She and they

Feb 20th, 2016 10:42 am | By

More support for Fran Cowling and indignation with Peter Tatchell. Also – coincidentally? or not? – more bad writing. This time it’s an open letter to Peter by a guy called Chris Hubley. He points out that there have been a lot of articles on the subject of Cowling v Tatchell.

However what is missing from all this is that you were never actually under attack. Fran isn’t a well known figure beyond their own circles, and they weren’t even making these comments publicly – it all happened in private emails between them and the organisers of the event. They had been invited to speak alongside you, and they responded that they didn’t want to.

Wait, I’m lost already. Who? Who weren’t? Who had? Who did?

There are actually reasons for using singular pronouns when you’re talking about one person and plural ones when you’re talking about several, reasons that have nothing to do with transphobia or snooty prescriptivism about language. Hubley seems to be serenely unaware that he’s talking about an individual and a group in the same paragraph, and that he’ll confuse us if he uses “they” when he means the one individual. Also, as I said yesterday, it’s not obvious to me why he’s calling Fran Cowling “they” at all. When it’s not obvious, maybe it’s a silly thing to do.

Now this is something which they are completely within their right to do, freedom of speech is also freedom to not engage. So then it seems the organisers forwarded the email onto you. It’s understandable that you might want to reach out to them, to see if you could talk it through. But they didn’t want to have that conversation with you, which again they are free to do.

Same again but more so. That part is even less clear. Reach out to the organizers, or Cowling? Cowling didn’t want to, or the organizers? Who knows.

Then Hubley says it was uncool of Tatchell to take it all public.

Meanwhile when you google Fran Cowling the results are dominated by articles about you. Everyone is writing about them, and the tone ranges from the mainstream broadsheets cooly reporting on your original statement to aggressive hate filled rants about how Fran represents everything that’s wrong with modern student activism. How do you think this has affected them, and will affect them in the future? So far it’s resulted in them shutting down their Twitter and LinkedIn accounts, and I’ve heard from those close to her that it’s been incredibly difficult for them…

Ooops! He slipped up there.

There’s one simple fact that you don’t seem to understand in this situation where you’ve painted yourself as the poor victim of an over-zealous oppressor, and that is that you are the one with the power in this situation. Fran is a young student activist, while you are a celebrity with a Guardian column and a foundation named after yourself. Fran Cowling is not a threat to your freedom of speech. However your actions have harmed her in a way which sends a clear message that you are not to be messed with or criticised, even in private, otherwise all hell will break loose and you’ll release the hounds/press releases. Now I don’t know about you but that sure doesn’t sound like a situation conducive to freedom of speech to me.

Ooops! He slipped up again.

As for the substance – he does have something of a point, I guess. Tatchell does have far more media power than Cowling does. But given that she was telling event organizers that he was a Particular Kind of Bad Person, I can well understand why he wanted to set the record straight. I’m not sure what to think about this one.



Back to school

Feb 20th, 2016 10:04 am | By

The BBC has had to tell some of its people they can’t do any more filming unless/until they can show they’ve been to Don’t Fake Your Footage school. How embarrassing.

Staff at the BBC’s flagship Natural History Unit will be banned from programme-making until they have been sent on a tough new anti-fakery course, after two of the division’s shows were found to have contained serious breaches of the corporation’s editorial guidelines.

The editorial guidelines that go “First, fake no footage.”

The BBC Trust, the broadcaster’s governing body, ruled yesterday that Patagonia: Earth’s Secret Paradise, a BBC Two series shown last year, misled viewers by passing off composite footage of different volcanic eruptions as a single event.

Well…if it’s composite footage and they didn’t say that, then yes, they misled viewers. If I see footage of an eruption, I assume it’s one eruption.

Another natural history programme, Human Planet: Deserts – Life in the Furnace, which aired in 2011, included scenes in which a wolf was shown being hunted by Mongolian camel herdsmen. It later emerged that the animal was semi-domesticated, and that the footage had been faked.

Obviates the need for all that tedious waiting for the camel herders to find an actual wolf.

Both errors were described by the Trust as having constituted a “serious breach” of the BBC’s accuracy rules, and are the latest in a series of fakery scandals to have hit the NHU. In 2011 it emerged that scenes in Frozen Planet, voiced by Sir David Attenborough, which showed the birth of polar bear cubs, had actually been filmed in a Dutch wildlife centre.

You know, I think there’s an argument that that’s the more humane way to get that particular kind of footage. It should probably be permissible and fine for tv shows to substitute humane alternatives for some shots as long as you say that’s what you’re doing.



I meant to do that

Feb 19th, 2016 4:24 pm | By

So tilted.



A dedicated, hard-working and passionate activist

Feb 19th, 2016 3:18 pm | By

There exists a statement of solidarity with Fran Cowling. It’s not clear who wrote it or posted it or is hosting it – it’s just some words floating in cyberspace. It purports to be on a blog called Solidarity for Students with a subhead (or section) called Student Solidarity, but when you click on either one, it just takes you to the page you’re already on. A bit Alice Through the Looking-glass, that.

So these floating words.

We stand in solidarity with NUS LGBT+ Officer Fran Cowling and support their right to choose who they share a platform with according to their own values and beliefs. We believe fundamentally in the right to freedom of speech and association but that both of these carry with them the right to choose to neither speak nor associate with someone and Fran has every right to exercise those rights however they deem fit.

Wow that’s terrible writing. It’s awful bureaucratic boilerplate, but worse, it loses track of the syntax before it gets to the end of those awful sentences. You can’t believe in something and but that something in the same clause, let alone add yet a third item about what Fran has every right to exercise.

Also why is Fran Cowling “they”? The news outlets didn’t call her “they”; did they all have it wrong? Is it just considered rude now not to call people “they”? If so, why? Are we that ashamed of not being trans?

Anyway.

We are appalled at Peter Tatchell’s actions in dragging a dedicated, hard-working and passionate activist through an appalling media circus which has led to them receiving a torrent of vile abuse with no other apparent purpose than to salve his own ego.

Appalled at Tatchell’s actions, but it’s perfectly fine for Fran Cowling to email all and sundry saying how terrible he is. Why’s that then? Why is she allowed to barf all over him while he is expected to shut up and take it? I bet Fran Cowling isn’t such a “a dedicated, hard-working and passionate activist” as Peter Tatchell is.

We believe that whether Peter Tatchell feels he is racist or transphobic is ultimately irrelevant as none of us is best placed to be an objective judge of our own behaviour and Fran’s decision to listen to the voices of People of Colour and Trans people who have raised issues with his behaviour was the right decision for them to make and should be supported. Whilst also recognising that those opinions are not universal amongst People of Colour and Trans people, nor should there ever be expectation that they would be, because neither group is comprised of identical clones and where differing opinions exist the choice of who to side with remains with the individual.

Okay, there’s the nub of the issue.

Why was Fran’s decision to listen to the voices of People of Colour and Trans people who have raised issues with his behaviour the right decision for her to make? What if they’re wrong? What if they’re making it up? What if they’re both? Why is it just self-evidently true that it’s right for her to listen to them and then email a bunch of people to say he’s shitty?

And then the dismissal of the fact that other members of the People of Identity would contradict the ones Fran Cowling “listened to” on the grounds that everybody’s different is just contemptible. Yes, people are different, and if they differ over the facts about Peter Tatchell, then some are right and others are wrong, and it makes a difference which ones Fran Cowling “listens to.”

If the composer of this mess is a student, I seriously hope intensive tutoring is available. It’s desperately needed.



We do not

Feb 19th, 2016 2:16 pm | By

A friend had to go the the ER for sudden crippling back pain. They refused to give my friend adequate pain relief. They have this helpful sign telling people what they can’t have:



Racist cover art 2016

Feb 19th, 2016 12:26 pm | By

The Journal.ie draws our attention to a Der Stürmer-level magazine cover from Poland:

A right-wing Polish magazine cover emblazoned with the headline “The Islamic rape of Europe” triggered a storm of criticism on social media, with some comments comparing it to World War II fascist propaganda.

The cover of the news weekly “w Sieci” (In the net) showed a posed photo of a blue-eyed blonde woman, wrapped in an EU flag, looking terrified as she is groped by hairy-armed men.

Hairy-armed men whose skin is a lot browner than hers.

Bad, bad stuff. Don’t do that.



Said Archbishop Bernardito Auza

Feb 19th, 2016 10:34 am | By

The Vatican reiterates: Ziak virus or no Zika virus, microcephaly or no microcephaly, women may not stop being pregnant unless god gives them a miscarriage.

The Catholic church restated its opposition to abortion in all circumstances as women in South America are frantically trying to terminate pregnancies for fear of giving birth to babies with microcephaly, which gives them unusually small heads.

“Not only is increased access to abortion and abortifacients [abortion-inducing drugs] an illegitimate response to this crisis, but since it terminates the life of a child it is fundamentally not preventative,” the Vatican said.

Well, you know, sometimes an abortion is preventative, even though it does cut off the development of a fetus into an infant.

The Holy See representative to the UN announced the Vatican’s response during the launch of a $65m (£45m) campaign by the World Health Organisation to tackle the spread of the Zika crisis. An estimated 4,000 babies have been born with microcephaly, which has been linked to their mothers becoming infected with the Zika virus by mosquito bites.

“It must be emphasised that a diagnosis of microcephaly in a child should not warrant a death sentence,” said Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Holy See’s permanent observer to the UN.

Who will never, ever, ever, ever have to deal with the problem himself. Who will never ever be pregnant, and thus never ever have to weigh outcomes. So fuck him, and fuck his church, and fuck all the men who run it and tell women what to do.

A Canadian group which supplies advice and abortion pills to women has reported a big increase in online requests from women in South America. Women on Web said it had received more than 1,000 emails begging for abortion-inducing medication such as mifepristone and misoprostol from women in countries where the drugs are banned.

“Women who are pregnant and suspect that they have had Zika just don’t want to take the risks of having a microcephalic baby. Our worry is that these women will turn to unsafe abortion methods, while we can help them with a safe, medical abortion,” Rebecca Gomperts, the group’s founder, told the Washington Post.

One email said: “I contacted Zika 4 days ago. I just found out I’m about 6 weeks pregnant. Today. Today, I found out I’m pregnant. I have a son I love dearly. I love children. But I dont believe it is a wise decision to keep a baby who will suffer. I need an abortion. I don’t know who to turn to. Please help me ASAP.”

The Vatican wants to force women like that to suffer the fear and worry of remaining pregnant, and perhaps of indeed having a baby with microcephaly. The Vatican is a loathsome institution.



Music is haram

Feb 19th, 2016 9:56 am | By

The Jerusalem Post shares one of IS’s recent activities.

According to Kurdish media reports, the jihadist group that has captured wide swaths of Syria and Iraq beheaded a 15-year-old boy in Mosul for the crime of listening to Western pop music.

Reports cite officials in the northern Iraqi city as saying that the boy, Ayham Hussein, was discovered by ISIS henchman as he was listening to a portable compact disc player.

Hussein was detained by ISIS operatives as he sat inside a shop owned by his father in an open-air market in western Mosul. The boy was beaten and tried in a local sharia court, which sentenced him to be executed.

For listening to pop music.

They chopped his head off in a square in the city center.



Nostalgia: Bic for her

Feb 18th, 2016 4:31 pm | By

A tweet from the past:

innocent drinks ‏@innocent 14 hours ago
When we got sent some pens designed especially for women.

The last one makes me laugh a lot.



Park bench theology lessons

Feb 18th, 2016 1:40 pm | By

Mo gets his money’s worth.

ten

On beer, probably.

Don’t forget the book!

Wrong again, God boy – the 7th volume of J&M strips, with a foreword by Ophelia Benson.



Gross and Jacoby

Feb 18th, 2016 1:10 pm | By

Susan Jacoby was on Fresh Air yesterday. She’s written a new book about the history of religious conversion. It was an interesting conversation.

GROSS: Islam and Christianity have long histories of conversion. Judaism doesn’t. It’s a religion where you’re born into it. And conversion to Judaism, I think it’s really only in modern times that that’s even been accepted, and I’m not sure it’s still accepted by all branches of Judaism.

JACOBY: No, Terry. I’m going to correct you on that. People think that, that conversion to Judaism is just a modern phenomenon. But there was an era in the late Roman Empire Judaism was not a proselytizing religion. It didn’t go out looking for converts, but it accepted converts. And one of the interesting things is is that Judaism was very attractive to the Roman aristocracy. Now most of the conversions that actually occurred were probably the result of mixed marriages of Roman women marrying into Jewish families. But it isn’t true that there weren’t conversions to Judaism then. As I said, they didn’t proselytize, but they accepted and in that respect, not so different from conversions to Judaism resulting from mixed marriages today. The Roman Empire was fairly tolerant of religious choice as long as you made a point not of thumbing your nose in public at the Roman gods.

GROSS: So why was conversion accepted then but not after?

JACOBY: Well, very simple, the Christian church became ascendant in the Roman Empire. The Roman emperors became Christians. Constantine was the first, of course, but soon afterwards. And once the Roman Catholic Church in the West became the church most closely connected with the state, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize the validity of any religion other than its own. So that it was not only Jews were a thorn in their side because Jews in general refuse to convert, but pagans converted and masked to Christianity. It was the thing to do. If you were ambitious, if you wanted to get along, that’s what happened, not so different from anything else. But the short answer is that the Christian religion did not tolerate heresy.

And you know what, kids? That’s still true today! The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the validity of any religion other than its own. It pretends to, sort of, at times, for the sake of interfaith conferences and politeness when foreign visitors come knocking, but other than that it simply tells us what’s what.

Jacoby’s father was a non-practicing Jew but he converted to Catholicism after he married her Catholic mother.

GROSS: Funny thing, though, your father ended up being a gambler – having a gambling problem.

JACOBY: Well, my grandfather didn’t know that (laughter) at the time. And indeed my father – one of the reasons for his conversion was he had a terrible gambling problem, and my mother was going to leave him if he didn’t get control of it. He thought since he knew nothing about Judaism – he’d been brought up in a completely nonreligious Jewish home – he thought just practicing a religion might help him overcome his gambling problem.

And this too is a theme in so many conversions, whether it’s alcoholism or gambling, the desire to overcome some personal fault which the person feels he or she cannot do on his or her own. Look, President George W. Bush is a born-again Christian, which I do consider a conversion, and I should say that I define a true conversion as any conversion that requires a real change in the way someone lives.

And so my father’s conversion was sincere, even though he didn’t believe all of the technical points of Catholic doctrine, just as I’m sure George W. Bush’s conversion helped him overcome his problems with drink. And this is a theme in so many conversions that just transcends any individual or any family.

The conversation moves to something else for a time and then returns to that.

GROSS: You know how you said your father converted primarily because he wanted to give up his gambling problem and he knew if he didn’t he’d basically lose his family…

JACOBY: Yes.

GROSS: …And so he needed help and he thought, you know, converting to Catholicism would help him. And, as you point out, that’s a reason why a lot of people convert because they need – they need to feel that there’s a power greater than themselves that can guide them and help them and also that there’s, like, a discipline that will help them.

JACOBY: Yes.

GROSS: Did it help him? Did the conversion help him give up gambling?

JACOBY: I think it did. I actually think it did. For one thing, the Catholic Church in particular has this one thing – confession – in which you could go, confess to a priest and obtain absolution of your sins. And there was a routine and a ritual and I think – I think that it did help him, yes.

GROSS: And did that affect your view of faith when you found that out?

JACOBY: No. I’d be the last person in the world to deny that there are many people for whom faith is – can be a great sustaining force. You know, people often wrongly think that atheists want to convert other people to atheism (laughter). I am completely uninterested in that. And atheism, by the way, is not a religion. One of the things, in fact, that atheism lacks are the kinds of rituals that religion does provide and I would be the first to say that.

I don’t, for example, ever participate in debates about the existence or nonexistence of God because I can’t imagine why anyone would be persuaded one way or the other by such things. And so I don’t deny that religion is very healthful* to a lot of people. And as long as they don’t try to convert me, I have, you know, nothing – and to interfere with the rights of people to believe other religions or to not believe in any religion at all – as long as they mind their own religion – perfectly all right with me, in the case of my father, as well as any other religious convert I know.

*I think she either said or meant to say “helpful” not “healthful.”

As for what she says – I know what she means, but at the same time, I’m always curious about how people manage to believe the beliefs. And I’m interested enough in converting people to want to make atheism at least more visible and available – and more acceptable. But sitting people down and trying to argue them out of religion? No, I’m not into that either.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross back with Susan Jacoby, author of the new book, “Strange Gods: A Secular History Of Conversion.” One of her earlier books is a memoir about the history of religious conversions in three generations of her own family. Jacoby is also the author of “A History Of American Secularism.” She describes herself as an atheist.

You wrote a recent op-ed in The New York Times that was headlined, “Sick And Tired Of God Bless America,” and this was about how you were tired of hearing political speeches end with God Bless America. What’s your problem with that?

JACOBY: They didn’t used to, you know. God Bless America started to become an almost ritualistic incantation at the end of political speeches really with Ronald Reagan. It appears occasionally before, but it was not that common. And of course since it was a song that wasn’t written by Irving Berlin until the 20th century (laughter), none of the 19th century presidents said God Bless America at the end of speeches, either. I think that the symbolism which suggests that everybody is religious and that even presidents who believe in church and state feel obliged to do this…

GROSS: Believe in the separation of church and state.

JACOBY: Who believe in the separation of church and state feel obliged to do this. And not only, some presidents are more careful than others to make it an inclusive God, but there is also plain talk about Jesus, as we’ve heard in the campaign recently. It’s not simply God they’re talking about, it’s a particular kind of God, and also I think a longing for a more Christian America.

GROSS: I assume you’ve been following the Democratic and Republican primary campaigns. Are there statements you’ve heard candidates make pertaining to religion that you have found troubling in a multicultural country that includes a lot of people like you, who are secular?

JACOBY: The most troubling statement is, is that – made by Ted Cruz – which is, nobody should be president who doesn’t begin his day on his knees. I find that what he’s saying is no nonreligious person has the right to be president of the United States. I find that deeply troubling. I find it troubling that religious people don’t find it troubling. You know, a person can be religious and still respect secular values and not talk about Jesus all the time as though every American believed in Jesus. President Jimmy Carter is a very good example of that. A devout Baptist, he left the Southern Baptist convention in which he was raised because of disagreements among other things with its views about women, but he’s still a devout Baptist in his own way. But who, by the way, in the tradition of the first Baptists who joined with freethinkers to ratify a constitution that makes no mention of God, Jimmy Carter is that kind of Baptist. That kind of religious person who respects not only other religions but secular people is fine, but the kind of person who talks on the campaign trail as if to be a decent person or a decent public official, you have to have deep faith in God and practice a religion and that there’s something second-class about people who don’t, that is deeply troubling to me.

And that’s maybe one reason it’s worth trying to make atheism more visible and available to more people, so that that way of thinking will become less popular.



The fog deepens

Feb 18th, 2016 11:47 am | By

Tendance Coatesy shares a couple of reports:

Jenny Sterne at the Mancunion:

Allegations have come to light that Nick Lowles, director of HOPE Not Hate, has, according to a post on his Facebook page, been “no-platformed” by the NUS Black Students’ Campaign due to their belief that he holds “Islamophobic” views.

Hope not Hate, founded in 2004 after the BNP started to win substantial votes and local councillors, seeks to “challenge and defeat the politics of hate and extremism within local communities”, and Lowles was due to speak on an anti-racism platform. In Lowles’ Twitter bio he describes himself as “anti-fascist with HOPE not hate” and a “staunch supporter of the Kurdish fight against ISIS”.

In his Facebook status declared the decision “ultra-left lunacy”, mentioning the work HOPE Not Hate has done “challenging anti-Muslim hatred”.

The Huffington Post:

The NUS‘ black students’ campaign is attempting to no platform an anti-racism campaigner who founded Hope Not Hate because he is apparently “Islamophobic”.

Nick Lowles, director of the organisation, posted a message on Facebook saying he had been targeted by the National Union of Students because he has “repeatedly spoken out against grooming and dared condemn Islamist extremism”.

The NUS has a colourful history of attempting to no-platform speakers.

Most recently, gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was branded “transphobic” by an NUS officer, who refused to speak at an event with Tatchell.

However when it emerged Jihadi John sympathisers were speaking on university campuses, the NUS refused to address the issue. The union also voted against condemning Isis as it would be “Islamophobic” to do so.

Coatesy sums up:

The Tendance has been to an event organised by Hope not Hate in Ipswich.

A broad range of left-wing activists, from the Labour Party, trade unionists,  to the extra-Parliamentary left, Muslims, and even one Tory, were present.

Our principal concern at that point was campaigning against the xenophobes  of UKIP.

Hope Not Hate’s work against UKIP and all forms of far-right bigotry, from Islamists to the BNP, is greatly respected.

It is perhaps unnecessary to observe that the far-right (Stormfront) often mentions that Nick Lowles is from a Jewish background*.

All we can say, if this account is true, is that the NUS are now even more beneath contempt.

That sounds fair to me.

 

 



A little impatient with American women

Feb 17th, 2016 4:06 pm | By
A little impatient with American women

Clean-up on aisle 3.

A comment responding to Richard Dawkins’s comment here and cross-posted to his site.

dearmuslima

Hermann Steinpilz*
Feb 17, 2016 at 5:14 pm

The SJWs keep bringing up Richard’s “Dear Muslima” comment, and keep deliberately misinterpreting it. Because that’s what they do. They lie, and lie, and lie some more. I’m thinking of folk like Adam Lee, who claimed in a piece in The Guardian that Richard was essentially arguing that women in Muslim theocracies have it much worse than women in the West, and that therefore the latter should remain silent about “sexual harassment and physical intimidation”.

I can imagine how infuriating such dishonesty must be to Richard. He should (and probably does) realize that SJWs are much like fundie believers. They are equally dogmatic; they are opposed to free speech (who needs free speech, when your side has all the correct answers?); and they routinely lie for The Cause. They are totally dishonest. It is no use trying to reason with the likes of Adam Lee, PZ Myers or Ophelia Benson.

Ok how am I misinterpreting it? What is its meaning that I am so dishonestly construing? What exactly is it that I’m lying and lying and lying some more about? How else can that comment be read?

Here it is again so we can refresh our memories:

Dear Muslima

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Via David Allen Greene at the New Statesman, who of course got it via Pharyngula.

Ok: how else is that comment to be read? Explain it to me. Explain what else it can possibly mean.

But good luck with that. People pay me to write and to edit, and speaking as a writer and editor, I say the meaning of that comment is very clear, and the angry rudeness of it is very clear too. Dawkins wrote that hostile, contemptuous thing back in 2011 and he has nobody to blame for that but himself. We didn’t make him write it; we were gobsmacked when he did; so he can just stop with the blaming. His commenters can stop saying we lie and lie and lie again when we say that comment means what it so obviously says.

And anyway Richard spelled it out for a journalist himself. Kimberly Winston asked him about it in an interview in November 2014.

Bottom line: He stands by everything he has said — including comments that one form of rape or pedophilia is “worse” than another, and that a drunken woman who is raped might be responsible for her fate.

“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will … ”

He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table.

“I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.”

Kimberly quotes from Adam Lee’s article in the Guardian and then continues:

Dawkins, however, disagrees. He is, he said, not a misogynist, as some critics have called him, but “a passionate feminist.” The greatest threats to women, in his view, are Islamism and jihadism — and his concern over that sometimes leads him to speak off-the-cuff.

“I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.

Does it need to be clearer than that?

*Updating to add: a commenter tells us Hermann Steinpilz (stonemushroom) is Jan Steen of the slime pit.



Encased in the cocoon of America

Feb 17th, 2016 11:59 am | By

Ah, I see what prompted that comment by Richard Dawkins. I was wondering, because I certainly don’t think he generally spends his time reading my blog. Someone pointed out my post to him in a comment on his site, on his post about the NECSS statement and his response. He cross-posted his comment there. Immediately after that, we get this comment

And I most certainly do not “jeer at feminism”. I remain a passionate feminist who looks at the world beyond America and clearly sees that by far the majority of misogynistic atrocities are committed in the name of Islam.

As does anyone who is not encased in the cocoon of America and insulate from what’s happening in the rest of the world.

Yes, that’s me, encased in the cocoon of America and insulated from what’s happening in the rest of the world. I’ve never once posted anything about misogynistic atrocities outside the US. Not a fucking word. Nothing about Saudi Arabia, nothing about Pakistan, nothing about Nigeria, nothing about Somalia, nothing about Ireland – nothing about India, Afghanistan, Brazil, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Colombia, South Africa, Malaysia –

I’m kidding. I write about misogynistic atrocities in those countries and others all the time. It’s one of my core subjects and has been from the start – some 13 or 14 years now.

But what I don’t do is barge into conversations that other feminists are having about more local issues and upbraid them for talking about that and not something else. I don’t think that’s my business as a woman and a feminist. If it’s not my business, it’s sure as hell not the business of David R Allen and Richard Dawkins.



Catholic leaders are warning women

Feb 17th, 2016 11:24 am | By

From a few days ago, the bishops telling women never mind about Zika and microcephaly, we still forbid you to use contraception, you whores.

As the Zika virus spreads in Latin America, Catholic leaders are warning women against using contraceptives or having abortions, even as health officials in some countries are advising women not to get pregnant because of the risk of birth defects.

After a period of saying little, bishops in Latin America are beginning to speak up and reassert the church’s opposition to birth control and abortion — positions that in Latin America are unpopular and often disregarded, even among Catholics.

Often disregarded, but not always? They should be universally disregarded, because what business is it of the church’s? It’s not the church who will be raising the children, so it’s not the church’s business to order women not to avoid conceiving them. It’s nothing to do with the church at all in any way, and the church should shut right up about it.

That’s all the more true because the church has a kind of moral authority over many people. It shouldn’t, but it does. Many people think they ought to obey the church, so the church should be very cautious and reflective about what it tells people to do. The church should be horrified itself for telling everyone, including many millions of desperately poor people, not to use contraception. It should realize it’s telling people to fuck up their lives, and stop doing that.

“Contraceptives are not a solution,” said Bishop Leonardo Ulrich Steiner, the secretary general of the National Council of Bishops of Brazil, and an auxiliary bishop of Brasília, in an interview. “There is not a single change in the church’s position.”

Yes they are. They are a solution. They’re the solution.

“The Vatican is very well aware of the seriousness of this issue, and the Holy Father is very aware of it,” Father Rosica said. “We’re waiting to see how the local churches in those countries respond.”

But Father Rosica said church teaching on abortion and contraception remains the same. The Zika epidemic, he said, presents “an opportunity for the church to recommit itself to the dignity and sacredness of life, even in very precarious moments like this.”

No. That’s disgusting. That’s flowery sentimental cruel piety at the expense of giving a damn about reality.



Publication day

Feb 17th, 2016 10:07 am | By

My friend Nouri Karim has just published his translation of The God Delusion into Kurdish. He published a translation of Does God Hate Women? in 2012.

He sent me some photos on the occasion.

Grattis, Karim!



Any plausible rationale

Feb 16th, 2016 4:33 pm | By

In a surprise move, Obama said at a press conference today that he intended to do his job as the Constitution spelled it out. Pundits who had expected him to say “Ok then let’s just wait until next year” were left wondering what signs they had missed.

President Obama on Tuesday challenged Republicans to offer any plausible rationale for refusing to consider a Supreme Court candidate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last weekend, and he pledged to nominate someone with an “outstanding legal mind” who cares about democracy and the rule of law.

That’s just shockingly irresponsible and inflammatory.

“The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference after a meeting in California with leaders of Southeast Asia. He said the Constitution demands that a president nominate someone for the court and the Senate either confirms or rejects.

“There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not in the Constitutional text.”

Yes but Republicans don’t want to, because they want to wait until Donald Trump can do it. That’s more important than some stupid constitution. Obama’s an elitist who refuses to listen to the people.



He had a promise

Feb 16th, 2016 4:14 pm | By

Bill Cosby gets a nope.

Bill Cosby’s criminal sexual-assault case appears to be headed toward an evidence hearing after a judge denied his latest effort to throw the charges out.

In a ruling Tuesday, the judge who refused to dismiss the case earlier this month denied Cosby’s appeal of that decision.

The 78-year-old TV star is accused of drugging and violating an ex-Temple University employee at his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004 and could get 10 years in prison if convicted. The defense insists Cosby had a promise from a previous district attorney that he would never be charged over the 2004 encounter.

Montgomery County Judge Steven O’Neill, though, found the evidence of such an agreement lacking after hearing from the ex-prosecutor and others at a two-day hearing.

But hey – he got away with it until he was 78. That’s quite a long run.

 



And the award for biggest flight risk goes to

Feb 16th, 2016 3:50 pm | By

Good.

Oregon Public Broadcasting:

A federal judge in Portland denied Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy bail at a hearing Tuesday.

Not very surprising, is it. The guy doesn’t even recognize the jurisdiction, so how could he possibly not be a flight risk? He’s a fella who considers himself entitled to resist law enforcement with guns, so how could it be safe to let him out on bail?

Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart agreed with prosecutors that Bundy posed a flight risk and a danger to the community, and should be held in jail while awaiting trial.

If he’s not, nobody is.

Before Bundy’s Tuesday hearing, a family member said he isn’t dangerous or a criminal and should have been released from jail because he isn’t a flight risk.

Hahaha sure, and that thing where he’s been hiding on his ranch to avoid arrest for two years? That was just a prank. He’s a prankster.

Prosecutors called Cliven Bundy “lawless and violent” and told the judge not to free him because he doesn’t recognize federal authority.

There’s a limit even for white guys.



Accuracy counts

Feb 16th, 2016 9:24 am | By

I was indignant on Peter Tatchell’s behalf (and on behalf of reasonable discourse, truth in accusation, and the like) on Sunday when I read that the NUS LGBT officer had called him racist and transphobic in emails to a bunch of people. But now…I’m disappointed in him, because he has failed to defend other people from dishonest accusations.

First, he was on Newsnight last night with Paris Lees. It’s not available in the US (so far at least) so I haven’t seen it, but I have a transcript of part of what Lees said:

PL: I think that, first of all I want to say that Peter Tatchell is not a transphobe, in my opinion, I think it’s, it’s, ludicrous to suggest that, he’s a national bloody treasure as far as I’m concerned, and he’s one of the few people who actually spoke up for transgender rights, with a public platform a few years ago when nobody was talking about this, and I’m very grateful to him for that. I think there’s a lot of anger towards Peter because of signing that letter, not just signing it but I think maybe your reaction afterwards wasn’t that helpful, and I think that, you know, to call him a transphobe is a little bit over the top, but…I think it’s…I think it’s really getting a little bit carried away, but…just to come to the issue of no-platforming, I think it’s unfortunate that Peter’s been involved in this debate, but more broadly – yes I do think it’s right that people shouldn’t engage with transphobes. I don’t think Peter’s one of those people, but I think there are certain people who, there’s just no point talking to them.

KM: But, but there is an argument isn’t there, ah and it has been…through politics and civil rights and gay right and women’s rights…uh, for years, is that you take people on in order to have that debate, and you win it.

PL: Well there is also an argument that marginalised people, you know, have been made to justify themselves and explain themselves over and over again, and there are, there are certain people, um, like Julie Bindel for example who, just aren’t willing to engage in debate, they’ve, they’ve heard the arguments and…that’s a very different kettle of fish from Peter, you know, this, they, you know, this person has made personal attacks on individual trans people before, has argued for conversion therapy which has proven to be very dangerous. Those sort of people shouldn’t be given platforms to re-air their prejudices.

Julie Bindel says those are lies, flat-out. She has debated many times, and she has campaigned against conversion therapy. Tatchell didn’t speak up.

Second, he had this piece in the Telegraph yesterday:

Free speech and enlightenment values are under attack in our universities. In the worthy name of defending the weak and marginalised, many student activists are now adopting the unworthy tactic of seeking to close down open debate. They want to censor people they disagree with. I am their latest victim.

This is not quite the Star Chamber, but it is the same intolerant mentality. Student leader Fran Cowling has denounced me as racist and transphobic, even though I’ve supported every anti-racist and pro-transgender campaign during my 49 years of human rights work.

So far so good. Cowling’s accusations are ridiculous and horrible.

Tatchell says she has every right to refuse to be on a panel with him, but.

But she does not have any right to make false McCarthyite-style smears. When asked to provide evidence of my supposed racism and transphobia, she was not willing to do so. There is none. Privately I tried to get her to withdraw her outrageous, libellous allegations. But she spurned all my attempts to resolve this matter amicably. As a result I have decided to take my case public.

Fair. He clears up some facts; good. But then –

Fran also said that I signed a letter to The Observer last year supporting the right of feminists to be “openly transphobic” and to “incite violence” against transgender people. The letter I signed did not say this. Written in support of free speech, it did not express any anti-transgender views or condone anti-transgender violence. For decades, I have opposed feminists such as Germaine Greer who reject and disparage transgender people and their human rights.

Do it to her, not me? Throw Greer to the wolves, not me?

He shouldn’t be “opposing” Germaine Greer herself. He probably didn’t mean that, but just said it sloppily – but what a thing to be sloppy about. What he should (if so moved) oppose is particular claims she makes, not her as a person. And then is it fair to say she “rejects and disparages transgender people and their human rights”? She does use disparaging language, so that part is fair, but what sense does it make to say she rejects trans people? And I flatly don’t believe she says they shouldn’t have human rights.

And then there’s the breezy way he throws feminists in general in there. Do it to them, not me, eh?

So, I’m disappointed by that.

He ends well enough though.

The race to be more Left-wing and politically correct than anyone else is resulting in an intimidating, excluding atmosphere on campuses. Universal human rights and enlightenment values – including John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty – are often shamefully rubbished as the ideas of Western imperialist white privilege.

I am all in favour of protesting against real racists and transphobes. But the most effective way to do this is to expose and counter their bigoted ideas, not censor and ban them.

But be accurate about it. Don’t accept lies about Julie Bindel and don’t make exaggerated accusations against Germaine Greer and feminists “like” her.