These crimes happen everywhere in the world

Jan 20th, 2012 10:26 am | By

Speaking of “Islamophobia,” as we were, we can always count on the Guardian for lashings of Islamophilia. David Shariatmadari tells us the University of East Anglia is going to set everyone straight on women, Islam, and the media. I bet you can figure out what’s coming.

Women, Islam and the media are topics often found in close conjunction, and not always in the happiest of circumstances. So in a canny move, the University of East Anglia (UEA), which often gives better-known institutions a run for their money in terms of column inches, has developed a course entitled exactly that.

The 12-week module, which the university claims is the first of its kind in the UK, will cover the often inflammatory topics of veil wearing, arranged marriage and “honour” crimes – looking at how they are portrayed in contemporary film, TV and other media, and how this reflects cultural biases in both the east and west.

Ahhhh yes, those pesky cultural biases in “the west,” the ones that think systematic subordination of women is a bad thing.

The course was developed by Dr Eylem Atakav, a graduate of Ankara University and lecturer at UEA. “Lots of people have written about women and Islam, lots of people have written about Islam and media or women and media, but they haven’t been brought together before,” she said.

Atakav said the course would be an important way of changing perceptions of Islam. Study materials include films and TV programmes from around the world, including Iran, the US, Turkey and China. “We will look at how the media talk about ‘honour’-based violence, for example. If it’s a Middle Eastern woman who happens also to be a Muslim woman it’s called an ‘honour crime’. But if it’s a British woman who was killed because her husband was jealous because she was having an affair with another man, it’s called murder.

“These crimes happen everywhere in the world, it’s not just a Muslim, or just a Middle Eastern thing.”

But if it’s a British woman who was killed because her husband was jealous because she was having an affair with another man, does the killer or anyone else talk about “honour”? Would the same woman’s father or mother or brother or son help the husband kill her in the name of protecting the family’s “honour”? Would their friends turn a blind eye or cheer them on, because a woman who has an affair is a stain on the whole “community”?

The article doesn’t say.

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



Muscle v truth and humour

Jan 20th, 2012 8:42 am | By

Salman Rushdie stayed away from the Jaipur Literary Festival because of threats. So, defying the organizers of the festival, Hari Kunzru and Amitava Kumar read from The Satanic Verses, then Jeet Thayil and Ruchir Joshi joined them.

And then what happened? According to Stephanie Nolen, South Asia correspondent for the Globe and Mail, who is at the festival and tweeting from and about it, the four writers are being investigated by the police. Since she tweeted that from the festival, it must mean that the cops were “investigating” the writers up close and personal, right then and there.

I get all this via the invaluable Salil Tripathi (#FF!), who said at Facebook about an hour ago:

Stephanie Nolen has tweeted that the authors who read from The Satanic Verses (Hari, Amitava, Ruchir, Jeet) are to be investigated by Rajasthan’s finest. Many of my friends reading this are in Jaipur, some as writers, some as participants. Overwhelm the cops; hope more and more of you read publicly from the novel, and shame the state further. Deoband and the state may have the muscle – the writers have truth, humour, and Gandhi on their side.

Go, writers. Rock the world. Push back.

Update

Subir Ghosh reports a press release that he got from Kavita K Bhaskaran, Senior Vice President, Sampark, the PR agency running the Jaipur festival:

This press release is being issued on behalf of the organizers of the Jaipur Literature Festival. It has come to their attention that certain delegates acted in a manner during their sessions today which were without the prior knowledge or consent of the organizers. Any views expressed or actions taken by these delegates are in no manner endorsed by the Jaipur Literature Festival. Any comments made by the delegates reflect their personal, individual views and are not endorsed by the Festival or attributable to its organizers or anyone acting on their behalf. The Festival organizers are fully committed to ensuring compliance of all prevailing laws and will continue to offer their fullest cooperation to prevent any legal violation of any kind. Any action by any delegate or anyone else involved with the Festival that in any manner falls foul of the law will not be tolerated and all necessary, consequential action will be taken. Our endeavor has always been to provide a platform to foster an exchange of ideas and the love of literature, strictly within the four corners of the law. We remain committed to this objective.

So much for solidarity in defense of free expression.

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



Are you now or have you ever been an Islamophobe

Jan 19th, 2012 4:15 pm | By

The UCL Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society put out a statement today. They’re tired of the whole thing and don’t want to talk about it any more.

What makes a student society is the ability to be open, foster community and – most importantly – encourage critical debate. The principal objective of our Society is to maintain a sceptical view on everything, be it astrology, numerology or theism. I am personally a strong believer of freedom of speech and I believe that it is a vitally important freedom to maintain. Freedom of speech guarantees the space for intellectual discourse, and in that space, people should be able to say what they want, without being afraid of censorship on the grounds of offence.

In other words – thank you so much for your valuable input, Ahmadiyya Male Muslim Youth Association UK, but we’ll take it from here. We would actually like to run our organization in a way that fits with our reasons for belonging to it in the first place rather than according to your reasons for wanting to kick up a fuss. We’re terrifically grateful for your energetic – indeed, truth be told, rather insistent – offers to help, but we think we know better how to run our own organization than you do. We would draw your attention to that lack of input from us on how you should run your organization; there’s a reason for that.

By our publication of this image there was no intention to offend and i am sorry to hear that people took personal offence when viewing it. However, ‘offence’ was certainly inadequate grounds for the removal of the image to be requested by the UCL Union. Their policies need clarification to prevent this same situation from arising in the future.

Yes they do.

Meanwhile, in case anyone’s blood pressure should fall dangerously low, the LSE Students Union has leapt into the breach created by the UCL ASH’s retirement. The LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society has also put out a statement.

Today we were contacted by the LSE Students Union to “discuss some of the issues around recent postings on facebook etc.”

We think this might have to do with the accusations of “Islamophobia” that were levelled against us during Thursday 19th Union General Meeting after some “Jesus and Mo” cartoons were posted on our facebook group and Marshall Palmer posted an article on his blog about the cartoon controversy at UCL.

Any accusation of “Islamophobia” against the LSE SU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society are baseless. We will be meeting SU officials tomorrow 20th to discuss this issue.

And so the secret police continue their vital work.

 

 

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



More from the bully boyz

Jan 19th, 2012 11:51 am | By

And then we drop in on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association UK – which is actually not a “youth association” at all because it addresses members as “Brothers,” so clearly it’s only for male youth. Anyway we drop in on it and find its views on how to get more deference and obedience from people who don’t share its religious commitments.

You should all now be aware that we have been running a campaign over the past week in response to the decision take by Atheist Society of UCL to post a cartoon depicting the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the Holy Prophet Jesus (as) having a beer (God forbid) at a pub frequented by some of the UCL students.

To defend the honour of our beloved Prophets, a press release was issued along with a number of articles. Our message to the UCL Atheist Society was simply that they should use their right to ”freedom of speech” in a responsible way which demonstrates both tolerance and respect.

The voice of the goombah bully boy again. The voice of the thug smacking a club against the palm of his hand in a threatening manner. “Hey you: use your ‘freedom of speech’ [pause to spit on the ground] in a responsible way or you might be getting a visit from us. Demonstrate tolerance and respect or we’ll make things hot for you. When we say ‘respect’ we mean do whatever we say as soon as we say it; that’s respect. We hope we don’t have to remind you of this again.”

All this for the sake of “defending the honour” of a couple of guys who have been dead for many centuries.

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



London 11 February 2012 – defend free expression

Jan 19th, 2012 11:02 am | By

Maryam says HOLD THE DATE:

One Law for All is calling for a rally in defence of free expression and the right to criticise religion on 11 February 2012 in central London from 2-4pm.

We are also calling for simultaneous events and acts in defence of free expression on 11 February in countries world-wide.

The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying ‘Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?’, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.

Read the rest at Maryam’s.

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



History has told us that these things cause offence

Jan 19th, 2012 9:56 am | By

The president of UCL’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society, Robbie Yellon, has stepped down to be replaced by former vice president Michael Thor. Yellon quit because of all this mishegas about the Jesus and Mo image.

“Robbie stepped aside because he signed up as president to organise events and run a student society,” said Michael Paynter, secretary for the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies.

“He did not appreciate the stress he would be under when dealing with a controversy like this, so he wanted to make way for someone else.”

A small but no doubt pleasant victory for the shit-stirrers. The BBC goes on to make the shit-stirrer case.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association is continuing with its protest against the image, saying it has wider implications.

Adam Walker, the association’s national spokesperson, said the two student groups had worked well together in the past and said the offence was unnecessary.

“The principle is more important than who is being attacked – this time it is Muslims and Christians* but in the future it could be atheists themselves.

“There is no need to print these things other than to cause offence and history has told us that these things cause offence.”

That is such an interesting idea, or not so much idea as trap. People have pitched huge violent rageboy fits in the past over what they chose to consider “offence”; therefore history shows that what rageboys choose to consider “offence” will be met with huge violent fits; therefore you must never do the thing which rageboys choose to consider “offence”; so just forget about this pesky liberal idea of free debate. It’s an elaborate threat. “Our goombahs have killed people over this stuff in the past, so you know they’ll do it again, so shut your filthy kuffar mouth.”

But at the same time what we’re talking about here is a principle, and it could be atheists next time. It never is, of course, but it could be. We’re all in this together, united for the principle that perceived “offence” trumps freedom of discussion and criticism. In your dreams, Adam Walker.

UCL Union (UCLU) said in a statement: “The atheist society has agreed they will take more consideration when drawing up publicity for future 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.”

Yes it did. We saw that statement a couple of days ago, and a very nasty statement it is. A “safe environment” is interpreted as one in which one particular religion is given special treatment.

*Note the lie. It’s not Christians.

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



Orlando

Jan 18th, 2012 3:13 pm | By

Oh hey, I’m excited now – Jessica Ahlquist is a speaker at the Moving Secularism Forward conference - which is exciting for Me Me Me because so am I. Yip!

The annual joint conference of CFI and the Council for Secular Humanism takes place March 1–4 at the Hyatt Regency in Orlando, FL and includes presentations from Daniel Dennett, Jamila Bey, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, David Silverman, Ronald A. Lindsay, and more.

Jessica Ahlquist croppedNew speaker announced: Jessica Ahlquist! Jessica, our volunteer high school coordinator, just won the case against her public high school’s display of a prayer banner. She’s participating in a Saturday morning session on “Outreach and Advocacy Strategies” moderated by campus organizer Debbie Goddard.

It’s fun having teenage heroes. Makes a person feel optimistic.

 

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



Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?

Jan 18th, 2012 1:10 pm | By

And then there’s this “Urgent – Calling all muslims” at Islamicawakening on Monday -

Brothers, the Queen Mary Athiest Society, sister of the shaytaani UCL Athiest Society (which published pictures of Rasoolullah(saw)) are holding an event today at Queen Mary University of London at 7:00 pm on ‘ Is Shariah in violation of human rights’.. We need your presence. Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?

The kuffar have no right to speak, at a university in London. That’s an interesting thought. Also the comment addresses “Brothers” – so apparently “all muslims” actually means only half of all muslims – and then the “kuffar” who was speaking at Queen Mary that evening is a woman, so her right to speak is even more non-existent.

Let me ask you – if a bunch of kuffar got together and were given the right to touch your mother up and analyse her, then would you stand by and let it happen?

The patriarchal mind at work – “you” are always male, and women are always “yours” as opposed to being you. Men are always the agents and women are always the faceless voiceless objects. That of course is before we even get to the confusion between molesting a human being and disputing a religion.

Then what about your deen?!! Remember, these guys hate religion and are not looking to have an unbiased debate. Please be here by 7 pm. to let them know what we think. Back in my day no-one in UNi would dare even look the wrong way at a muslim, because we used to represent our deen and didnt take kindly to it being insulted. It is only when the pacifists ecame numerous that the kuffar dared to raise their heads.

A bully and a thug.

Update

Via Anne Marie Waters – she and Maryam debated sharia with an Ahmaddiya Muslim at UCL last month, and here that debate is:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYrjFE6Rcg

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



Threat threat threat threat

Jan 18th, 2012 12:53 pm | By

On Rhys Morgan’s (currently very busy) Facebook page – a guy called Safwan Ahmed, a graduate of Rhys’s school, posted to say

take that blog down before i fly kick you!

Rhys said no, Ahmed replied

inappropriate and offensive! take it down before you lose the remaining half of your penis.

Someone tried to tell Ahmed that threats are a serious matter and can be reported to the authorities. Ahmed replied

nah no argument cbf wasting time with u. sorry if you were looking for a rebuttal, i will deal with this matter personally.

More back and forth, culminating in Ahmed’s

hahahahha scott you amuse me in the sense that your a fucking sad prick! look at my avatar? id rather not! go stick your avatar up your ass you lame cunt! Rhys u can stfu i will be seeing u soon!

Helen Dale said she was taking a screenshot, and Safwan Ahmed went silent. Hooray for that, at least – but this is what’s at stake – threats of violence over benign cartoon images on blogs.

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



Another chorus of “god hates atheists”

Jan 18th, 2012 12:21 pm | By

Steve Ahlquist (Jessica’s uncle) just posted several Youtube videos on the Support the Removal of the Cranston High School West Prayer Facebook page, including this gem of majoritarian bullying (which we have seen before – remember that Mississippi high school?) -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtULr3eKaQA

 

 

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



Jesus and Mo promote peace, tolerance and respect

Jan 18th, 2012 11:39 am | By

A new Jesus and Mo.

bogus

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.)



QED

Jan 17th, 2012 5:14 pm | By

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.)



Behold, theocracy in action

Jan 17th, 2012 4:00 pm | By

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.)



Just a kind request

Jan 17th, 2012 11:56 am | By

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.)



“If I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Muhammad”

Jan 17th, 2012 11:17 am | By

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.)



He annoyed the religious sentiments of Muslims in the past

Jan 17th, 2012 10:58 am | By

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.)



1 shut up. 2 shut up. 3 shut up.

Jan 17th, 2012 10:35 am | By

Damn. Things have gone crazy – so crazy that it’s hard to keep up. Just to give you the bare list -

Salman Rushdie

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.)



They will take more consideration

Jan 16th, 2012 4:35 pm | By

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.)



Developments

Jan 16th, 2012 3:11 pm | By

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.)



Never anything more than an informal request

Jan 16th, 2012 12:01 pm | By

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.)