narrow conception of ‘otherized’ identity.

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

Sometimes showing people the doors, showing them that the doors are not locked, that they can walk through them any time they like, can cause them pain. Sometimes people want security and enclosure so badly that they don’t want the doors to be open. They see us as violating their freedom to believe that there are no doors, by showing them so clearly where the doors are and how free of locks they are.

This is collateral damage. There is possible collateral damage with most things we can say and argue. Some people don’t want to hear that men are not the natural permanent superiors of women, or that white people are not the natural permanent superiors of everyone else. Some people don’t want to hear that their odds of winning the lottery are very low. Some people don’t want to hear that some other people think their favorite movie sucks. Some people don’t want to hear that the Tories won the election, and I don’t blame them.

But other people need to know the doors are there and unlocked, and the only way we can tell them that is by telling – potentially – everyone. We have to make it public, available knowledge. We have to accept the collateral damage.

The need to know how to escape trumps the need to believe there is no escape.

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

The thoughts in the previous were prompted partly by reading Caroline Wyatt’s summing up of the Charlie Hebdo discussions at the BBC.

The deaths at the magazine prompted waves of soul-searching about free speech, and whether cartoons that deliberately set out to offend are worth defending – especially when they sought to mock and satirize a religion and a figure that so many hold dear.

That kind of claim prompts such thoughts. Yes, many hold their religion dear; yes, many hold particular figures – however long-dead – in their religion dear. Is that a reason to treat the religions and the figures as taboo? It can’t be, because that very holding dear is one of the mechanisms that keeps people in thrall to the religions and the figures. The thrall is a bad thrall. It could be a good thrall, in a different world – it could be one that motivates people to be more kind and generous and loving, and nothing else ever. But it isn’t. The thrall motivates people to feel rage at people who aren’t in thrall, for a start. It even motivates people to feel rage at people who are in thrall to a slightly different version of the figure, or a “wrong” descendant of the figure, or a different way of paying homage to the figure. We have to challenge the thrall.

Even the Pope weighed in that month, as he flew from Sri Lanka to the Philippines.

On the plane travelling with him, we watched transfixed as he responded to a journalist’s question about whether there were any limits to free speech.

Despite stating clearly and at some length that nobody should be murdered over what they thought or drew or wrote, Pope Francis had no doubt that there were limits.

Swinging his arm to demonstrate, he made clear that if his friend insulted what was most dear to him – his mother, for example – that friend could expect a punch.

It was not what many liberal fans of the Pontiff had expected.

Well that was silly of them, because the institution the pontiff is at the top of is in no way a liberal institution. Someone who climbs to the top of an illiberal institution is not very likely to be liberal, because the institution doesn’t reward liberality.

[T]his has been a testing week for those who care passionately about that debate, creating strange bedfellows in defence of free speech – or rather, the right to offend.

It even united the initiator of the controversial “draw the Prophet Mohammed” cartoon contest in Texas, where two gunmen were shot dead after opening fire on a security guard, with the rather more left-wing supporters of PEN, an organization that campaigns for freedom of speech for authors, writers and cartoonists wherever they may live and work.

No, it didn’t, really. We’re not united. Pamela Geller is what the addled protesters think Charlie Hebdo is. The protesters are wrong.

Before the 9/11 attacks, it is hard to imagine Texas having a “draw the Prophet Mohammed” contest.

And while few in the US will have much sympathy with the would-be killers, many ordinary people – religious or not – will be looking on in despair.

Because what is becoming clear is that the fundamentalism of this new generation of radical Islamists risks provoking an extreme reaction from some of those espousing the cause of unlimited freedom and liberty.

The danger is that tolerance and respect for our differences – and for each other – could be the loser; the very principles that many came to America and Europe to enjoy and uphold.

There are differences and then there are differences. Not all differences should be respected. The Texas shooters – and the Paris ones – were different; we don’t have to respect that difference.

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

So what are we supposed to do? If we accept the idea that challenging Islam inevitably means challenging the followers of Islam, i.e. Muslims, what are we to do about that? Stop challenging Islam, in order to avoid giving pain to Muslims or pleasure to people who like to bully Muslims?

The concern is a real one. It is of course true that challenges to a religion will give pain to some of its followers, assuming they are aware of them. We don’t know how large a fraction of those followers, or how severe the pain will be, but we can be reasonably sure neither number will be zero. It’s also true that challenges to a religion will give a nasty form of pleasure to people who like to bully its followers. Again we don’t know the numbers, but we know from observing people like Pamela Geller that they’re not zero.

So should we observer a precautionary principle, and just decide to refrain, to be on the safe side?

We could, but the trouble is, there’s harm in the other direction too. There’s harm in making a religion immune to challenges, because religions by their nature wield massive arbitrary unaccountable power over their followers. If nobody challenges a particular religion, its power becomes even more arbitrary and unaccountable. That power is most thoroughly exercised on its own followers.

Most religions are intended to be closed circles. It’s not supposed to be easy to leave; it’s supposed to be very difficult. Putting a religion beyond the reach of challenge makes it that much harder to leave; it also makes it harder to interpret in a liberal direction, or modify, or cherry-pick.

People who challenge religion can be a nuisance to religious believers but they – I mean we – can also be their allies. We’re on the outside showing them where the doors are and how easy it is to open them.

So I don’t think we do even devout followers of religions a real favor by refraining from challenging their religions.

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