Richard Dawkins tweeted yesterday:

changerofbits ‏@changerofbits 21 hours ago
@RichardDawkins Why are trusting anything to Jonathan Monsarrat at RDF/SPI? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/02413623115/bogus-lawsuit-plus-threats-to-those-who-write-about-it-leads-to-epic-response.shtml … Because he’ll sue you if you don’t?

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins
@changerofbits If, by RDF, you mean the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Monsarrat has no connection with it.

At the Richard Dawkins Foundation:

Here’s another one.

And then there’s this public Facebook announcement in 2013:

Call for Volunteers

Johnny Monsarrat is a volunteer traveling with the Richard Dawkins book tour, which is coming to DC on Sep 29 and 30.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation is about to announce some big new projects and to make an impact with the media and decision-makers, we need numbers. Our goal is to add 100,000 signups to our newsletter by November 1. At each event, we need a dozen volunteers to help us work a table in the lobby, speak with people, and pass around clipboards with sign up forms. Free tickets to the event will be provided to volunteers on the evening of the event IF it is not sold out.

Please contact Johnny directly via email if you can help: johnny@secularconnect.org

And there’s Johnny Monsarrat’s own page at the Secular Policy Institute:

Click to enlarge.

So, no connection with the Richard Dawkins Foundation? No connection at all?

Really?

H/t Hj Hornbeck

Updating to add: More – lots more – in a new post by Hj Hornbeck.

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

An ad aimed at Brendan O’Neill and people who admire him.

It’s not fake. It’s from a campaign for Basics, a clothing company in Chennai. Here’s the ad with the man in question.

Source

It’s the Clarkson-O’Neill version of “manhood” – be the biggest bully you can possibly be, and congratulate yourself on being it.

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

The BBC provides a suitably barely-literate piece on the subject of the closure of Loaded magazine.

Loaded magazine, one of the so-called “lads’ magazines” of the mid-1990s, is to close down, publisher Simian said.

…

At its peak, its diet of football, alcohol, and music brought it a six-figure readership. But as it went through several ownership changes, circulation fell.

Loaded and other “lads’ mags” attracted criticism from feminists and others for the number of scantily-clad women in each edition.

Because feminists and others have the daft idea that women shouldn’t be considered consumer items along with alcohol and music.

Analysis: David Sillito, media and arts correspondent

Drinking, football, drugs, music and pictures of girls usually wearing only underwear or less, Loaded defined the “lad” culture of the 1990s. But things have moved on. Sales have in 15 years fallen from 350, 000 to around 30, 000. Its weekly rival Nuts has already gone under.

However, that does not mean the market for girls, games, gadgets and a visual mixture – of funny, revolting and humiliating pictures has died – it’s just migrated to Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and hundreds of other websites.

See what I mean about barely-literate? Yeesh.

The Lad Bible, for instance, is only three years old but is in Britain receiving (according to Alexa web analytics) more web traffic than the two leading online papers – the Daily Mail and The Guardian.

Magazine culture is dying not “Lad Culture” and you can see it every time you log on.

Was the copy editor home with a cold that day or what?

Anyway, Loaded is leaving but “Lad Culture” lives on, to cheers and confetti from Brendan O’Neill.

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

Ted Cruz might first of all want to get his facts straight.

Speaking to the Texas Tribune on Tuesday, Cruz said that contemporary “global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

“You know it used to be it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier,” he said.

Nuh-uh-uh. It was not accepted scientific wisdom that the Earth was flat in Galileo’s day. (Think about it. If it had been, why the hell would Cristoforo Colombo have sailed west in the expectation of reaching China?) It hadn’t been for a long time.

In Cruz’s opinion, when it comes to climate change, his denier position places him alongside 17th Century scientist Galileo Galilei, who was also considered to be denying the mainstream knowledge of his day. According to Cruz’s logic, he is taking the minority view that human-caused climate change is not happening, just as Galileo took the minority view that the scientific method should be trusted over the Catholic Church.

Yeah well, that’s related to the old “they laughed when I sat down at the piano” fallacy, aka the “they laughed at Beethoven” fallacy. In the demotic: just because they laugh at you doesn’t mean you’re Beethoven. A minority view isn’t automatically true by virtue of being a minority view. Also, of course, it’s highly debatable how “mainstream” the idea of climate change is.

As the website Skeptical Science points out, “the comparison is exactly backwards.”

“Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered,” the website reads. “Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo’s belief-based critics in the Catholic Church.”

President Obama seems to have gotten the analogy correct when he said in 2013 that “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society” when it comes to doing something about climate change.

It’s more amusing, too.

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

Via Reba Boyd Wooden of CFI-Indiana, the IndyStar shared a photo of the governor signing Indiana’s new RFRA.

Here’s a photo of Governor Mike Pence signing the controversial “religious freedom” bill this morning in a private ceremony in his Statehouse office, tweeted by official Twitter account.

We’re updating this story as fast as we’re learning more information: http://indy.st/19nosUu

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

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

Reuters reports:

Saudi Arabia has decided to send its envoy back to Sweden, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television said on Friday, in a move that will ease a diplomatic row over the Arab country’s human rights record.

I hope that doesn’t mean Sweden has crawled or begged or, especially, withdrawn anything Margot Wallström said.

Saudi Arabia withdrew its envoy earlier this month over Swedish criticism of the monarchy’s treatment of women and dissidents.

In January, Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom tweeted criticism of Saudi Arabia’s flogging of human rights activist blogger Raif Badawi, calling it a “cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression”.

She has also criticized policies affecting women, who cannot drive cars and need permission from a male guardian for many decisions.

Riyadh then canceled a speech Wallstrom had been due to give to the League of Arab States, and Stockholm later ended a long-standing defense cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia.

Wallström said true things about Saudi Arabia. I hope she hasn’t been forced to take any of them back.

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

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown notes and laments a retreat from progressive values among Muslims.

The hijab, jilbab, burqa and niqab are visible signs of this retreat from progressive values.

This article will divide people. Women I respect and like wear hijabs and jilbabs to articulate their faith and identity. Others do so to follow their dreams, to go into higher education or jobs. And an increasing number are making a political statement. I am not assuming that the coverings all represent simple oppression. What I am saying is that many women who take up the veil, in any of its forms, do so without delving fully into its implications, significance or history. Their choice, even if independently made, may not be fully examined.

The claim that it’s a “choice” and that that fact preempts everything else that could be said about it is very peculiar given the existence of so many places where it’s not only not a choice, it’s enforced with violence, including lethal violence.

Huda Shaarawi set up the Egyptian women’s union in the early 1920s. One day in 1923, as she disembarked from a train in Cairo, she threw off her veil and claimed her right to be visible. Educated Iranian women started feminist magazines and campaigned against the veil around the same time. These pioneers have been written out of history or are dismissed as western stooges by some contemporary Muslim intellectuals.

After the transformative 60s, Muslim feminists resumed the fight for equality. European rule was over. It was time. The Moroccan academic Fatema Mernissi, Egypt’s Nawal El Saadawi and the Pakistani scholar Riffat Hassan all argued for female emancipation. They rightly saw the veil as a a tool and symbol of oppression and subservience. Mernissi’s Beyond the Veil ( 1975) is a classic text. So too El Saadawi’s The Hidden Face of Eve (1975).

Mona Eltahawy’s Headscarves and Hymens can now be added to that list.

But do those who choose to veil think of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and even the west, who are prosecuted, flogged, tortured or killed for not complying? This is not a freestanding choice – it can’t be. Although we hear from vocal British hijabis and niqabis, those who are forced cannot speak out. A fully burqaed woman once turned up at my house, a graduate, covered in cuts, burns, bruises and bites. Do we know how many wounded, veiled women walk around hidden among us?

The burqa has many uses.

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

Wo! Here’s one bit of good news amid all the horrors and fatuities – Priss Choss can’t keep his bullying letters to government ministers a secret after all.

The UK supreme court has cleared the way for the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles to British government ministers, declaring that an attempt by the state to keep them concealed was unlawful.

The verdict – the culmination of a 10-year legal fight by the Guardian – is a significant blow for the government, which has been battling to protect the Prince of Wales from scrutiny over his “particularly frank” interventions on public policy.

In 2012, Dominic Grieve, then attorney general, said the correspondence contained the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and disclosure might undermine his “position of political neutrality”, which he might not easily be able to recover when king.

Interesting argument, isn’t it – the priss has been the opposite of politically neutral, so that has to be kept secret, so that people will think he’s politically neutral, even though he isn’t.

The 27 letters were sent between Charles and ministers in seven government departments in 2004 and 2005. Five of the seven judges in the supreme court ruled in favour of the Guardian’s case to see the letters. The verdict was delivered on Thursday by Lord Neuberger, the president of the court.

The judges concluded that Grieve did not have the legal power to veto a freedom of information tribunal, which had decided the memos should be published.

Cameron doesn’t see it the way I do. His government might redact parts of the letters. He thinks the royals should be meddling with government, because after all, they are the royals.

Cameron said: “This is a disappointing judgment and we will now consider how to release these letters. This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough.”

Not a bit of it. What’s fair about it? What’s “fair” about inheriting a right to whisper in the government’s ear?

In 2012, the tribunal ruled that the correspondence between the prince and ministers in Tony Blair’s government should be made public. The tribunal said it was in the public interest “for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government”.

Grieve overruled the tribunal, arguing that publication of the letters between September 2004 and April 2005 would seriously damage the Prince of Wales’s kingship.

All the more reason to make them public, you fucking fool. “Oh no, you mustn’t see the letters, because if you did, you wouldn’t want him as king at any price.” “Oh well then, you’re right, keep them hidden.” Yeah that’s not how this works.

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

Speaking of cartoons, and cartoonists…two cartoonists in Turkey have been sentenced to 11 months in prison for a cartoon about Erdoğan.

A senior Council of Europe (CoE) official has expressed concern over an increase in the number of criminal cases for alleged insults against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, condemning the recent sentencing of two Turkish cartoonists, Bahadır Baruter and Özer Aydoğan.

“I am very concerned about reports from Turkey indicating that there is an increase in the number of criminal cases for alleged insults against the president of the Turkish Republic. In this connection, I condemn the recent sentencing of cartoonists Bahadır Baruter and Özer Aydoğan,” CoE Commissioner for Human Rights Nils Muižnieks said in a written statement March 26.

If anyone is supposed to be wide open to satire and mockery, it’s people who have real power over others, like oh say heads of state for example.

“This sentence is misguided and, along with a pattern of criminal prosecutions, sends a chilling message to media professionals and all those who want to exercise their right to free expression. I urge the authorities to decriminalize defamation, including by repealing the offence of insulting the president of the Republic, in order to restore a more serene climate in which freedom of expression can be safely exercised.”

Baruter and Aydoğan, cartoonists for the popular satirical weekly Penguen, were sentenced to 11 months in prison over a satirical piece on free speech, in which they were convicted of including a hidden gesture which was said to “insult” Erdoğan. In the cartoon, Erdoğan is seen asking whether officials at the new presidential palace in Ankara have prepared “any journalists to slaughter,” referring to ritual sacrifice in Islam, to mark his inauguration.

A popular satirical weekly, eh? Why does that sound familiar…

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

George Zimmerman, the guy who shot Trayvon Martin to death, says he’s a great guy but Obama’s a baddy. Or something.

Zimmerman lashed out in a 13-minute video posted online Monday by his lawyer. He said with the Justice Department investigation behind him, he finally felt he could speak out “without fear of retaliation” by the president.

Dude. You’re the one who followed Trayvon Martin for no reason, not Obama.

In the video, Zimmerman compared his ideals to those of Anne Frank, saying, “I still believe that people are truly good at heart, as Anne Frank has said, and I will put myself in any position to help another human in any way I can.”

So he’s saying that Trayvon Martin wasn’t another human? Because he can’t think he put himself in a position to help Trayvon Martin, now can he.

At any rate, he’s cool with it. He’s glad he “survived” and he doesn’t feel guilty that Trayvon didn’t, that is, that Trayvon died of being shot by him.

He said he would only feel guilty for Martin’s death if he thought he could have saved both Martin’s life and his own that night.

“Only in a true life or death scenario can you have mental clearness to know that you cannot feel guilty for surviving,” he said. “Had I had a fraction of the thought that I could have done something differently, acted differently so that both of us who survived, then I would have heavier weight on my shoulders. That sense in the back of my mind but in all fairness you cannot as a human feel guilty for living, for surviving.”

You can if you’ve killed someone for no reason. Sure you can.

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

A blog post from Feminist Freethinkers of New York.

Today I was approached by a highly placed individual in one of the ever-mounting number of secular coalitions. He wished for Reasonable New York and specifically Feminist Freethinkers to join their coalition.

RNY has chosen not to join any national coalitions as we are simply a local group whose main mission is to help promote the local member organizations.

I thought perhaps Feminist Freethinkers might benefit from such a relationship. But I did my research and realized that it was not a good fit for us. I tried to explain this to him and all hell broke loose.

First he insulted FFNY exclaiming that we didn’t really “do anything”. Then he went on to defend his organization ending with this choice line:

“I’m starting to believe that the reason the secular movement doesn’t have more women is the women. Prove me wrong.”

Golly – a highly placed individual in one of the ever-mounting number of secular coalitions turns out to be one of the people who spend all their time verbally attacking (feminist) women? You’d think they would have better filters than that.

I replied: “If you thought this approach would work you are dead wrong. It is offensive and ignorant. And it will be shared I can assure you.” To which he sent me an “Ethical fuck you.”

He spoke frequently of the “rage” and infighting within the movement and was clueless how he was contributing to it!

Good grief. Way to coalition-build.

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