With an apt dedication:
Today’s comic is dedicated to Rhys Morgan, Jessica Ahlquist, One Law for All, and Salman Rushdie. Heroes, all.
Of course, author himself belongs in that company.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Well at least I know exactly what I’m going to talk about at QED. Oh yes. Suddenly as of today there was only one possible topic.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Ann Marie Waters on last night at Queen Mary College.
This week I was due to give a talk to students at Queen Mary College, London on sharia law and human rights. Rather fittingly – and as if to prove my point – my human rights were quashed by a person demonstrating one of the effects of sharia law; the threat of violence for criticising religion.
Or to put it another way, both are instantiations of theocracy. Both are what you get when you have theocracy. You get god-centered everything, with humans expected to obey the imagined god slavishly and harsh punishments if someone thinks god is being defied.
Just before I was due to start, a young man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front of the room with a camera and proceeded to film everyone in the audience. That done, he informed us that he knew who we were, where we lived and if he heard a single negative word about the Prophet, he would track us down. (I am told he made further threats as he left the building).
The young man is a theocrat, who thinks god is everything and people are nothing.
I am left wondering what exactly we could have done. I would love to say that we stood up to him and carried on bravely in a valiant defence of free speech, but it was a frightening experience and I know that people felt genuinely threatened and upset. In any case, is it the role of speakers and students to face off against potentially violent Islamists in defence of our free speech, risking our safety in the process? Just whose job is it to defend freedom of speech and can we be expected to fight for it when the state and other powers refuse to back us up?
Hell no. The choice may be forced on us, but it’s not our job. We shouldn’t have to ask theocrats for permission to speak.
Freedom of speech needs to be defended from above. We need prosecution and punishment of those intent on frightening people into staying silent. Until the state speaks out and makes it clear to the likes of this guy that this behaviour is not acceptable – no excuses, no apologies – these things will continue to happen and more and more people will be frightened in to shutting up. We can then say goodbye to freedom for good.
So we have to keep speaking out to make that point, whenever possible without any threatening young men interrupting.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
And then there’s Rhys. He had the contested Jesus and Mo image as his Facebook profile picture for a week, then took it down. He also received a lot of bullying.
I uploaded the image to Facebook and set it as my profile picture for about a week. I then changed back to another photo and went on my usual life.
Until today. Someone who is a Muslim discovered the picture and found it offensive. He politely requested I remove the image -
“…just a kind request to either hide it or completely delete the picture…”
a request I declined because I do not follow Islamic scripture or rules. This quickly descended into a bit of a debate as to whether I should remove the photo or not before he reposted the picture onto his Facebook wall with the comment
So THIS is what our little “Journalist” is uploading… And he claims it’s “freedom of speech” ok Rhys Morgan.. We’ll see
That’s when the strawman arguments, ignorance and threats really began.
For…?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Yesterday evening, One Law for All Co-Spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to speak at a meeting on Sharia Law and Human Rights at the University of London. Maryam continues:
It was cancelled by the atheist group organisers after police had to be called in due to Islamist threats. One Islamist filmed everyone at the meeting and announced he would hunt down those who said anything negative about Islam’s prophet. Outside the hall, he threatened to kill anyone who defamed the prophet. Reference was made to the Jesus and Mo cartoon saga at UCL.
The University’s security guard – a real gem –arrived first only to blame the speaker and organisers rather than those issuing death threats. He said: ‘If you will have these discussions, what do you expect?’
Well quite – they all “sparked the anger of Muslims” by holding and/or attending the meeting, so it was totes their fault.
Again, this is not about lacking cultural sensitivity or discrimination as the pathetic UCL Union thinks. It is not about racism and ‘Islamophobia’. It is not our fault for raising the issues. We are not to blame for ‘provoking’ the Islamists; they need no such provocation…
It’s about being able to criticise and speak out against that which is taboo and the barbarism of our century. Free expression is all we have at our disposal to do so.
Stand up for it and refuse to budge or there will nothing left when they are through with you.
We are not to blame for “provoking” or “sparking” or “triggering” anything.
The New Humanist blog provides more details via the president of the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary:
Five minutes before the talk was due to start a man burst into the room holding a camera phone and for some seconds stood filming the faces of all those in the room. He shouted ‘listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live’, at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone’s face and then said ‘and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Muhammad, I will hunt you down.’ He then left the room and two members of the audience applauded.
The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Muhammad, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him. We were told by security to stay in the Lecture Theatre for our own safety. On arriving back in the room I became aware that the doors that opened to the outside were still open and that people were still coming in. Several eye witnesses reported that when I was in the foyer a group of men came through the open doors, causing a disruption and making it clear that the room could not be secured. Unfortunately, the lack of security in the lecture theatre meant we and the audience had to leave and a Union representative informed the security that as students’ lives had been threatened there was no way that the talk could go ahead.
This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate. Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate.
So much for free speech and debate.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Now to look at each one in more detail, though not calmly.
Protests from “influential Muslim clerics” in India have prompted the organizers of a literary festival in Jaipur to take Salman Rushdie’s name off the list of speakers. He was scheduled to speak at three events during the five day festival.
The BBC explains in the way it invariably does.
Mr Rushdie sparked anger in the Muslim world with his book The Satanic Verses, which many regard as blasphemous.
No he didn’t. Mr Rushdie wrote a novel. Some people chose to become enraged about the novel and its author. He did not “spark” anything, nor did he do anything wrong. Many regard many things as blasphemous. If we take them seriously then they win.
The Times Of India newspaper reported that the government of Rajasthan state – where Jaipur is located – had persuaded the organisers to “ask Mr Rushdie… to call off his visit”.
Bullies 1, literature 0.
Last week, the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary’s vice-chancellor, Maulana Abul Qasim Nomani, called on the government to block Mr Rushdie’s visit by “cancelling his visa” as he “had annoyed the religious sentiments of Muslims in the past”.
“In case of no response from the government, the Darul Uloom Deoband will take appropriate action,” Mr Nomani said.
Bullies 1, literature 0, government 0, secularism 0, freedom of expression 0.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Damn. Things have gone crazy – so crazy that it’s hard to keep up. Just to give you the bare list -
will miss the opening day of the Jaipur literary festival, organisers say, after protests by influential Muslim clerics in India.
A talk on sharia and human rights
organised by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary, University London, had to be cancelled after threats of violence. The talk was due to be given by Anne Marie Waters of the One Law For All campaign, which campaigns against the use of Sharia in the UK.
Rhys Morgan was
called into a meeting with his head of year at his sixth form college, about the Jesus and Mo cartoon. He reports being harassed at school and being ostracized for posting the cartoon. He was later called in again to be told that they were considering expelling him if he didn’t take the cartoon down.
According to Rhys on Twitter a few minutes ago, they weren’t considering it; it was a certainty: take it down or you’re out.
Details to follow.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The UCL Union has a statement on its attempt to meddle with the UCLU Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society’s Facebook page.
UCLU (the representative body of UCL students) has a duty to foster and encourage freedom of expression among our members, ensure diversity of our membership is recognised[,] and pursue equal opportunities for our members.
Following a number of complaints from UCL students, UCLU requested that the UCLU Atheist, Secularist & Humanist Society (UCLU ASH) take down a cartoon from a Facebook event page advertising one of the society’s regular social events.
The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs. UCLU has a duty to ensure students are not harassed because of a characteristic which may make them appear different to others, including but not limited to race, gender, religion, nationality or sexual orientation.
Society Presidents take responsibility for their own publicity, and it is not vetted by UCLU prior to distribution. They are provided with equality training prior to running a society, to help them understand the balance between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity.
The event in question has now passed and the society has agreed that they will take more consideration when drawing up publicity for future events.
That’s a horrible document. Nobody was being harassed because of the existence of that cartoon on that page. If harassment is defined that broadly then nobody can say anything.
The sentence about “equality training” that helps society presidents “understand the balance between freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity” makes me want to lose my lunch.
The smug satisfaction of “they will take more consideration” makes me want to shout at least three rude words.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
I hadn’t kept up with developments in the UCL/Jesus and Mo fuss until I got that email. There were developments.
The New Humanist reported that the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society at UCL reported that progress had been made.
While debate raged online, however, both the UCL union and the atheist society have been working to resolve the matter, and the ASHS have this morning announced that progress has been made, with the union agreeing that they can not ask the society to take down the image. This is explained by the society’s president, Robbie Yellon, in a statement on their Facebook page:
Good, good. Except…wait. What’s that in the third paragraph of that statement?
Unfortunately, the Union has considered the possibility that posting the image might have constituted an act of bullying, prejudice, harassment or discrimination. We firmly believe in the protection of our fellow students through University and Union policy; however we cannot accept such a suggestion. They have also considered the force of our actions and unwillingness to concede. As such, the society may be risking a disciplinary hearing which could lead to the forced resignation of committee members, or disaffiliation from the Union. In light of our now constructive relationship with the Union, such an event seems unlikely, though we would ask for your support should it ever occur.
What?
The union agreed “they can no longer call on us to withdraw the image” but they might decide posting it was an act of bullying, prejudice, harassment or discrimination so they might punish ASHS anyway? Especially because of their unwillingness to concede? Their unwillingness to concede something that should never have been asked in the first place?
If that’s progress, what would regress look like?
David Shariatmadari reported the story for the Guardian, complete with picture of Richard Dawkins smiling in his usual strident way.
And the Pod Delusion talked to Dave of Jesus and Mo. Dave points out, as I like to do, that the sketchy “image” of Mo in J and M can’t really be said to be even an attempt at an actual picture of Mohammed, because who knows what he looked like? Also he explains about the barmaid but he doesn’t say about the rumor that she’s your humble servant.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
This morning I received an email from the Secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (in the UK), Michael Paynter, saying he’d seen that I’ve commented on the “take the image of Mo from Jesus and Mo off your Facebook page please” fuss at UCL (the wording is mine) and that he wanted to provide some context because the media coverage has been distorted. I’ve heard from other people who received much the same email (or possibly exactly the same), so I feel free to quote from it.
UCL Union (UCLU) did make a request for the University College London’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (UCLUASHS) to remove an image of the prophet Muhammed after a complaint was filed, but this was never anything more than an informal request. Before the President had contacted the students’ union to discuss the issue further, an individual blogger, neither a member of UCL nor UCLUASHS, decided to exaggerate the story, making accusations of “Muslim-led censorship”, in order to garner attention for himself. This subsequent coverage has unnecessarily strained relations between UCLUASHS and UCLU.
I don’t like that “but this was never anything more than an informal request.” I don’t see what difference the fact that it was “informal” makes. An informal request can always lead to a formal one, you know, kind of like with protection rackets. “I’m just passin’ the time of day here, but you might want to think about what this nice little store would look like if something should happen to it.” In any case the request is not of a kind that should be made, formally or not.
I don’t like the fact that the secretary of a student atheist humanist and secular organization is trying to minimize and make excuses for a theocratic attempt to get rid of a cartoon.
I don’t like the secretary of a student atheist humanist and secular organization backing up this attempt by claiming that a blogger posted about the issue “in order to garner attention for himself.”
It doesn’t matter what I like or don’t like, of course, but in this case it appears that the secretary of a student atheist humanist and secular organization is making excuses for unreasonable requests that would interfere with free debate, and that does matter.
Michael Paynter went on to say that “the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies fully support UCLASHS right to freedom of speech” and linked to a statement he wrote. That’s good, but the statement isn’t exactly robust, and it’s a week old. The tenor of his email message is even less robust. Its conclusion is downright…accommodationist:
The AHS would like to point out that we support both UCL Union and UCLUASHS in discussing how to move forward, what to do next and how to build understanding between the religious and non-religious communities, though we appreciate that it could be more difficult considering the way some bloggers and now the wider media have reported it.
It’s not the job of a student atheist humanist and secular organization to “build understanding between the religious and non-religious communities.” It’s not even its job to think of themselves and others as either religious or non-religious “communities.” It’s the job of a student atheist humanist and secular organization to be just that, not to try to build understanding with its own opposites. Do student socialists societies spend their time trying to build understanding between the socialist and capitalist communities? Do gamers spend their time trying to build understanding between gamers and jocks? For that matter, do student religious organizations spend their time trying to build understanding between themselves and atheists? No; it’s only the non-theist groups who are always apologizing for existing.
The day after the only semi-robust statement, Michael Paynter wrote a note to “Ahmadiyya Muslims” in which he threw the naughty blogger mentioned above very firmly under the bus:
Dear Ahmadiyya Muslims,
I would like to start by saying that the organisation I represent, the AHS, supports entirely the right of UCLUASHS to use the picture they used and we have written a statement to that effect:
http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/news/2012/1/10/uclash-and-blasphemy/
However, we have also noticed that Alex Gabriel has been writing particularly inflammatory articles about the situation, exaggerating it beyond its actual scope. Alex Gabriel is neither a member of UCLUASHS and is not even a student at UCL and we do not support his distorted view of the situation. The publicity that has been manufactured in the blogosphere is entirely down to him and not members of UCLUASHS.
We know that you have had a good relationship with UCLUASHS in the past and hope that this may continue after this episode. Please get in touch if you have any questions!
This is not what the secretary of a student atheist humanist and secular organization should be doing.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
There’s a woman in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Apparently she’s there to spread the word to women. She does that.
Speaking to the London based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper Saturday, Abul Hassan argued that “When a woman marches to defend her rights, this affronts her dignity.”
She added that “Does she not have a husband, a brother or a son to defend her?”
Because, to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, “dignity” for a woman means being passive and hidden and dependent on male relatives. That’s interesting, because to me that means degradation, not dignity at all. It means subordination, which implies inferiority. It’s hard to see how that can be “dignity.”
“This march was a sectarian one, because all the groups of Egyptian society should defend women. She should not defend herself on her own. The man should stand beside the woman because on her own she will not be able to get her rights,” said Abul Hassan.
Because the Muslim Brotherhood won’t let her.
H/t Małgorzata Koraszewska.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Jessica Ahlquist answered some questions yesterday.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, the move to erase women wanders even deeper into Bizarroland.
The controversial exclusion of women from various settings in Israel because of pressure from ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders reached a new level this week with a major conference on gynecological advances that is permitting only males to address the audience.
Yes you read that right. A major conference on advances in medical management of women’s plumbing excluded women. Well what’s it got to do with them, after all? If they don’t want a man’s arm up them, they shouldn’t have been born with female plumbing. If they don’t want men and only men telling them what’s what about their plumbing, they should…um…well they should sit down and shut up.
Women are allowed in the audience, in a section separate from men.
Ah, that’s nice. That’s very generous.
As far as Puah is concerned, it operates on a strictly kosher basis, as required by the ultra-Orthodox rabbinate. While there are women on its board of directors, its public face is strictly male, and the two sexes are not allowed to mix at its events.
Because the rabbinate is strictly male, because it always was strictly male, so it’s not about to change now, is it, so it says the public face has to be strictly male too, because it always has been, because let’s face it, women are dirty and weak and whoreish and stupid and treacherous, so obviously they can’t be part of the public face and they can’t mix with men and get dirty weak whoreishness all over them.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
We need a “We are all evil little things” T shirt.
And a banner, and a coffee mug, and a letterhead. And a pony.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
I saw this on Jessica Ahlquist’s twitter feed a few hours ago:
State representative Palumbo called me an “evil little thing.”
Just now I was about to google for details preparatory to doing a post, but JT Eberhard got there first.
Peter G. Palumbo, the Democrat in the RI House from the Cranston district, has no rebukes for the Jesus-loving liars, bullies, or thugs. He has nothing negative to say about the people who felt they were above the Constitution and lied to subvert it. He did, however, have something to say about Jessica. According to Palumbo she is “An evil little thing.” That may have bee said sarcastically, but the line “I think she’s being coerced by evil people” was most assuredly not.
I urge you to listen to him say that. It’s the first soundbite on the page, and it’s just a few seconds. Don’t listen if you have high blood pressure or a stomach ache. It’s disgusting – two grown men sneering at a high school girl who had the audacity to uphold the Constitution.
JT says it more better:
Palumbo’s email address is rep-palumbo@rilin.state.ri.us. His office phone number is (401) 785-2882. Spread the word and inundate him. Our leaders should respect the constitution, not snipe at those who have been been confirmed to have fought in its defense. Palumbo has just sided with dishonesty and bullies.
Drop him a line.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
So it made up its mind and snowed at last. Then it stopped and I went out to walk around and look at it. It was pretty. Melting fast, but pretty. It doesn’t snow much here.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
So that’s how it’s possible to treat rape victims as perps.
Just 21, Gulnaz had been released that week from prison, where she had given birth to her daughter Moska. Gulnaz seemed younger than her years, but she held my gaze almost defiantly as she told her story.
She had been imprisoned in a Kabul women’s jail after her cousin’s husband raped her.
The crime came to light when the unmarried Gulnaz became pregnant.
The police came and arrested both Gulnaz and her attacker. Under Afghan law she too was found guilty of a crime known as “adultery by force”, with her sentence increased on appeal to 12 years.
Oh, I see! Afghan law doesn’t have a crime of rape, apparently, it has “adultery by force” and both parties are the perps as opposed to one party being the perp and the other being the victim.
That’s interesting. Usually we* think of serious crime as being a crime because there are victims; that’s why laws against actions that can be considered “victimless” are contested.
Imagine everything rearranged in a way comparable to “adultery by force.” You would get…”Suicide by force.” “Redistribution of wealth by force.” “Cosmetic surgery by force.” “Home visits by force.” “Account transfer by force.”
In what we would call murder, it’s not one person doing a bad thing to another person, it’s two people teaming up to do a bad thing to…….to whom? The owner of one of them? The owner of both of them, “god”? “The community”?
Never mind. I’m just playing silly buggers. I know that’s not how it works with other crimes. It’s just rape that works that way, because rape involves a woman (except when it doesn’t – there are those dancing boys in Afghanistan), and women always belong to men, so whatever is done to a woman is actually done not to the woman but to the man she belongs to. It’s not an assault on the woman, it’s adultery which is a bad thing done to the woman’s husband (certainly not to the rapist’s wife – don’t go getting that idea).
I suppose Gulnaz’s daughter – the one conceived as a result of the “adultery by force” – is guilty of “birth by force” and will be sentenced to 12 years in prison as soon as she’s old enough to use the potty by herself.
*By “we” I mean people who try to think about things, not “we in the West” or the like.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
From Identity and Violence:
My disturbing memories of Hindu-Muslim riots in India in the 1940s…include seeing – with the bewildered eyes of a child – the massive identity shifts that followed divisive politics. A great many persons’ identities as Indians, as subcontinentals, as Asians, or as members of the human race, seemed to give way – quite suddenly – to sectarian identification with Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh communities. The carnage that followed had much to do with elementary herd behavior by which people were made to “discover” their newly detected belligerent identities, without subjecting the process to critical examination. The same people were suddenly different.
So were their identities really “Hindu” or “Muslim” or were they not? If Sen is right, their religious identities suddenly expanded in size and overpowered all their other identities, which means that they were mutable as opposed to fixed. Identities that can swell can also deflate. This is worth remembering.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A couple of months old, but too stupid and bad to overlook.
Women will be boxing at the Olympics for the first time this year. And…can you guess what follows?
Geniuses in the International Amateur Boxing Association think maybe they should wear skirts.
Skirts.
For boxing.
Really? Really? It’s so important that everyone should have easy access to women’s Little Special Place that they have to wear skirts even for boxing? So that when they fall down everyone can check for visible pubic hair?
What’s next? Rules requiring women to wear high heels, a plunging neckline, lipstick, earrings, long hair?
Adults and Tiaras.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Ms Raftery was best known for her ‘States of Fear’ documentary series, which revealed the extent of physical and sexual abuse suffered by children in Irish industrial schools and residential institutions.
It led to the creation of the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse.
In 2002, her ‘Cardinal Secrets’ programme for RTÉ’s Prime Time led to the setting up of the Murphy Commission of Investigation into clerical abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese.
So did survivors of abuse.
Andrew Madden, the former altar boy abused by a senior Dublin cleric, said Ms Raftery had understood that the Church’s concealment of child sexual abuse was systemic, but that it could best be exposed by helping survivors to share personal experiences.
He said that her work had provided a way for some survivors to do that.
The organisation Survivors of Child Abuse said all survivors will forever remember her enormous contribution to revealing historical abuse in the country’s enclosed institutions.
Its spokesman, John Kelly, said each survivor owed a great deal to her steadfast courage that brought hope where there was despair and vindication when it was sorely needed. He said their hearts and prayers were with her family.
So did politicians.
Sinn Féin TD Caoimhghín O Caoláin said she had given a voice to the voiceless, including victims of abuse and, more recently, to those who suffered in psychiatric institutions. He said she had forced governments to act.
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Frances Fitzgerald said Ms Raftery had played an essential role in the alerting the country to its child protection duties.
She said her ground-breaking documentaries such as “Cardinal Secrets” brought home to viewers the squalid prevalence of child sexual abuse while emphasizing the life-long damage it could inflict on those abused.
So did journalists.
Seamus Dooley, Irish Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said Ms Raftery ”will be mourned by all who knew and respected her as a fearless journalist”.
He said she was someone “who was always willing to ask awkward questions, to seek out uncomfortable facts and to shine a light in the darkest corners of Irish society”.
The Irish Times Editor Kevin O’Sullivan said Ms Raftery’s journalism ”fearlessly exposed the gross failures of Church and State in looking after some of the most vulnerable and damaged of people in Irish society”.
He said her work lifted ”so many layers of institutional secrecy”.
Ireland needed her.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
