Here’s a new one, via a comment by Marie-Thérèse. From the Irish Independent in August 2010:

A CLERICAL child abuse victim revealed the full horror yesterday of the ‘human guinea pig’ drug trials carried out in church-run children’s homes.

Hundreds of children are feared to have been subjected to the experimental trials while in the care of the Catholic Church.

Now the victims’ cases could be reopened, as calls for the Government to deal with the scandal intensifies.

Legal action is being planned against  GlaxoSmithKline and the Sacred Heart Order, which allowed the tests at the Bessborough Mother and Baby Home in Cork.

Campaigner and abuse survivor John Barrett, who was born at the home outside Cork city, was used as a ‘human guinea pig’ while in Lota industrial school, also in Cork.

You can explain about that, too, please, Vatican.

More than 25,000 youngsters spent time in Irish orphanages between 1960 and 1975, the period when the controversial one-in-four trials are believed to have taken place.

Kevin Cooney of the Adopted And Fostered Persons’ Association said: “These orphans were society’s most innocent and vulnerable people.

“The State participated in abusing the rights of children in their care. That is indefensible. There must be a full disclosure.”

Meanwhile Health Minister  Mary Harney has been called on to instruct her officials to make available all relevant information regarding the ongoing vaccine trials.

The call comes following Mari Steed, 50, breaking her silence on Friday, in the Irish Independent, into how she was subjected to a controversial vaccine trial as a baby without her mother’s consent.

She said she the trial were carried out on her between December 1960 and October 1961, when she was between nine and 18 months old.

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

Oh now that’s satisfying to read…

A United Nations panel is demanding that the Vatican hand over detailed information on child sex abuse cases involving Catholic clergy.

In a document published online, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has asked the Vatican to come clean with how it addresses children’s rights around the world, including what measures it takes when dealing with sexual violence.

See what I mean? No bowing, no scraping, no apologies, no deference, no reverence, no extra “respect”; instead, demanding that the secretive lawbreaking self-serving bastards hand over the information. It is about.fucking.time.

The panel, which polices the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, wants the Catholic Church to reveal confidential records on investigations and legal proceedings against clergy members accused of sexual crimes on children.

The Geneva-based committee also wants to know what measures are being taken to ensure that clergy members accused of sexual abuses are not in contact with children and how members are told to report allegations of sexual violence.

The document mentions specific cases of abuse, including the Magdalene Laundries, which were Catholic-run workhouses in Ireland where thousands of women and girls were forced to work unpaid and under harsh conditions. The committee wants any records looking into complaints of torture and inhumane treatment as well as information on the number of babies taken away from their mothers at the laundries.

It also wants records on investigations into the Legion of Christ in Mexico, where young boys have accused the congregation of separating them from their families.

Good, good, good. Also the Irish industrial “schools”? Also the infants in Spain stolen from their parents and sold to adoptive parents? Also the children in Australia sent to the Christian “brothers” to be abused? It’s a long, long, long list of cruel destructive shit the Catholic church has done to children over the past many decades.

Michael Nugent has the whole list of questions.

The UN Committee will question the Vatican at a hearing next January, and it has first asked the Vatican to respond in writing to the questions by November.

The questions cover

• Who was involved in preparing the Holy See’s report
• Measures taken by the Holy See to implement the Convention
• The training given to all religious personnel who work with children
• Discrimination between children in Catholic schools and institutions,
• Labeling children born outside wedlock as “illegitimate children”
• The right of children to be heard and to express their views freely on all matter affecting them
• The complaints of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the Magdalene’s laundries in Ireland
• Preventing all forms of corporal punishment of children in all settings, with particular reference to the Ryan Report in Ireland
• Preventing violence against children in the family
• Detailed information on all cases of child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, brothers and nuns or brought to the attention of the Holy See
• Allegations of the Legion of Christ separating boys from their families
• Measures to protect the rights of abandoned children

That’s a big to-do list. The Vatican is going to be very busy between now and November.

5. Please indicate the steps taken to address discrimination between children in Catholic schools and institutions, in particular with regard to gender, and to promote equality between girls and boys. In particular, please indicate the measures taken to remove from catholic schools textbooks all sex stereotyping which may limit the development of the talents and abilities of boys and girls and undermine their educational and life opportunities.

That’s a real stumper. What can they say? They don’t promote equality between girls and boys; they don’t believe in it. What will they say? The usual waffle about how women are “complementary” but must not abandon their womany natures? The UN won’t find that acceptable, I should think. This could be fascinating.

6. Please indicate whether the Holy See still label children born outside wedlock as “illegitimate children” and whether it has assessed the consequences on the use of such terminology on the rights of these children.

That’s how children got sent to places like Goldenbridge, you know – because the priests labeled them “illegitimate” and grabbed them away from their parents.

7. Please provide information on the concrete measures taken by the State party to promote and protect the right of children to be heard and to express their views freely in all matters affecting them in accordance with article 12 of the Convention. Please also clarify the statement contained in paragraph 23a of the State party’s report that “the inherent dignity of the child is founded on something more profound than his ability to express his views”.

Oh, zing. They’re telling the Vatican to keep their pious bullshit.

8. Please indicate whether an investigation was conducted by the Holy See into the complaints of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and of subjection to force labour of girls held in the Magdalene’s laundries run by Catholic Sisters in Ireland until 1996. If so, please provide the Committee with the main findings of such an investigation. In particular, please provide detailed information on:
(a) The proceedings engaged against all those found responsible within these congregations, and against all those who financially benefitted from the forced labour done by girls in the laundries;
(b) The number of babies taken away from their mothers in the Magdalene’s laundries, placed in catholic orphanages or given for adoption as well as on the measures taken to reunite mothers with their children, and the efforts to ensure full disclosure of all information on the whereabouts of all these children;
(c) The compensation as well as the rehabilitation measures, including medical, psychological and social services provided to the victims of the Magdalene’s laundries who are still experiencing long lasting consequences of the abuse suffered when they were children.

Of course nothing like that was done. The Vatican spokespriests said they were very very sad about the whole thing and now could we please change the subject to the evils of secularism. That’s what was done, and not one bit more.

I wonder what will happen when the Vatican fails to comply. Anything? The UN isn’t famous for being good at enforcement…

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

For the first time in Bangladesh someone has been prosecuted and convicted for the murder of a journalist.

Shortly before his murder in November 2005, Das published a series of reports for the Dhaka-based daily Samakal, detailing corruption by BNP officials, according to news reports. His body was found strangled in his bureau in the town of Faridpur, 40 miles outside the capital. The following day, Das’ colleague filed a complaint with local police, accusing 10 individuals in connection with the murder, many of whom were members of the then-ruling BNP, according to reports.  

But the long road to justice was pitted with potholes. One of the accused died during the course of the trial. Others were released on bail. Witnesses scared of testifying backed out, according to Saleem Samad, a local journalist who knew Das. And in 2006, the case was transferred from the local district court to the Dhaka Speedy Tribunal Court 1 for an expedited judgment after pressure from local journalists. One defendant challenged the legality of this transfer, resulting in further delays.

Seven years later, this “speedy” court delivered its decision. While many journalists and press freedom advocates have welcomed the verdict, Das’ widow, Dipali Das, expressed her disappointment and concerns to local media that the convicts would try to use their finances to get out of jail. Her concerns are legitimate; Bangladesh is consistently rated one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

Intimidation of journalists must make it a lot easier for corruption to flourish.

It is widely accepted by those who knew Das that those sentenced are the individuals behind the murder. It remains unclear if these men are the masterminds based on the police investigation, eyewitness accounts and confessions of the convicts, according to local journalists. Bulbul warned that the judgment will likely be appealed, and in a politicized place like Bangladesh, there is always the possibility that the defendants walk free.

Impunity for journalists’ murders runs deep in Bangladesh. At least 14 journalists have been killed in direct relation to their work since CPJ began keeping records in 1992. Six others have been killed for reasons that remain unclear. Bangladesh ranks as the world’s 19th deadliest country for the press, according to CPJ data. “For last 40 years hardly any journalists silenced for their profession had received justice, despite media pressure. In some incidents the family members have rejected the court verdict, some have even withdrawn their case out of frustration,” said Samad.

Bulbul is hopeful this may change. “This is the beginning of the end of the culture of impunity that exists for journalist murders in Bangladesh,” he said.

Let’s hope so.

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

Via Fidalgo, First Things spots some scary atheist existentialism in the new Smurfs movie.

[pause to laugh very much for a long time]

It’s someone called Collin Garbarino who spotted this smurf atheist existentialism.

This weekend I saw the new trailer for Smurfs 2. It looks to be a fun romp. Gargamel is back, and he’s got a new plan for catching those little blue people who are two apples high. If the trailer accurately represents the film, we’ll be entertained by nonstop shenanigans and high jinks. We’ll also get a healthy dose of atheistic existentialism.

Watch the trailer below. At the 1:45 mark Papa Smurf says, “It doesn’t matter where you came from; what matters is who you choose to be.”

How inspiring! If only it were true.

It does matter where we come from. If God really is our creator, then we really do owe him something. Papa Smurf’s words of pseudo-wisdom only make sense if our existence is the product of meaningless forces. If we are the products of evolution, then we have to manufacture meaning for our lives. We have to choose to be someone. If we have a creator, chances are that he intended for us to be a certain someone, and maybe we should ask him about it if we’re confused.

Ok, let’s take Garbarino’s claims seriously.

If God really is our creator, then we really do owe him something.

Do we? Why? I don’t think we do. God didn’t get our consent, and without consent, how can it be true that we “owe” god something for creating us? I don’t see it.

Now, saving lives, as opposed to creating them – I can see that. We owe people who save our lives, and all the more so if they do it at risk to themselves. Consent doesn’t come into it in the same way. But creating us? That’s a different kind of thing.

And then there’s the “if” – that’s a big if. The reality is that “God” is not “our creator” and that there’s no reason to think it is, so the debt question doesn’t arise.

If we have a creator, chances are that he intended for us to be a certain someone

But there again the issue of consent comes into play, in fact it becomes very urgent. Garbarino is saying this god created us without our consent and had specific intentions about who and what we would be, still without our consent. Well the hell with that. I don’t consent to be whatever it is that some outside person intended me to be. My life belongs to me; our lives belong to us; we’re not toys in the hands of a bigger more powerful person. It’s slavish of Garbarino to think otherwise.

and maybe we should ask him about it if we’re confused.

Ok. What about it, god?

[waits]

Nothing.

Garbarino wants us to ask this “God” person about it while knowing perfectly well that “God” won’t answer so what does he think he’s saying? I suppose the usual – the mindless, obedient, unreflective usual – we should ask and then be quite content to get no answer, or, we should ask some member of the clergy or other and be quite content to take that as an answer even though it’s obviously no such thing.

They don’t think these things through. It gets tiresome.

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

The cult of Sylvia Plath has always been creepy, you have to admit. Now this year is the [sharp intake of breath] 50th anniversary of that time she stuck her head in the oven, so the cult has to get even creepier. (Why? I mean, why? Fifty years; so what? Why is that more significant than 49 or 51? Humans are so stupid sometimes. Honestly.)

Terry Castle thinks it’s stupid too. Terry Castle is right.

A clutch of new biographies (including the two reviewed here) are likewise among the morbid tie-ins. “Sylvia Plath may be the most fascinating literary figure of the twentieth century”—so the publisher’s copy for one of them gushes. “Even now, fifty years after her death, writers, students, and critics alike are enthralled by the details of her 1963 suicide and her volatile relationship with Ted Hughes.” Such ambulance-chasing fans no doubt also dote on Frida Kahlo’s near-fatal impaling by the tram rail.

Seriously? “Even now, fifty years after her death, writers, students, and critics alike are enthralled by the details of her 1963 suicide…”? Well get over it. Jesus.

It will come as no surprise that I’m one of those who will always be turning away from Plath. Or trying to. I find her tasteless, grisly—unbearable, in fact—precisely because, even five decades after her suicide, she and her corpse-infested verses hold on with such ghoulish tenacity.

Yeah.

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

Garry Wills takes a jaundiced look at the current pope’s fastracking of “sainthood” for a recent one.

He starts with John Paul’s beatification of the horrible Piux IX.

Pius IX was a polarizing figure. He wrested from the Vatican Council a declaration of his own infallibility; he condemned such modern heresies as democratic government; he took a Jewish child, Edgardo Mortara, from his family—on the grounds that Edgardo’s Christian nurse had baptized him as an infant, making him belong to the church, not to his infidel parents.

So he beatified someone a little bit nicer at the same time. Clever wheeze.

Now Pope Francis has come up with another ablutionary pairing. He is canonizing John Paul II in record time (Benedict XVI had already waived the normal five-years-after-death period to allow the beatifying process to begin.) Though John Paul II is not as hotly resented by liberals as Pius IX, he is still subject to deep criticism. He presided over the church during its worldwide pedophile scandal, and he gave the handling of that problem to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith—the very man who, succeeding him, would waive the time-lapse needed to begin his predecessor’s canonization. (Who can think that a saint in heaven ever protected a predatory priest?) John Paul had treated as “irreversible” his stands on matters such as homosexuality, married priests, and women priests.

And his stands on those matters were all bad.

But—not to worry—the “good Pope John” is again being pressed into service. He was beatified to take the sting out of Pius IX’s promotion. He is now being canonized to make a joint heavenly pair with John Paul II. To rush John XXIII forward, Pope Francis is even waiving the normal requirement of a second miracle for canonization. John XXIII is the feel-good pope in a time of turmoil, even though he is being used to sanction the turmoil caused by John Paul II.

It’s all such a con-game.

The Vatican no doubt feels that combining a liberal hero with a conservative hero shows how big a tent its sacred baldacchino is; the holy institution transcends earthly politics. Besides, the modern canonization process is supposed to have inoculated sainthood from politics, basing it on objective evidence, provided by documents, interrogation, medical examinations, scientific certification—all Enlightenment techniques used to sanction a pre-Enlightenment concept. But, after all this lengthy preparation, only the pope can declare that a supernatural miracle happened—and to say who worked it, the particular address in heaven to which prayers for it had been sent. The pope knows the address, and certifies its reception by the right party. That is knowing a whole lot.

In other words it’s complete nonsense, a fairy tale, with “documents, interrogation, medical examinations, scientific certification” pasted on for the sake of appearances. It’s annoying that grownups take this seriously.

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

Jen Keane (@zenbuffy) tweeted a freezepage of the hacked Youth Defence site. Youth Defence is the horrible far-right US-funded ”pro-life” group making so much trouble in Ireland. The hacked page makes interesting reading.

This is not the hate-filled truth-distorting website you’re looking for.

Note: We the Irish do not appreciate US organisations pouring money into shady groups here to try change our rules and society for their own gains. Youth Defence has been the seed of more hatred here that any group in a long time. It has to stop.

Youth Defence is not what you think it is. Youth Defence is an extremist group who actively hide their links to shady right-wing connections and where their funding comes from. Let’s blow the lid.

Neo-Nazi Links

Original leaders include Fr. Maurice Colgan (more on him below) & Justin Barret, a man with known links to neo-Nazi movements (speaking at NDP events in Germany) and who has campaigned in the past against divorce, contraception & gay rights. In his book he has even described immigration as “genocidal”. He has also spoken at multiple Forza Nuova (Italian far-right group) rallies in the past. Recently, it was shown that current leaders have been known to associate themselves with the likes of, Michael Quinn, a prominent member of the Irish far-right group, the Irish National Brotherhood (INB) who happens to be a proud fan of the Greek far-right political party the Golden Dawn and who constantly tweets about his hatred for ‘negros’. Quinn would like us to believe that when the IMF assisted Ireland during the bailout one of the terms they demanded was that Ireland needed to install abortion on demand. It has been revealed that Quinn is a close friend of a certain Fr. Maurice Colgan. Colgan, as you may know since you are visiting this cesspit of a website is a founding member of Youth Defence. Certainly, Fr. Colgan’s Neo-Nazi sympathies cannot be denied, he even once lived with a certain Anthony Barnes (lead singer of the whiney, untalented Dublin Neo-Nazi band, Celtic Dawn).

Golden Dawn and Celtic Dawn.

Office Association & Hiding the Books

Youth Defence claim to be based at Life House, Number 60a, Capel Street, Dublin. The small office is shared among quite a few anti-choice organisations. They include: Coir, the Life Institute, the Mother & Child Campaign, Pro-Life Alliance, prolifeinfo.ie, Truth TV, and of course Youth Defence. That’s quite a few different organisations running from one small office. You’ve got to wonder whether funds are transferred between them legally. Probably not, what a silly question. Irish authorities have never been allowed to get their hands on their accounting books. Why, you ask. Well, these crafty so-and-so’s continue to evade the authorities. An Irish registered charity must document all donations above a certain amount. However, Youth Defence and their cohorts, while it’s plain to see are lobbying entities (funded by charity), refute this and claim they are “education spreading” entities. Let’s take a look at who are really funding Youth Defence and their sister organisations:

I went past that office on Capel Street last week, when I was walking around north of the river a bit. It had the awful overjoyed-mummy-and-baby photo that is so insultingly irrelevant to abortion and so ubiquitous from Youth Defence.

Where the Funding Comes From

Are they funded by Irish anti-choice campaigners?

To a small extent, but the vast amount of money comes from America. Sure, if you’ve ever even attended one of their organised events you’ll have noticed that a huge proportion of the people attending are not only not Irish, they aren’t even European. It’s well known that North American fundamental Christians are flown in to boost their numbers.

Why does the funding come from America?

Well, that’s easy to answer, if these 3 American men below can secure Ireland as remaining without abortion then they can use our country as a beacon for their anti-choice campaigns in America. They can show that Ireland remains strongly Catholic, and the last great bastion of Christian faith in Europe, fighting the so-called “good fight”.

They have zero problem with Irish women leaving Ireland for Britain to have abortions. Zero. They just want Ireland to remain “abortion free” so they can claim a moral victory in Western Europe and try to push for a similar occurrence in America.

These men, play on the emotions of Irish-Americans and sure, don’t we all know that the plastic paddy diaspora know what’s best for us. Those who actually live thousands of kilometres away from the coal-face. Those who chose to leave Ireland, let’s remind ourselves that while we all have, and know plenty of families that have been decimated by immigration, it was always a choice. Not since the days of Cromwell have people been forced to leave Ireland. Now, thankfully, those that look back at the auld sod and see us as still being the backwater we were when they left are taking it upon themselves to try and dictate things from afar. Sure, it’s for our own good, they quite clearly have our best interests at heart. We’re too close to the action, sure how could we know what’s best? We only effing live here!

Read the whole thing.

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

Maryam is annoyed by channel 4′s “provocative” call to prayer during Ramadan.

What about all the Muslims (and ex-Muslims) who can’t stand to hear the call to prayers? or who don’t fast during Ramadan? There is a movement of eating during Ramadan as a way of challenging laws that make it an offence to eat in public. Here’s one example of people being arrested for “inciting public eating during Ramadan” but of course none of these will be shown on Channel 4.

Rather than being provocative, Channel 4 is feeding into the narrative that all Muslims are religious and conservative and fast during Ramadan. Something Islamists insist upon thereby justifying their attacks on those who refuse to fast or transgress their vile norms.

It’s also not really “provocative” to support an institution that already has massive, unaccountable, fundamentally authoritarian power. Religions don’t need help; it’s the victims of religion who need help.

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

The guy who made death threats on Facebook has been jailed.

A British man who threatened to kill 200 people in the US, in posts he made under a false name on Facebook, has been jailed for more than two years.

Reece Elliott, 24, of Foss Way, South Shields, made the threat in February on online memorial pages for two Tennessee girls killed in car accidents.

About 3,000 pupils in Warren County missed school the next day as a result.

Elliott, who pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court in April, was jailed for two years and four months.

Huh. Isn’t he just a troll? Aren’t we supposed to ignore trolls? Isn’t that the rule?

Sentencing Elliott to 28 months in jail, Judge James Goss QC, the Recorder of Newcastle, told him the offences were driven by “no more than self-indulgent nastiness”.

Right. Like all trolls. So we’re supposed to ignore them. Aren’t we?

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

Religion News Service reports that African religious leaders are very annoyed at Obama for telling them not to shit on gay people. Well yes that makes sense – how dare Obama tell good god-fearing clerics not to shit on people? Shitting on people is a god-given right of clerics.

In a news conference in Senegal during his three-nation tour, just as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on same-sex marriage, Obama said African nations must grant equal protection to all people regardless of their sexual orientation.

“My basic view is that regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation, when it comes to how the law treats you, how the state treats you … people should be treated equally,” Obama said. “And that’s a principle that I think applies universally.”

Blasphemy! God wants gay people to be shat on, because he hates them. How dare Obama not know that?

“For religious leaders, in my point of view, this issue of homosexuality which he mentioned had really blocked the hospitality which the religious leaders desired to reserve for him,” said the Rev. Pierre Adama Faye, a Senegalese Lutheran leader.

Faye said he understood Obama’s remarks coming on the heels of the Supreme Court rulings. But he said Africa has its own reality, different from that of the U.S. In Senegal, churches and mosques reject the practice.

Africa has its own reality, in which it’s quite all right to shit on people for being gay, in fact it’s a religious obligation. By the same token the US used to have big chunks of territory where it was quite all right to shit on people for being black. Then after some upheaval and some conversation with elevated voices, people decided it wasn’t quite all right after all, and the custom changed. People can change their minds about the reasons it’s ok to shit on people; they can even end up deciding it’s never ok. The religious leaders in Africa could do that if they tried.

Sheikh Saliou Mbacke, a Senegalese Muslim leader who coordinates the Interfaith Action for Peace in Africa, said faith leaders have the duty to speak out, especially if outside forces want to impose their will.

“The subject of homosexuality must not be used as a tool to blackmail and coerce society to defy God’s command, which is more important than any world power,” he said.  “We will oppose any manner of arm-twisting that threatens us to embrace it in our societies.”

That’s a horrible, hateful thing to say. Fuck God’s command. It’s not a command, and if it were, you should say fuck it. We’re not talking about murder or rape or assault. Those are all bad things, which people shouldn’t do; you shouldn’t “embrace” those things; but same-sex love and sex are not like that and you should use your brain to figure that out.

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

The new pope is helping some previous ones get to be saints.

Showing more of his sprightly personality and his priorities, Pope Francis sped two of his predecessors toward sainthood on Friday: John Paul II, who guided the Roman Catholic Church during the end of the cold war, and John XXIII, who assembled the liberalizing Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

In approving the sainthood of John XXIII even without a second miracle attributable to the pontiff, Francis took the rare step of bypassing the Vatican bureaucracy.

Ok but so how does all this work? Are there rules, or is it just whatever the pope feels like? And if popes can speed other popes, why mess around, why not just make it that all popes are saints?

And then how does it actually work? Is the current pope magic? Does he make people into actual saints by being magic and saying the right words while being magic? What’s the mechanism here? Is it a placebo or is there an active ingredient? Or to put it another way, if being a saint is a real thing, how can it be up to a pope whether someone is one or not?

You might think the church is fine with magic but actually it isn’t. It frowns on magic. It wants everyone to be very clear that religion is a different thing altogether. Religion is grown up and serious and real, and magic is just childish and spooky, also dangerous.

But then how can popes make people be saints? Especially when there is no second miracle and they have to bypass the Vatican bureaucracy?

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Francis was eager to canonize John XXIII. “Despite the absence of a second miracle it was the pope’s will that the sainthood of the great pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized,” he said. But he played down the fact that Francis had bypassed a second miracle. “There are lots of theologians who in fact discuss the principle of the fact that it’s necessary to have two distinct miracles.”

Oh, I see. They’re on it. Ok then – I feel much better about it now.

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

A pregnant child in Santiago Puerto Montt, Chile.

A young girl in Puerto Montt is 14-weeks-pregnant after being raped by her mother’s boyfriend. She is not able to have an abortion as the procedure is illegal in Chile in all cases. The man has confessed to sexually abusing the child.

She’s 11.

The mother spoke in defense of her boyfriend, who was arraigned in court in the southern city of Osorno.

“She wasn’t violated and he would not have used force,” she said, adding that the relationship between them was consensual.

Ah, that’s nice. The child is 11 years old – and her mother says she had “consensual” sex with her mother’s boyfriend? That is some loving mother.

This case has brought new, fierce criticism of Chile’s current abortion laws, which as of 1989, outlaw all cases without exception. Politicians have spoken out on the issue via social media.

You mean girls of 11 shouldn’t be forced to bear children? That can’t be right.

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

A nasty fella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRF_vanRUZU

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

Last week American Atheists unveiled an atheist monument in Starke, Florida.

Kent Eric Hovind jumped up onto the monument to nag everyone about god.

I think that’s rude and belligerent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkxatQ3q9i4

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

There’s this website called The Irish Catholic, where you can read a guy called John Waters explaining how horrible women are. He starts with a little thought experiment by someone else.

‘What is the difference, in human rights terms, between a situation in which a distraught male goes in to his doctor and says that his partner is making him suicidal and that he fears that unless he/she (the doctor) arranges to have the partner killed he will kill himself, and a situation in which a distraught female goes to her doctor and says that her unborn child is making her suicidal and that she fears that unless he/she (the doctor) arranges to have the child killed she will kill herself?”

I received this single-sentence letter last week from a reader, who had sent it out to several newspapers in the previous week, in a fruitless bid to have it published.

The letter is interesting, and the refusal to publish it equally so. But even more interesting is the emotions I intuit it to generate in the average reader, who, if he or she is anything like me, will instantly comprehend why it was not published, and may even be inclined to feel that the intuited reasons for its non-publication are, at the very least, not entirely outrageous. In other words, something about the proposition contained in that sentence seems unreasonable, and this sense of its unreasonableness is probably very widely shared, if not universally held. Even people who consider themselves ‘pro-life’ will stop somewhat short of endorsing the comparison made in the letter, perhaps feeling it to withhold sympathy from the ‘distraught female’ referred to. And yet, if you think that an unborn child is a full human being from the moment of conception, there is no wiggle-room, and no absurdity in the question above, because there can be no moral distinction between the idea of killing an adult woman and killing an unborn child.

No, that’s not “interesting.” None of that is “interesting.” It’s disgusting, but it’s not interesting.

You don’t get to “think” that a fertilized egg is a full human being. You don’t get to “think” that a cat is a dandelion or that a corn muffin is a luxury yacht. You don’t get to think that one thing is a completely different thing. You don’t get to treat obvious nonsense as a reasonable claim. A fertilized egg, even a fertilized human egg, is simply not a full human being. It’s something that will over time develop into a full human being (unless there is a miscarriage or abortion), but that isn’t the same thing as actually being the thing it will develop into. A marigold seed is not a “full” marigold. A newly-laid eagle egg is not a “full” eagle. Catholics don’t get to make up their own ontology just because they’ve been pumped full of dogmatic “beliefs” by a guild of celibate men.

Waters says a lot more and ends up with his explanation of why women seek abortions.

Selfishness 

There is no reason to assume that a pregnancy ought to be anything other than a source of joy to the woman involved. In the vast majority of the very limited number of cases in which this is not so, the factors underlying the difficulty usually relate not to objective circumstances but to either intuited societal disapproval or selfishness on the part of the woman involved.

I wonder if John Waters has ever actually met any human beings.

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

It turns out there’s this movie star who is a feminist. Uh oh! Right? Men are people too you know. Human rights. Don’t talk to me about women’s rights; human rights.

Who is this twisted radical person who is a feminist? Ellen Page, of the irritating Juno in which our quirky brave intelligent heroine age 16 decides to have the baby and give it to some nice people instead of having a nasty filthy ol’ abortion, because girls of 16 have nothing better to do than bear children.

Apparently she didn’t realize it was an anti-abortion movie until this reporter pointed it out to her, which seems odd for a feminist.

There is, though, an unfortunate irony that one of the very few young actresses happy to describe themselves as a feminist remains most closely associated with a film that many saw as having an anti-abortion message. In Juno, Page, playing the eponymous 16-year-old, decides to have an abortion, only to bump into a classmate in front of the clinic who is protesting against abortions. “Your baby has fingernails!” her classmate tells her.

“Fingernails, really?” Juno replies. She then decides not to terminate her pregnancy.

Was she surprised by the furore the film sparked?

“No because I know what people are like in America about women’s ability to make choices for themselves in regards to their bodies. The only thing that was annoying was people taking it as a pro-life movie because she had the baby,” she says. After all, Page continues, “if she’d had the abortion it would be a short movie”, which is a fair point*. But her voice rises a little when she adds: “And at least we say the word abortion,” suggesting she knows that’s a pretty weak argument.

But the problem wasn’t that Juno had the baby, I say. It was that she decides not to have the abortion because of something a pro-life protestor said.

“Ohhhh, I see, that’s a good point,” she says, sitting back in her chair.

No, it was also that she had the baby.

But apart from that she’s pretty good. (I saw her talking to George Stromboulopooulos recently and she was pretty good then too.)

Ask an American female celebrity today whether she is even a feminist and you are likely to get ignorant verbal diarrhoea (Lady Gaga: “I am not a feminist – I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American male and beer and bars and muscle cars”) and fearful denials (Björk: “[To say I'm a feminist] would isolate me.”) The best Beyoncé could muster when recently asked if she considered herself a feminist was: “That word can be very extreme … I do believe in equality … But I’m happily married. I love my husband.” She was, she conceded, “a modern-day feminist”, and that is probably true, seeing as, if you are a female celebrity, being a “modern day feminist” seems to involve distancing yourself from the word. “At this point,” New York magazine writer Maureen O’Connor blogged in response to Beyoncé’s comments, “women who have a vested [interest] in being popular – ie celebrities – are still afraid of the word feminism.”

It’s a good thing I don’t have a vested interest in being popular, isn’t it.

Like nearly all of Page’s films, The East aims to unsettle the audience as opposed to seeking mass popularity, and Page agrees that she finds it “satisfying” to be in something “that provokes people, even if it’s not positive”. More importantly, perhaps, Izzy – like all of Page’s roles – is a tough, independent woman who isn’t there just to bolster the leading man. Does Page feel a responsibility to seek such roles out?

“Yeah absolutely,” she replies before I finish the question. “Also if I played those other kinds of roles I would just die a slow death. But yes, I think it’s really important, but it can be hard. Only 23% of speaking roles in films today are for women. It feels we’ve gone backwards.” Partly in response to this, she has started writing her own script “which is definitely feminist – definitely. But of course, if you just write a script in which the woman has control over her destiny and love isn’t the main thing in the film, that’s seen as super feminist.” She is also slated to direct a movie, starring Ana Faris, but filming is still some way off: “It’s hard to get stuff made, especially if it’s about women. Everything’s about in-ter-nat-ion-al bank-a-bility,” she sing-songs to words, mockingly.

So has she ever encountered sexism in Hollywood?

“Oh my God, yeah! It’s constant! It’s how you’re treated, it’s how you’re looked at, how you’re expected to look in a photoshoot, it’s how you’re expected to shut up and not have an opinion, it’s how you –” she pauses. “If you’re a girl and you don’t fit the very specific vision of what a girl should be, which is always from a man’s perspective, then you’re a little bit at a loss.”

A dangerous radical. Yay.

*No it isn’t. You could have stuff happen after the abortion. It’s not very feminist to think Juno’s story would stop once she was no longer pregnant.

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

Greetings to the new Council of Ex-Muslims in France.

On Saturday, members of the Council of Ex-Muslims in France met to launch their group publicly and discuss their mission: to promote liberty and equality for all people, regardless of their faith. Their Facebook page explains:

“We are a group of atheists and non-believers who have, because of this fact, been threatened or faced restrictions in our personal life. Many of us have been arrested for blasphemy.”

Maryam was there today for the launch, with Waleed Al-Husseini and Caroline Fourest among others.

Palestinian blogger Waleed Al-Husseini first organised the council, after being accused of making blasphemous comments towards the Prophet Mohammed, and seeking refuge in France.

The Council is composed of some thirty members, representing nearly a dozen nationalities.

It follows on the heels of the UK’s Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, headed up by Maryam Namazie. A similar council also exists in Germany.

And there will be more, until some day they are no longer needed because everyone will be free to join or leave any religion at any time.

Maryam has some pictures on Twitter.

Maryam and Waleed.

Drinks after the launch.

 Cheers, apostates everywhere!

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

Via Maryam – an Egyptian boy age 12 talks more political sense in two minutes than most people manage in a lifetime.

How come there are only seven women in the constituent assembly, and six of them are Islamists?

…

For example, they say that women are equal to men in all matters, except in matters that contradict sharia. But then, sharia allows men to “discipline” their wives. This can’t work in society.

[Reporter] Why not, what’s the problem?

The problem is it’s outrageous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeDm2PrNV1I

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

Horrifying news from Nigeria – Mamudo, in Yobe state, in the north. At least 29 students and a teacher killed in an attack on a school; some of the victims were burned alive.

A reporter from the Associated Press found chaotic scenes at the hospital in nearby Potiskum, where traumatised parents struggled to identify their children among the charred bodies and gunshot victims.

Survivors said suspected militants arrived with containers full of fuel and set fire to the school.

Some pupils were burned alive, others were shot as they tried to flee.

Another message from a god of hatred, no doubt.

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

Jesus and Mo gloat about the absence of evidence for evolution.

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