Charlie Klendjian of the Lawyers’ Secular Society gave a talk yesterday at UCL ASH. He pointed out that “offence” is, in some contexts, code for blasphemy.

So, somehow we have accepted that we are allowed to cause offence generally, and we’re even allowed to offend virtually all religious sensibilities, for example with films such as the Life of Brian, artwork showing a crucifix in urine, or plays about Mormonism.

So it appears there is one exception to this rule that we’re generally allowed to cause offence. That exception, as we have seen, is Islam. Islam is refusing to play by the rules. We are not allowed to offend Islam.

I think we need a different word to “offence” for the purposes of this discussion. Don’t you? How about, I don’t know, the word “blasphemy”? Shall we just call it what it is? It’s blasphemy.

Because when we use the term “offence” we are really using a code word for blasphemy.

Today, we are living under a blasphemy law. And the saddest thing is, most people can’t even bring themselves to admit this.

I wonder if the not admitting is partly because people think it’s not a blasphemy law when it applies only to someone else’s god – when you obey it to be generous to others, as opposed to when bristling in defense of your own gods. Vicarious blasphemy doesn’t count as blasphemy, perhaps.

Unfortunately I have to report that nothing has really changed since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, as far as I can see. Of course everyone found it very easy to condemn murder, as they should, but they didn’t find it quite so easy to unequivocally defend the right to free speech – and in particular the right to depict Mohammed. And they found it harder still to actually physically exercise that right to depict Mohammed.

Charlie Hebdo wasn’t a turning point; it was just the next step in a rapid downward spiral.

If anything was going to be the turning point, it should have been this. If anything was going to create the “I am Spartacus” moment across the media and the press, it should have been this.

Unfortunately it didn’t happen. There were some exceptions, for example theIndependent and even the Guardian of all newspapers printed an image, and the BBC showed an image on the 10 o’clock News, on Newsnight, on Panorama, and on its website.

But the other papers bottled it, the Spectator bottled it, and even Private Eye bottled it.

The New York Times bottled it.

What can we do? Blaspheme more.

But let me end on a positive note by talking about the solution. I know my speech has been downbeat. Forgive me, but as a secularist and an Armenian and a lawyer I occupy a unique position on the Venn diagram of pessimism.

How do you solve the problem of this blasphemy code? It’s so easy, it’s embarrassing. You don’t have to lobby Parliament, you don’t need to start a political party, nothing like that. There’s only one way to repeal this blasphemy code – and that’s by breaching it. Over and over and over again. Do it loudly and do it proudly, and don’t apologise. If someone asks you why you’re depicting Mohammed, say “someone has to”.

Is it scary? Yes of course it is. But the more of us who do it, the less scary it becomes. We have to spread the risk, and we have to use the power of ridicule to isolate the nutcases – and their apologists.

Well, I now have my blasphemous copy of blasphemous Charlie Hebdo.

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

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.)

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.)