Tag: Religious censorship

  • Not acceptable to all those who believe in respect for all religions

    Via Padraig Reidy at Index on Censorship, a new depth of absurdity.

    An Early day motion (query: wozzat?) in Parliament a week ago:

    That this House notes with concern the sketch on the NBC Jay Leno Show where the most sacred Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple, was disrespected by Jay Leno when it was referred to as GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s summer home; expresses concern and regret that this depiction of the Golden Temple as a home of the rich shows a complete misunderstanding of the Sikh faith and is derogatory to Sikhs across the world; believes that these comments are not acceptable to all those who believe in respect for all religions; calls on Jay Leno and NBC to apologise to all Sikhs for this disrespectful depiction of the Golden Temple; and further calls on the Government to make representations to the US government that while recognising principles of freedom of speech there should be more understanding and respect shown to the Sikh faith.

    What? Are they serious? Can they possibly be serious?

    Let’s look at that sketch then.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGlyjY5bJU

    That’s funny.

    It’s also an outrage, in the usual way – it shows how rich religious organizations get and how lavishly they spend their money on baubles for the organization. This is particularly outrageous in India, which has – is it 3 million people? 7 million? – living on less than a dollar a day.

    But that’s not what that ridiculous motion, sponsored by Virendra Sharma, was getting at. No, that motion was nagging a comedian and a tv network to “respect all religions” which means making no jokes in any way related to them.

    It’s unbelievably pathetic.

  • Play up and play the game

    It’s always nice to see friendly rivalry among people of similar interests. It keeps their skills honed and their energy high. The right-wing Hindutva student group in India, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, is competing with the “activists” who shut down Salman Rushdie at Jaipur. The ABVP objected to the screening of a documentary on Kashmir, and behold, the objection achieved its aim: the showing was cancelled. “Activists” 1, ABVP 1. Next round!

    Symbiosis University has cancelled the screening of documentary filmmaker Sanjay Kak’s Jashn-e-Azadion Kashmir, after the right-wing student organisation, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), raised objections to its ‘separatist’ nature. The film was supposed to be screened at a three-day national seminar called ‘Voices of Kashmir’ at the Symbiosis College of Arts and Commerce, organised in association with the University Grants Commission (UGC) on February 3, 4 and 5.

    The organisation now wants the entire seminar cancelled, ABVP Pune unit Secretary Shailendra Dalvi told The Hindu on Saturday evening. “The content of the seminar, like the film, is anti-India, and against the Indian Army. We will not stand for anything that divides the country. Symbiosis has agreed to cancel the film screening, and we are giving them three days’ time to think about the event, too,” Mr. Dalvi stated.

    Spoken like a true bully. Mr Dalvi is showing good form and will put the “activists” on their mettle.

    Speaking to The Hindu over telephone, Symbiosis College of Arts and Commerce principal Hrishikesh Soman stated that the ABVP had approached him on Friday, and that the college agreed to cancel the film screening “considering their [ABVP’s] emotions and feelings.” “I told them that the seminar is entirely academic, apolitical and non-religious. But the film has met with criticism from all corners. So we have decided to avoid unnecessary controversies and cancel the screening,” Mr. Soman said. “If people have a very strong reason to protest the film, then we should be tolerant enough,” he stated.

    Mr Soman is making things too easy for the up and coming ABVP. If he doesn’t offer even a little resistance, how will they hone their skills? It’s unsporting to surrender at once.

    Asked if the college would cancel the event altogether, Mr. Soman said: “After the first meeting, the ABVP has not made such a request yet. If they do, then we will try to sort it out.” Asked if the cancellation of the film screening withheld the students’ right to experience and discuss all sides of the Kashmir conflict, Mr. Soman said: “I don’t want to get into petty issues. The seminar will be purely intellectual, and will focus on socio-cultural and educational issues in Kashmir.”

    Mr. Soman said Mr. Kak had been “informed categorically” that the film screening had been cancelled.

    Quite right too! How dare Mr Kak think his film would be screened as scheduled! Impertinent bastard. I’m very impressed with Mr Soman for being so sharp with him. He may have spoiled play by surrendering too fast, but his carry-through is excellent.

     

  • The last afternoon at Jaipur

    William Dalrymple tells us what last Tuesday afternoon in Jaipur was like.

    It was the last afternoon of the Jaipur Literature Festival, of which I am co-director, and more than 10,000 people were milling around the grounds of Diggi Palace, the festival venue, eagerly waiting to hear Salman Rushdie speak by video link from London. For three weeks we had waited anxiously for this moment, ever since Maulana Abdul Qasim Nomani of the Deoband madrasa had called for the Indian Muslim community to oppose Rushdie’s visit to our festival…

    Then at about one o’clock a large number of Muslim activists appeared in the property and gravitated to the back of the lawns where a huge crowd had gathered to hear the videolink. Some of them went into the central courtyard of the palace to make their namaz (pray), and according to some reports, the maulana in charge told his followers that if anyone was killed that day they would die a martyr. Then they sought out our producer, Sanjoy Roy, and told him that they were prepared to use any amount of violence in order to stop Rushdie’s voice being heard. Others talked to the press: one told a reporter from the Times of India that “rivers of blood will flow here if they show Rushdie”, while the Muslim Manch representative Abdul Salim Sankhla was quoted as saying: “We will not allow Rushdie to speak here in any form. There will be violent protests if he speaks.” While all this was happening, some of the other activists were turfing school children out of their seats and intimidating festival guests.

    Some “activists.” Bullies, theocrats, goons – censors, haters of literature, enforcers for god – fascists.

    The commitment of Indian politicians to maintaining artistic and intellectual freedom seemed to be becoming ever weaker. In the past few months, Joseph Lelyveld’s distinguished book on Gandhi had been banned in the state of Gujerat, AK Ramanujan’s great study of the Ramayana had been removed from the syllabus of Delhi university, and the country’s most revered modern artist, MF Husain, had died in exile after Hindu fundamentalists had hounded him out of the country with a rash of lawsuits and attacks on him and his work. In almost all cases, the politicians had encouraged the protesters rather than protecting the writers and artists, using draconian colonial legislation intended to stop religious riots to silence the creative voice.

    …

    In the event, we never got to make that decision. The owner of our festival venue, Ram Pratab Singh of Diggi Palace, stepped in and, on the advice of the police commissioner, took the decision for us. He said he was unable to take responsibility for a lathi charge and possible deaths in a venue full of children and old people, and forbade the link to take place on his property. He stood on stage and announced his decision. Then it was the turn of Sanjoy to speak for us. “We have been bullied and pushed to the wall,” he said, choking up. “All of us feel hurt, disgusted and ashamed.” As Sanjoy broke down on stage, the audience clapped loudly and supportively. Minutes later I got an email from Rushdie on my BlackBerry: “Yes, an ugly day, but please don’t reproach yourself. You all worked so hard. Thank you.”

    But then Barkha Dutt interviewed Rushdie and that was seen on tv by millions a few hours later.

    Rushdie was as eloquent and defiant as I have ever heard him: “I will come to India many times,” he said, “and I will not allow these religious gangsters and their cronies in government to stop me … My overwhelming feeling is disappointment on behalf of India … [where] religious extremists can prevent free expression of ideas”, where politicians were “in bed with these groups … for narrow electoral reasons” and the police “unable to secure venues against demonstrators”. In a final flourish he also slammed the extremists whom, he said, “were the real enemies of Islam”. Meanwhile, on stage, we had a rousing panel discussion about freedom of expression, which was beamed live around India. There could have been worse outcomes.

    We can only hope that the debate begun in Jaipur continues. Outdated colonial laws need to be repealed, violent fringe groups must be stopped from holding the nation to ransom and we need a movement to stop politicians abusing religious sentiment for political gain. Only when freedom of expression can be taken for granted can India really call itself the democracy it claims so proudly to be.

    Quite. Also the UK.

  • No Jaipur Literature Festival for you

    Yesterday Praveen Swami reported that

    Local intelligence officials in Rajasthan invented information that hit men were preparing to assassinate eminent author Salman Rushdie in a successful plot to deter him from attending the Jaipur Literature Festival, highly placed police sources have told The Hindu.

    I didn’t post about it yesterday only because it was a little thin (and it’s absolutely extraordinary), so I decided to wait.

    Now Salman Rushdie has said on Facebook and Twitter:

    I have investigated this myself and am now convinced that the story is true. I was lied to by the Rajasthan authorities, and don’t know when I have felt so angry.

    Staggering. So much for secular India.

  • The organisers have refused to hand over the tapes

    The police are still policing the writers who read from The Satanic Verses at the Jaipur festival yesterday.

    A day after author Salman Rushdie made it clear that he would not be coming to India, alleging that he was told that underworld hitmen were out to get him, the raging debate at the Jaipur Literature Festival is still on. The police have now asked for the tape recordings of author Amitava Kumar reading out excerpts from Mr Rushdie’s controversial book – Satanic Verses – which is illegal in India. The organisers of the event, however, have refused to hand over the tapes.

    …

    Authors Hari Kunzru and Amitava Kumar, as a mark of protest, used their session at the festival to read from Satanic Verses. Later, authors Jeet Thayil and Ruchir Joshi also read out from the banned book. “We asked organisers today to provide us details and video footage of a session in which the book was allegedly read,” Jaipur Police Additional Commissioner Biju George Joseph said.

    “We will examine whether the alleged reading from the banned book was done. It is a suo motu action. After examining the matter, appropriate action would be taken against those who were found guilty,” he said.

    Pathetic.

  • Muscle v truth and humour

    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.

  • Are you now or have you ever been an Islamophobe

    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.

     

     

  • More from the bully boyz

    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.

  • History has told us that these things cause offence

    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.

  • Behold, theocracy in action

    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.

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

    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.

  • He annoyed the religious sentiments of Muslims in the past

    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.

     

     

  • 1 shut up. 2 shut up. 3 shut up.

    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.

     

     

     

  • They will take more consideration

    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.

     

     

  • Developments

    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.

  • Peter Palumbo

    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.

  • Unconvincing claims of exercising free speech

    A week ago the Paris correspondent of Time, Bruce Crumley, wrote an article on the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo, saying…that we journalists and beneficiaries of free speech stand shoulder to shoulder with Charlie Hebdo?

    No actually. Not that. Something different.

    Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts
    by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

    Oh gee, I don’t know. I ask myself the same question whenever I have the audacity to write something and then go ahead and click “Publish” so that it appears online. Surely I’m just begging for the very misogynist responses from misogynists that I claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. Amirite? I tempt belligerent reaction several times every day. What do I think I’m doing!?! What does anyone think she’s doing by writing down what she thinks about something when she knows full well that someone somewhere could disagree with it and be tempted into belligerent reaction?! It’s such a petulant, futile thing to do, to say something that somebody might dislike.

    The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to have
    much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot.

    Stupid and totally unnecessary – so is it Forbidden to publish anything that’s not necessary now? And what are the criteria for “necessary”? And is the fact that something is certain to enrage hard-core Islamists a good reason not to do it? Women going out in public is also certain to enrage hard-core Islamists; should they therefore stay at home? And is “forbidden in Islam” a good reason for the whole world to not do something? Charlie Hebdo isn’t in Islam, so why should it care what is forbidden in Islam? The prohibitions of religions don’t apply to people who don’t adhere to the religions, after all. I know this is old news, as well as obvious, but this Crumley fella seems to have missed the memo.

    We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss,
    Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate response
    to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for
    printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the
    logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those
    charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

    Oh good god, what a horrible brainless thug. He’s right up there with Brendan O’Neill. Sorry for your loss, he says sneeringly, and there’s no justification but all the same I will tell you how very bad and wrong you are – you the one who just had your offices and equipment destroyed. It was offensive and shameful so nyah nyah good luck with the charcoal.

    …rather than issuing warnings to be careful about what one asks for, the arson
    prompted political leaders and pundits across the board to denounce the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies.

    Oh jeezis mary and joseph, the guy is a journalist and he said that – he wants political leaders and pundits issuing warnings to be careful about what one “asks for” by writing or drawing cartoons! He wants them to do that instead of defending freedom of speech!

    In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’s face it,
    just plain lame) Mohammed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. As intended, those produced outrage–and at times violent reaction–from Muslims around the world (not to mention repeated terror plots to kill illustrators responsible for the drawings). Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists.

    He says the caricatures were intended to produce outrage and violent reaction, and terror plots to kill the very cartoonists who apparently intended all this. He attacks the very idea of free speech in the act of informing us that it no longer needs to be “proved” – well with people like him around it sure as hell does.

    …it’s just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a
    minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their
    rights and liberties—and that isn’t happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble
    statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

    A minimum of calculation. We’re allowed to have free speech but we have to exercise a minimum of calculation before we actually use it – so we’re not actually allowed to have it at all. “Let’s see, will this cause Islamists to blow us up? Will this cause misogynists to threaten to rape me? Hmmmmm yes maybe; I’ll just go get drunk, instead.” There’s your free speech.

  • L’amour plus fort que la haine

    Via Maryam – Charlie Hebdo says love is stronger than hate. C’est vrai!

  • “Secularism” in Turkey

    Burak Bekdil explains why Turkish secularism isn’t.

    A majority of Turks, Sunni Muslims, overtly or covertly believe that they should be “more equal” than the others because they constitute the majority. They think that it is their natural right to enjoy preferential treatment in terms of governance and law enforcement. Remember how the crowds in Istanbul last year, trying to attack the Israeli consulate, shouted at the police who were trying to prevent bloodshed? “Leave the Jews to us! What kind of Muslims are you?” A simple search will produce thousands of examples of this nature unveiling the conscious or subconscious desire of the Sunni Turk for preferential treatment in public administration.

    It’s not unlike the US that way. A great many Christians in the US also believe that they should be “more equal” than the others because they constitute the majority.

    Most recently, the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office charged a cartoonist with “insulting the religious [Muslim] values adopted by a part of the population [Muslim],” demanding that the artist receive up to a year in prison in its indictment. That cartoon may or may not insult part of the population. And yes, blasphemy laws are not exclusively Turkish. But a state, or in this case, law enforcement, that is equal to all faiths should ensure that similar cases are opened against, say, the Sunni majority when they insult, say, other monotheistic or atheist parts of the population. Can anyone imagine a Muslim Turk having to stand trial for writing a book that insults atheists?

    Secularism combined with a healthy respect for free speech combined with an ability to live with perceived “insults” to beliefs and ideas would be the way to go.

  • Insulting the religious values

    Oh noes, a cartoonist did a cartoon. Call the cops!

    A Turkish cartoonist will be put on trial for a caricature he drew in which he renounced god, daily Habertürk reported on its website Wednesday.

    The Istanbul chief public prosecutor’s office charged cartoonist Bahadır Baruter with “insulting the religious values adopted by a part of the population” and requested his imprisonment for up to one year.

    A mild and liberal response.

    Baruter’s caricature depicted an imam and believers praying in a mosque. One of the characters is talking to God on his cellphone and asking to be pardoned from the last part of the prayer because he has errands to run.

    Within the wall decorations of the mosque, Baruter hid the words, “There is no Allah, religion is a lie.” The cartoon was published in the weekly “Penguen” humor magazine.

    And some bossy controlfreak pious meddling Fans of Allah filed complaints. No cartoons for you, no jokes for you, no irony about religion or praying or gods for you. Shut up and kneel.