And then there’s Anheuser-Busch, with its oh so funny slogan for Bud Light beer: “The perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”
GEDDIT?
The slogan, which was captured in a photo and posted onto Reddit Monday, sparked a wave of anger from social media users who took to Twitter to blast the language for promoting a culture of rape.
What could possibly go wrong?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Alex Massie takes on the Six Soft-heads with the kind of gritted disdain they deserve.
I wonder if these people also think the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses also had it coming? I wonder if they think there would be something unseemly about awarding Salman Rushdie – and all those involved in publishing his novel – awards for their courageous defence of liberty? People died and many others risked assassination to bring The Satanic Verses into print. Perhaps, however, there is a feeling that this was a noble enterprise because it was somehow a more literary enterprise? (Except, of course, plenty of people failed the Rushdie test too.)
And I wonder if these novelists would be appalled if they or their translators were targeted and perhaps killed for the ‘crime’ of offending someone, somewhere? Would they deplore any awards made in their memory? Somehow, I doubt it.
No, because you see they would know that they are good people, while they don’t know that about the Charlie people. (Can you say fundamental attribution error? I thought you could.)
Is it really too much to suppose that blame for this atrocity might be apportioned to the people who did the machine-gunning? This should not be a difficult matter. It really shouldn’t. Nor should recognising, however inadequately, the deaths of these journalists be controversial.
If writers cannot make a stand on this, what can they make a stand upon?Charlie Hebdo was not the first and I fear it will not be the last either. Reality is a bloody business but that’s no reason to avoid trying to look it in the face.
But someone’s cousin’s friend’s sister-in-law’s neighbor’s dog’s psychoanalyst said Charlie is racist, therefore it must be true.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The Malay Mail Online went to a talk by Hizbut Tahrir Malaysia. HTM explained about rape.
Women are required to prove rape under Islamic criminal law, Hizbut Tahrir Malaysia (HTM) said today as the hardline Islamist group claimed that most sexual assault cases involve false accusations.
HTM also told a seminar on hudud that Islam does not accept DNA evidence and that one of the ways of proving rape instead is by obtaining either two male witnesses, or one male and two female witnesses.
Because as we all know it takes two women to be as much value as one man.
“The danger is that if the woman wants to betray other people, she commits adultery with a man, but when she regrets it, she reports to the police saying she was raped,” HTM spokesman Ustaz Abdul Hakim Othman said at HTM’s headquarters here today.
“As you see, most rape cases involve people known to the victims, especially their boyfriends. So making out with the boyfriend is fine, and then she turns around and says she was raped when she regrets it.
The man will say it wasn’t rape; it was consensual. So Islam imposes careful conditions. You don’t just accuse a person of raping you, you have to come up with proof,” he added.
Yeah, cool, and the fact that it’s so very difficult to come up with “proof” of rape (let alone “proof” of rape by person X) is not a problem because most sexual assault cases involve false accusations, which we know because they just said so.
HTM’s Abdul Hakim stressed today that rape and adultery are separate offences under the Islamic criminal justice system.
“If an unmarried woman is pregnant, definitely she’s committed an offence but she must explain. So if we ask her and she says she was raped, she’ll be released because she’s innocent,” he told the seminar.
“Islam doesn’t accept DNA evidence because obtaining witnesses is one of the conditions. Even if you can prove that male DNA was in the woman’s vagina, it doesn’t prove rape because DNA can enter by accident. DNA is not proof of rape. Other evidence like wounds in the vagina that show penetration is still not proof that it’s rape,” the HTM spokesman added.
Why would anyone not want to live under a system like that?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Le Monde, February 24 – No, Charlie Hebdo is not obsessed with Islam.
What does it make fun of?
De qui se moquait le journal satirique Charlie Hebdo, avant que deux terroristes islamistes assassinent cinq caricaturistes et six autres personnes présentes à la conférence de rédaction du 7 janvier ? Est-il vrai que ce journal faisait preuve d’une « obsession » à l’encontre des musulmans, comme cela a pu être dit à la suite des attentats, notamment dans une tribune du Monde du 15 janvier 2015, à laquelle ont contribué plusieurs chercheurs ?
What did the satirical mag Charlie Hebdo make fun of before two Islamist terrorists assassinated five cartoonists and six other people at an editorial conference January 7th? Is it true that the mag displayed an “obsession” with Muslims, as was said after the attacks, including at a Le Monde forum January 15th to which several researchers contributed?
Well, look at the graphic. That doesn’t look like obsession to me.
Parmi les 38 « unes » ayant pour cible la religion, plus de la moitié vise principalement la religion catholique (21) et moins de 20 % se moquent principalement de l’islam (7). Les juifs, quant à eux, sont toujours raillés aux côtés des membres d’au moins une autre religion, comme l’islam dans le n°1057.
Among the 38 front pages that target religion, more than half are mostly Catholicism (21) and under 20% make fun mostly of Islam (7). The Jews, for their part, are always made fun of along with the followers of at least one other religion, such as Islam in number 1057.
Francine Prose and Michael Ondaatje please note.
Update: the “dont” at the top of the column on the right means “of which.”
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Oh isn’t that sweet – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in love. Truly madly deeply.
Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif on Sunday said the love and affection for the Saudi leadership and people could not be explained in words.
Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) are tied in unbreakable bonds of religion and brotherhood and both the countries are standing shoulder to shoulder with each other.
Speaking at a function held in honour of Imam-e-Kaaba Shaikh Khalid al Ghamidi at Chief Minister’s House, he remarked that even if the world goes topsy-turvy, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could not be separated from one another.
They will wrap their legs around each other and hold on for dear life as the world bounces and flips and lurches.
He pointed out that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited Saudi Arabia recently and held talks with Custodian of the two Holy Mosques King Salman, crown prince and other Saudi Leaders. He said the world saw two brothers meeting and speaking heart to heart like family members. He said earlier he visited the kingdom and held talks on important issues with the Saudi leadership.
Shahbaz said the meetings were a clear message for the enemies that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are tied in inseparable bonds and no one could cause any hurdle or differences between them.
He didn’t say anything about Raif Badawai, or Indonesian domestics, or beheadings, or women not allowed to leave the house without male permission and escort.
On the occasion, Imam-e-Kaaba said it was an important occasion as he was present among people with whom he has close relationship. He said the sentiments expressed by Shahbaz would always remain in his heart. He said after coming here he has realised the love of Pakistanis for him and Saudi Arabia. He said the relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are everlasting.
Would they like sheets and towels, or a silver coffee set?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Amy Schumer’s hit video Last Fuckable Day.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPpsI8mWKmg
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The Guardian on Rushdie on the Soft-headed Six.
[Francine] Prose told the Associated Press that while she was in favour of “freedom of speech without limitations” and “deplored” the shootings at Charlie Hebdo, the award signified “admiration and respect” for its work and “I couldn’t imagine being in the audience when they have a standing ovation for Charlie Hebdo”.
She doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Andrew Solomon, president of PEN, told the Guardian that aside from brief exchanges with Carey and writer Deborah Eisenberg, no one had indicated they would not attend the gala over the award before the six letters.
Solomon said that PEN distinguished between the right of free speech and much of what Charlie Hebdo actually published. “The award does not agree with the content of what they expressed,” he said, “it expressed admiration for that commitment of free speech.”
He compared the controversy to PEN’s inclusion of Pussy Riot at last year’s gala, saying that the Russian activists’ “content is in many instances juvenile, and many people had felt that remove large parts of your clothing in an Orthodox church was offensive, but in standing up to the Putin regime they did something worth admiration.”
That’s a much better (fairer) comparison than neo-Nazis. It’s understandable to be lukewarm about Charlie’s style, and that of Pussy Riot too; it’s not understandable to claim they’re comparable to any kind of Nazis.
Solomon also provided several letters of support to PEN’s decision, including from Rushdie.
“It is quite right that PEN should honour [Charlie Hebdo’s] sacrifice and condemn their murder without these disgusting ‘buts,’ Rushdie wrote.
“This issue has nothing to do with an oppressed and disadvantaged minority. It has everything to do with the battle against fanatical Islam, which is highly organised, well funded, and which seeks to terrify us all, Muslims as well as non Muslims, into a cowed silence.
“These six writers have made themselves the fellow travellers of that project. Now they will have the dubious satisfaction of watching PEN tear itself apart in public.”
Exactly. The Soft-headed Six seem to have no clue that there is any space between Muslims and Islamists. That’s a very basic mistake.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A heart-rending item in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago, about girls at an Islamic school being banned from running.
Girls at Al-Taqwa College have been banned from running at sporting events because the principal believes it may cause them to lose their virginity, former teachers claim.
The schools regulator, the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, is investigating the allegations, which have been referred to the state and federal education ministers.
…
In a letter sent to the education ministers this week, a former teacher said female students were being discriminated against at the Truganina school.
“The principal holds beliefs that if females run excessively, they may ‘lose their virginity’,” the letter said.
“The principal believes that there is scientific evidence to indicate that if girls injure themselves, such as break their leg while playing soccer, it could render them infertile.”
He probably believe if they study too hard they will get “brain fever.”
The SMH has a picture of a sad letter from the students about their disappointment.
Concerned female students expressed their concerns in a handwritten letter to the principal, saying it was unfair that the cross country event had been cancelled.
“It was really shocking to find out it has been cancelled because of the excuse girls can’t run,” the students said.
“Just because we are girls doesn’t mean we can’t participate in running events. It also doesn’t say girls can’t run in the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad).”
The students said parents were annoyed by the decision and “think that girls and boys should both be allowed to participate equally.”
Another former Al-Taqwa College teacher backed the claims. “I was told the girls weren’t allowed to participate. The reason was they might over-exert themselves and lose their virginity or be rendered infertile.”
What about the boys? If they over-exert themselves, their balls explode. That’s a scientific fact.
H/t Kausik
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
What was that about Dawkins’s never having “proclaimed himself as any kind of atheist ‘leader'”?
What about this then – what about Join the Dawkins Circle?
Reason Circle: $1,000 to $2,499 annually (or $85/month)
- Invitation to Dawkins Circle member-only event with RDFRS personalities
- Member-only discount for all purchases in the richarddawkins.net store
Science Circle: $2,500 to $4,999 annually (or $210/month)
All the benefits listed above, plus:
- One ticket to an invitation-only Dawkins Circle event with Richard
Darwin Circle: $5,000 to $9,999 annually (or $420/month)
All the benefits listed above, plus:
- Two tickets to an invitation-only Dawkins Circle event with Richard
For as little as one thousand dollars a year, you can attend a Dawkins Circle member-only event with RDFRS personalities. Wow!! Only a grand, and you get to go to a Dawkins Circle member-only event!! Gollywolly I can hardly breathe at the thought. Granted, there are conferences that charge much less than that where you can probably encounter “RDFRS personalities” or at least be in the same air-space with their majesties. But still, it’s totally worth it to shell out the whole one thousand dollars to get the real deal brand-name authentic Dawkins Circle member-only event.
And even more thrilling, if you spend just another $1,500 for a very modest total of two thousand five hundred dollars per year you get that plus a ticket to an invitation-only Dawkins Circle event with…gasp gasp gasp choke…with Richard. With holy sainted sacred Richard. I know people who would queue in the rain for a month to get a ticket like that. I know people who would throw their first-born children into a bonfire to get a ticket like that.
And if you shell out a mere five thousand dollars per year you get two of those. Two!! Two chances to share air-space with…Richard. Hallowed be thy name.
But never let it be said that he’s ever proclaimed himself any kind of atheist “leader.”
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Francine Prose expanded on her thoughts in the CBC interview, in a piece for Comment is Free. Her expanded thoughts make my skin crawl.
When I learned that PEN had decided to award the Freedom of Expression Courage Award to Charlie Hebdo, I was dismayed. I had agreed to serve as a literary table host and I wondered what I would do when the crowd around me rose to its feet to applaud an award being given – in my name – to what I felt was an inappropriate recipient.
She still doesn’t understand what Charlie is. She thinks it’s a right-wing racist rag.
Let me emphasize how strongly I believe in the ideals of PEN; for two years I was president of the PEN American Center. I believe in the indivisibility of the right to free speech, regardless of what – however racist, blasphemous, or in any way disagreeable – is being said.
Why is she pairing racist with blasphemous?
I believe that Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish whatever they wish.
But that is not the same as feeling that Charlie Hebdo deserves an award. As a friend wrote me: the First Amendment guarantees the right of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, but we don’t give them an award.
She likes that disgusting and dead-wrong comparison so much she uses it again. I repeat: Charlie Hebdo is not comparable to neo-Nazis!
The bestowing of an award suggests to me a certain respect and admiration for the work that has been done, and for the value of that work and though I admire the courage with which Charlie Hebdo has insisted on its right to provoke and challenge the doctrinaire, I don’t feel that their work has the importance – the necessity – that would deserve such an honor.
So that’s a reason to back out of the ceremony? That’s a reason to cringe at the thought of people applauding Charlie? That’s a reason to throw Charlie under the bus weeks after ten members of its staff were slaughtered?
Perhaps my sense of this will be clearer if I mention the sort of writers and whistleblowers whom [sic] I think would be appropriate candidates: Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the journalists who have risked (and in some cases lost) their lives to report on the wars in the Middle East. Or the extremely brave Lydia Cacho, who has fearlessly reported on government corruption in Mexico, along with the dozens and dozens of Mexican journalists who have been murdered for reporting on the narco wars.
No, that’s not clearer, because being able to think of people you would prefer to see get the award is not at all the same thing as backing out of a commitment to be a host at the award ceremony. Not even close. You’re not just sitting out the award because you don’t like Charlie, you’re canceling an appointment to be there because you don’t like Charlie.
I have been deeply shocked to read and hear some critics say that the position I have taken, along with other writers, amounts to an endorsement of terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I also don’t feel that it is the mission of PEN to fight the war on terrorism; that is the role of our government.
That, frankly, is an idiotic thing to say. The “war on terrorism” is Bush-era propaganda, and has nothing to do with writers and journalists and cartoonists being in solidarity with colleagues who are murdered by theocratic terrorists. The fact that the Kouachi brothers fit the label “terrorist” is not a good reason to cancel an appointment to host at the PEN awards ceremony. It certainly is the mission of PEN to publicize and resist violent attacks on writers, journalists and cartoonists.
Our job, in presenting an award, is to honor writers and journalists who are saying things that need to be said, who are working actively to tell us the truth about the world in which we live. That is important work that requires perseverance and courage. And this is not quite the same as drawing crude caricatures and mocking religion.
Wait. What? So a novelist who writes fluffy comedies, for example, is not eligible for a PEN award? PEN covers only writers and journalists who do serious, truth-telling work? Poets, mystery writers, fantasy writers – they’re all out? Fiction is out? Satire is out? (Prose herself has written satirical fiction. Is she ineligible?)
The bitterness and rage of the criticism that we have received point out how difficult people find it to think with any clarity on these issues and how easy it has been for the media – and our culture – to fan the flames of prejudice against Islam.
Is it ok if I criticize the Vatican? Or is that forbidden too?
The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either “for us or against us” in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.
As I said yesterday – bullshit. Complete bullshit. Avijit Roy wasn’t a white European. Washiqur Rahman Sabeen Mahmud wasn’t a white European. Taslima Nasreen isn’t a white European. Salman Rushdie isn’t a white European. This stuff is insulting garbage.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Speaking of thought leaders…I was looking for something and happened on this article by Jerry Coyne in The New Republic last October. It’s a riposte to an article by John Gray, also in TNR, trashing Richard Dawkins. I can easily believe Gray’s is a crap article, because John Gray seems to specialize in crap articles. But I read the first paragraph of Coyne’s article, and found a claim that I think is absurd.
It’s not a good time to be Richard Dawkins, for he alone, like the scapegoat of Leviticus, must bear the brunt of everyone’s hatred of atheism. (Sam Harris sometimes serves as a backup goat.) Even though Dawkins has never proclaimed himself as any kind of atheist “leader”—his eminence among nonbelievers is purely a byproduct of his books and talks—he is the poster child for atheism, and everyone who hates atheists, including some other atheists, comes down on him.
The claim I think is absurd is that
Dawkins has never proclaimed himself as any kind of atheist “leader”
You must be joking!
I can easily believe it’s true that Dawkins has never said “I am an atheist leader” – but that’s not the only way of proclaiming oneself as a leader. Here’s the thing: RD set up a foundation for science and reason, with his own name in the title. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is decidedly proclaiming oneself as a leader.
And he acts as a leader, too. He throws his weight around. He does what he can to exclude people he dislikes from conferences and rallies. He tells women how to feminist. He ranks degrees of bad in discussions with feminists about what they get to object to. He complains of witch hunts. He promotes his friends. He scolds the world on Twitter.
So, no. However unfair the John Gray article is, it’s not the case that Dawkins has never proclaimed himself as any kind of atheist “leader.”
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Geoff Nunberg told us yesterday on Fresh Air about the fad for the word “disruption,” which I didn’t know was a fad. It reminds me of the fad-word in literary “theory” some years ago, “transgressive.” Same basic idea, innit – we’re new, we’re happenin’, we’re Rebels.
HBO’s Silicon Valley is back, with its pitch-perfect renderings of the culture and language of the tech world — like at the opening of the “Disrupt” startup competition run by the Tech Crunch website at the end of last season. “We’re making the world a better place through scalable fault-tolerant distributed databases” — the show’s writers didn’t have to exercise their imagination much to come up with those little arias of geeky self-puffery, or with the name Disrupt, which, as it happens, is what the Tech Crunch conferences are actually called. As is most everything else these days. “Disrupt” and “disruptive” are ubiquitous in the names of conferences, websites, business school degree programs and business book best-sellers.
“Little arias of geeky self-puffery” – good one. It’s reminiscent of Tom Frank and the Baffler – the conquest of Cool.
Buzzwords feed off their emotional resonances, not their ideas. And for pure resonance, “disruptive” is hard to beat. It’s a word with deep roots. I suspect I first encountered it when my parents read me the note that the teacher pinned to my sweater when I was sent home from kindergarten. Or maybe it reminds you of the unruly kid who was always pushing over the juice table. One way or another, the word evokes obstreperous rowdies, the impatient people who are always breaking stuff.
For good and ill. You can disrupt oppressive hierarchies and illegitimate power and unjust arrangements…and you can disrupt campaigns to disrupt oppressive hierarchies and illegitimate power and unjust arrangements. Who is the disrupter and who is the disrupted? The game changes sides every couple of seconds. Sometimes you’re the obstreperous rowdy letting in blasts of fresh air, and sometimes you’re the target of obstreperous rowdies shouting you into silence.
Disrupt or be disrupted. The consultants and business book writers have proclaimed that as the chronic condition of the age, and everybody is clambering to be classed among the disruptors rather than the disruptees. The lists of disruptive companies in the business media include not just Amazon and Uber but also Procter and Gamble and General Motors. What company nowadays wouldn’t claim to be making waves?
And what social movement wouldn’t claim to be making waves? Feminism does, but so does anti-feminism.
Then he said something that startled me and made me laugh.
The wonder is that “disruptive” is still clinging to life out there. There’s a market in language, too, and jargon starts to lose its market share when its air of novelty fades. “Thought leader,” “change agent” and “disruption,” too — as the words get stale, they’re in line to be disrupted themselves by scrappy new buzzwords that can once again convey an illusion of fresh thinking. That’s why jargon always has to replenish itself, the same way slang does — though like slang, it takes a while to work its way from the cool kids’ table to the outskirts of the lunchroom.
Ohhhhhhh, “thought leader” is business jargon! I did not know that.
It makes sense, since the Global Secular Policy Whizbang is Edwina Rogers’s toy, and she comes from the World O’ Business. It makes sense, but it’s also that much more nauseating.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Kamila Shamsie writes about her lifelong friend Sabeen Mahmud.
“Be careful,” I said to my childhood friend Sabeen Mahmud when I saw her in London in 2013, soon after she’d received a death threat – neither the first nor last. “Someone has to fight them,” she replied.
…
Sabeen was always a woman made of different stuff, thanks in large measure to the two great influences of her life: her mother, Mahnaz (shot twice during the attack), from whom she inherited her socialist tendencies, and her friend and mentor Zaheer Kidvai (Zak) who introduced her to the idea of counterculture, via everything from Abbie Hoffman to revolutionary Urdu poets. While most of us at our elite school in Karachi lived in a fairly apolitical bubble, Sabeen was developing class-consciousness and identifying political heroes. Post-university, when most of her schoolfriends were choosing not to return to an increasingly embattled city, she decided to take another approach.
In 2007, the community space T2F (originally called The Second Floor, after its location in an office building) was born. It quickly became the city’s leading venue for concerts, readings, science courses, coffee drinking, art exhibitions, Pakistan’s first Civic Hackathon, and, of course, political activism. Everything that went on at T2F represented some facet of Sabeen’s own, astonishingly wide-ranging interests. While she was far from being a national figure, with every year, she and T2F gained prominence and credibility for fighting to make civil society matter – whether the issue was minority rights, opposition to religious extremism or freedom of expression – she brought these issues into T2F, taking to the internet and the streets in protest and solidarity.
I can’t think of a single thing to make this any less horrible.
This was a woman equally at home soldering wires, discussing Urdu poetry, playing cricket, attending every progressive political demonstration in Karachi, singing the back catalogue of Pink Floyd, and being my self-proclaimed “geek-squad for life”. In 2013, she took on the religious fundamentalists by countering their “say no to Valentine’s Day” propaganda with posters saying “Pyaar hone dein” (Let there be love). Later that same year, she helped form a human chain around a church in solidarity with Pakistan’s Christian community after an attack on a church in Peshawar.
Those of us who loved and admired Sabeen now find ourselves asking: why?
I can’t think of a single answer.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Originally a comment by freedmenspatrol on Very much a part of many white Southerners’ identity.
For quite some time, white Southerners actually refused to observe the national Memorial Day. In various places they also didn’t celebrate the Fourth of July. Not so many wave the flag or the other totems as have done in past generations, but plenty of white Americans still do. It’s worked deep into how the culture operates, inside and outside the South. The Second Klan controlled Indiana and Oregon for a while. White Northerners could be absolutely vicious even when they had slavery around for contrast, passing laws excluding black Americans from even living in entire states and demanding those present leave.
It’s what we get for developing our ideas of freedom in the context of the evolving slave society in the Chesapeake. Freedom became white, slavery black, and black Americans thus permanent outsiders. It didn’t matter that they fought in the Revolution (for the last time until the Emancipation Proclamation, in fact) and black voters helped ratify the Constitution. A free black person was just a weird exception that roused considerable fears, never one of “us”. Whites had built an an “us” on their skin color, where all imagined themselves equal not by their material condition, not by their personal talents or potential, but rather by the peerless achievement of not choosing for themselves black skin.
This no longer informs us as much as it once did, but we have a long way to go to raze the house that slavery built. Some of us will fight that effort all the way to the bitter end, as they have before. That probably doesn’t mean armies again, but it didn’t take armies to reduce freedpeople back to near-slavery either. White terrorism suffices.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The CBC talked to Francine Prose about her hostility to Charlie Hebdo today.
Prose tells As It Happens host Carol Off that despite her objections, she supports the magazine’s right to free speech.
“Free speech is indivisible. If you believe in free speech you believe in any sort of free speech — that you can say anything you want. And that’s absolutely what I believe in and I would include in that everything Charlie Hebdo has done.”
But she says that doesn’t mean Charlie Hebdo deserves the award.
No, it doesn’t; she’s right about that much. They are two separate things.
“We defend the right of neo-nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois but that doesn’t mean we give them an award.”
I’m not even sure I do defend the right of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, because that’s direct intimidation. I’ve always had reservations about that.
Prose says that there are other journalists who are more deserving of the award.
“This is an award that should be given to equally brave journalists…There are journalists being killed in the Middle East. There are journalists being killed every day in Mexico, who are doing work that needs to be done because people need to hear about the truth they are reporting and what’s happening in other parts of the world. I don’t quite understand the absolute necessity of the work that Charlie Hebdo did.”
Nobody said it was an absolute necessity. That’s not the issue.
Then they get to Salman Rushdie’s tweet, which I saw this morning and wish he hadn’t worded the way he did.
Salman Rushdie @SalmanRushdie
.@JohnTheLeftist @NickCohen4 The award will be given. PEN is holding firm. Just 6 pussies. Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character.
Sigh. Please don’t do that. Please don’t use epithets for women to signify cowardice. Please don’t.
I didn’t say anything about it this morning because it was a distraction. But Prose did, and on this I agree with her.
Rushdie tweeted: “The award will be given. PEN is holding firm. Just 6 pussies. Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character.”
In response, Prose, tells Off that the writers are standing up for what they believe in — and says Rushdie’s tweet is sexist.
“I think it’s a sexual insult…And think it was careless and I think Salman regrets it. It was in a tweet. But nonetheless I think it’s an unfair word to use…Why is our behaviour a sign of weakness? We’ve all caught a great deal of flack for this. If we wanted to be weak we could have just said, you know what I have another engagement I forgot about that night.”
Fair point. I think it’s cluelessness rather than cowardice.
Rushie, who spent years in hiding after a fatwa was issued against him, had a message for the authors speaking out against the award.
“What I would say to both Peter (Carey) and Michael (Ondaatje) and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.”
But Prose tells Off her message is that a central question needs to be asked about why the award is being given to Charlie Hebdo now.
“I think it very conveniently feeds into the larger political narrative which is the narrative of white Europeans being killed by Muslim extremists…”
Oh, please. What’s convenient about it? What’s “white” got to do with it? Avijit Roy and Washiqur Rahman and Sabeen Mahmud weren’t white or European. The larger political narrative is that authoritarian Islamist fascists want to silence secular voices, so they’re murdering journalists and cartoonists and bloggers and activists, and not just white ones. By turning their backs on Charlie, the six writers are turning their backs on Avijit and Washiqur and Sabeen too.
I’m not coming out in favour of terrorism obviously. (But this idea) is such a popular one in the media and politically. That fear has been used so well to justify various political policies of our government and other governments. The popularity of that narrative, and the easiness of that narrative, and also the emotionality that surrounds it means it’s a very different story than other stories that could have been honoured and awarded.
Bullshit. Callous, stupid bullshit. Tell that to Raif Badawi and to Ensaf Haidar.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
There’s such a thing as Confederate Memorial Day. I did not know that. It’s today in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Woohoo. Is there also a Hooray for Slavery Day? A Glorify Racism Day? A Steal Other People’s Labor Day?
Alabama closes its government offices today in observance of Confederate Memorial Day, along with Mississippi and Georgia. On May 10, South Carolina government offices will close in observance of the state holiday.
Of the 11 Southern states that made up the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, few agreed on what date was best for remembrance once the war officially ended in 1865.
I suggest the 32d of December, myself.
State officials still mark Confederate Memorial Day on their calendars, but it makes sense why they may not want to embrace the holiday publicly, said John Neff, director of the Center for Civil War Research at the University of Mississippi and a scholar of Civil War death and remembrance.
Dating back to 2000, the debates about whether states should fly the Confederate battle flag could be partially to blame, he explained. Several Southern states were embroiled in these fights, holding legislative votes and public referendums that revived the Confederacy as a politically sensitive issue.
That year in South Carolina, state legislators agreed to remove the Confederate battle flag from the capitol dome in Columbia. In a 2001 statewide referendum, a majority of Mississippi’s voters chose to keep the Confederate battle flag emblem on the state’s banner as it remains today. In 2003, Georgia rid itself of the Confederate battle flag from its state flag, following a legislative action and a public referendum.
All those words, yet PBS never manages to spell out why things Confederate are “a politically sensitive issue.” [whispers: it’s because of slavery.]
“It seems odd in many ways, but you don’t have to live in the South very long to know this is a deep connection that many people still feel,” he said.
Many people across the South claim the Confederacy as part of their heritage, he said.
“I can say this is very much a part of many white Southerners’ identity. This is how they feel connected to their place, their time, their families,” Neff said. “I think it’s going to be a long, long time before there’s no one in the South that feels those connections.”
We get it, and that’s kind of the issue, isn’t it. It’s part of many white Southerners’ identity, and that fact is fraught with all kinds of horrors.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Suzanne Nossel’s reply to Deborah Eisenberg, also in Glenn Greenwald’s collection, is very elucidating.
We believe that honoring Charlie Hebdo affords us an opportunity to inflect global opinion on an issue of longstanding concern to PEN and to free expression advocates worldwide, including many in the Muslim world: namely, efforts to devalue, ban, or punish acts deemed to constitute the defamation of religion. Such assaults come both from governments and from vigilantes, and they are not acceptable in either context.
That pulls a little against some of the other things she says, which are on the “speech all speech no matter what the content” side. This is saying that it’s not just a matter of all speech no matter what the content; that the particulars matter. I agree with that. Suppose instead of Charlie Hebdo we had writers for a hardline Catholic magazine, one funded by the Catholic League for instance, or the Iona Institute. I wouldn’t want to see them get a PEN award. The Catholic League doesn’t believe in free speech, just for one thing, while Charlie Hebdo emphatically does. The Catholic League doesn’t believe in freedom itself, except in the very strained sense of freedom for popes and bishops to control everyone else including non-Catholics.
The idea that no words, no matter how offensive or insulting, can ever justify violence seems basic to us here, but is honored in the breach in many parts of the world. We see honoring Charlie Hebdo as a potent way to affirm and elevate that principle at a moment when the world is paying attention. We see a chance to promote and defend a global definition of free speech that is broad enough to encompass all speech except that which falls outside the U.S.’s First Amendment, namely incitement to imminent violence; speech such as the calls to genocide over the Rwandan airwaves (the European standard is different, and there are some prohibitions on speech – such as bans on Holocaust denial and blasphemy laws still on the books in places like Ireland – that we reject).
Look at that: she includes the very thing I keep citing as the classic exception to free speech absolutism: “the calls to genocide over the Rwandan airwaves.” Mind you, she probably means the direct calls to genocide, as opposed to the lead up to those calls in which RMC called Tutsis “cockroaches” and the like; I mean both.
We also believe strongly in upholding and defending the role of satire in free societies. Satire is, by definition, disrespectful and often insulting. Based on Charlie Hebdo’s history, their statements and the accounts of those within PEN who have personally known and worked with the magazine, we believe that it sits firmly within the tradition of French satire…
The new editor of Charlie Hebdo has said that in mocking religion their aim has been not to attack religion itself, but rather the role of religion in politics and the blurring of lines in-between, which they see as promoting totalitarianism—an argument some have made about the incursion of religion into American politics. As we look through the cartoons we think most if not all can be understood in that context.
And that really shouldn’t be all that hard to grasp. Religion has a powerful hold over the minds of many people, a hold that is in many ways illegitimate, and all the more powerful for being illegitimate – i.e. there’s no way to appeal or debate or negotiate it. There are excellent reasons to dispute religion’s huge and non-negotiable power, and satire has always been one very good way to do that.
The outcry by a great many Muslim groups in the aftermath of the attacks also reflects a view that satirists should have liberty to express their views, and that these cartoonists were not motivated by cruelty. We have heard from Muslims, many of whom reject the prohibitions on the depiction of Mohammed, actually decrying the discussion about Muslim grievances in the wake of Charlie Hebdo. They believe this line of discourse legitimizes Muslim extremism, which they see as a far greater danger to Muslims than Western anti-Muslim sentiment.
Yep. The liberal Muslims I know intensely dislike “the discussion about Muslim grievances in the wake of Charlie Hebdo.” They think that kind of deflection is bad for Muslims.
But near the end she backs off.
In sum, we are honoring Charlie Hebdo not because of the material you find offensive, but because of their fearless defense of their right to express themselves, a defense that has made our spines stiffen here at PEN and throughout the free expression community as we recognize the depth of our obligation to stand firm in the force of powerful and dangerous interests.
I wish she hadn’t said that part. It’s saying too much. PEN is honoring Charlie Hebdo for their work, not just for being killed for their work.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Guest post by Al Lee.
The long and fascinating history of Manchester is punctuated by moments of important scientific, technological and industrial advance, as well as radical socialist thought and revolutionary action. Engels wrote about the “grim future of capitalism and the industrial age” when viewing the dark slums and working class conditions in the city. But without those bleak and hard days of the textile-driven, inchoate Industrial Revolution, we would not have the vibrant and independent city that we know today. The grim, mill-strewn, industrial landscapes of the city’s environs were depicted by L. S. Lowry and later mirrored in the sparse, hard-edged music of Manchester band Joy Division, and the Northern sardonic wit and desolate ordinariness of the people reflected in the words of Stephen Patrick Morrissey, all artists in many ways, being true to their own working class origins.
The city and its denizens have their own unique sense of irresponsible style and language, in a similar way, as does its great rival from 38 miles away, Liverpool. A reluctance or downright refusal to conform to the ideals and ideas of the rest of the country, London notably, have driven the city and its peoples to purposefully think and act differently to the rest of society throughout recent history. The important figure of Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) was born in Moss Side, Manchester. She was an English political activist and leader of the British suffragette movement who helped women win the right to vote. There is a history here, for sure.
The more clued-up and cool supporters of the red side of the football-supporting community renamed the place, only in half-jest, ‘The Republic of Mancunia’. A working class nod and a wink, no doubt, to the history of independent, socialist thought and perhaps even the early Northern Co-operative workers’ movements.
With true genius comes real pain and anguish. Inseparable and clashing bedfellows, the two extremes have helped to drive the great minds of troubled, technological titans such as Alan Turing, who worked for many years at the University of Manchester, and was instrumental in birthing the nascent functions of the modern programmable computer, without which I would not be able to type this piece… or you to read it for that matter.
Stretch Out And Wait
A short protest march away from the University of Manchester, is the Palace Hotel. This famous, grand Victorian building was formerly the Refuge Assurance Building, a striking red-bricked landmark on Oxford Road. On the weekend of April 24-26, inside it’s gloriously labyrinthine and cavernous, green and white tiled interiors, the fifth QED Conference was held, and 400 absorbed and interested attendees saw and heard a superb range of talks and panel discussions on a wide range of subject matters. Question – Explore – Discover, implores the uber-cool blue event logotype. And we did just that. Admittedly, most of the ‘exploring’ was done during our initial, somewhat pathetically embarrassing attempt to find our way off our particular floor, through long corridors, past many rooms, down to the vast reception area, more than once passing the same ‘Private’ door sign in our increasingly confused state! (Next time: May we have a room right next to the lift please?)
At the opening ceremony, this wonderful video was shown, parodying the ludicrous ‘Left behind’ film, starring the increasingly bizarre Mr. Nicholas Cage. It combines the unique wit of Manchester with the humorous ridicule that the Skeptic community, when at its best, wields as a weapon against religion and uncritical thinking.
This Night Has Opened My Eyes
As the reputation of QEDcon increases world wide, so does the apparent ease of attracting ‘marquee’ speakers from the UK and the rest of the world. Time and space restricts me from a compiling a comprehensive list, but I’d like to share very brief details of several of my preferred talks.
Ending proceedings on Saturday was the unflappable and unfailingly interesting Matt Dillahunty, (‘The Atheist Experience’),
a former fundamentalist Baptist preacher, who spoke well on his recent personal history of debating with theists of all sorts. There is surely no more daunting debating opponent for current Christian apologists than a former Christian apologist.
Another speaker who has made the journey from theism to the ‘dark side’ (Come on in, the water’s lovely…) is Ryan Bell, another former American pastor who spoke about his recent life-changing project, ‘A year without god’. This likeable man spoke clearly and enthusiastically about his ‘experiment’ with a godless life, and his coming round to a way of reason and science, and his eventual transmogrification into an a rational non-believer.
A born-again atheist perhaps.
This Charming Man
The English philosopher, writer and public speaker A. C. Grayling (books include ‘Against All Gods’, ‘The God Argument’) spoke last of all on the Sunday afternoon, typically the highlight talk of the weekend for many. In 2013 we had Lawrence Krauss’ brilliant ‘A Universe From Nothing’ presentation (my own personal favourite from the three QED events I have attended so far), and last year the headliner was the wonderful gentle giant, the courageous Nathan Phelps. Grayling spoke about ‘The Varieties of Skepticism’, and whilst for some it was possibly hard to follow due to Professor Grayling’s occasionally grandiloquent and intensely-worded style, it was however a masterpiece of intelligent and thoughtful presentation: a very interesting, philosophical 55 minute talk… without notes!
Earlier in the day, the engaging Dr. Lucie Green, English physicist and science broadcaster on BBC’s ‘The Sky at Night’ and ‘Stargazing Live’ programmes gave a superbly informative talk called ‘What has the sun ever done for us?’. Thankfully she was referring to our very own luminous stellar object, and not the British tabloid newspaper-rag. The subject matter incorporated facts and videos of sun spot activity, solar flares, and what the dangers of these solar events have been, and possibly will be in the future.
That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore
Two of the highlights for many were deconstructions of both homeopathy and acupuncture. For the first of these pseudo-sciences, Michael Marshall (the Project Director for the Good Thinking Society and Vice President of the Merseyside Skeptics Society) thoroughly diluted the pointless and empty ‘discipline’ of homeopathy. He showed, to much appreciation from the audience, how the use and official prescription of homeopathy is in rapid decline the UK, and in no small part to the excellent investigative work of the charity that he represents – The Good Thinking Society. (Alongside Simon Singh) The biggest laughs were for the list of elements or substances that are currently listed as ‘ingredients’ of certain homeopathic ‘remedies’. Red light, blue light… spectral light! Owls… Look, not the complete owl you idiot, that would be silly, just a feather or two….
The American Dr. Harriet Hall also launched into the pseudo-treatment of acupuncture. She managed to spectacularly and satisfyingly skewer the subject by simply informing us of the various outlandish methods and techniques and yes, even the animal subjects upon which it is practised… Acupuncture on horses and wombats anyone? No, really.
Interestingly enough, both of these pseudo-sciences were essentially brought down by their own intrinsic, ridiculous characteristics… Hoisted by their own petards, so to speak!
Bigmouth Strikes Again
One of the regular treats from QED is the variety of informal panel discussions. For example, In 2013 we had Robin Ince, Jeff Forshaw, Helen Czerski and Brendan O’Neill discussing the subject, ‘Is Science the New Religion?’ Despite the fact that we can simply answer this question with a resounding ‘No’, and despite idiot-for-hire and real-life troll Brendan O’Neill jumping through hoops, and running through flames trying NOT to answer the question at hand and even making the remotest bit of sense, the hour-long show was brilliant to watch and hear, crackling with palpable tension – especially as UK comedian Robin Ince (A very science-savvy comedian I’m pleased to say) almost self-combusted in a puff of godless smoke while attempting to unravel O’Neill’s increasingly convoluted points. I’m sure no-one understood him. I certainly didn’t.
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ince last year at his stand up gig at Manchester’s Lowry Theatre, and asked him about this…
‘I just can’t bring myself to watch the video!’, he said.
Golden Lights
The above infamous talk was referenced in what was, in my view, and from my perspective, the best moment of QED 2015. It was a four-member discussion chaired by Mike Hall (Merseyside Skeptics) and featuring Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, Michael Marshall and Mitch Benn, the MC of the weekend. The subject was “Daring to Disagree: How should we go about engaging with people we disagree with?”. All four spoke with intelligence, and each had different approaches to disagreeing with people: In the main religious apologists, preachers, etc. Mitch Benn was humorously aggressive and unapologetic in his impassioned approach, which contrasted drastically but pleasingly with the calm and friendly attitude of ‘Marsh’. He wants to change minds and inform by polite, reasoned engagement, and asking questions and engaging. The two American guests had similar, intellectually considered perspectives on the matter in hand. But essentially, all wanted a similar outcome in their arguments and discussions: To respectfully change the minds and helpfully educate and inform others who are less inclined to follow reason.
This concept of polite engagement, was encapsulated by Mike Hall on the above panel when he explained that each year there are several evangelical Christians proselytising at the front of the hotel, for the duration of the event. This year was no exception, as they spoke with attendees and handed out literature. (If one can call it that) Aron Ra engaged with them he told us, as he does wherever he goes it would seem. The man can’t get enough clearly… But this time, the good folk at QED decided to take out drinks and cakes for them, as they had put aside some funds specifically for this. How’s that for ‘engaging the enemy’?
To educate and inform are surely two key goals of QED. The event is Quality, Entertaining and Diverse. And I’ll be there at QED 2016.
Come on in… the water’s lovely.
words by
Al Lee
April 27 2015
(With apologies to The Smiths)
mole at the counter
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
From PEN: Rejecting the Assassin’s Veto.
The “assassin’s veto” over speech has become a global phenomenon in recent years and, even more vividly, in recent months, when we’ve seen killings not just in Paris but also in Copenhagen and Bangladesh. Reflecting the intensification of violent intolerance for speech considered offensive by some, former PEN American Center President Salman Rushdie has commented that while he would write The Satanic Verses again today, he does not believe that he would survive the reprisals in this era.
Charlie Hebdo has positioned itself in the firing line of this battle, refusing to accept the curtailment of lawful speech by those who meet it with violence. It is undoubtedly true that in addition to provoking violent threats from extremists, the Hebdo cartoons offended some other Muslims and members of the many other groups they targeted. Indeed, were the Hebdo cartoonists not satirical in their genesis and intent, their content and images might offend most or all of us. But, based on their own statements, we believe that Charlie Hebdo’s intent was not to ostracize or insult Muslims, but rather to reject forcefully the efforts of a small minority of radical extremists to place broad categories of speech off limits—no matter the purpose, intent, or import of the expression.
And ask yourselves: who is ultimately most harmed by the efforts of a small minority of radical extremists to place broad categories of speech off limits? We’re not. It’s the people who are most subject to the power that those extremists (aka murderers) are enforcing who are most harmed. Muslims are marginalized in Europe but at the same time Islam is a powerful religion, and way too many people are crushed and maimed by that power.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Joyce Carol Oates is another useful idiot. That doesn’t perturb me as much as for instance Prose, because I have never liked Oates’s writing, to put it mildly.
Deborah Solomon @deborahsolo 16 hours ago
Thank you, @PENAmerican, for honoring #CharlieHebdo & not bowing to the pressures of literary correctness. http://nyti.ms/1GmLLYeJoyce Carol Oates @JoyceCarolOates 4 hours ago
@deborahsolo @PENamerican It is a very delicate issue to honor “freedom of expression” without seeming to endorse seeming “hate speech.”
I wonder what the scare quotes are for. If Oates doesn’t think it is hate speech, then what is she talking about?
Joyce Carol Oates@JoyceCarolOates
@deborahsolo @PENamerican Have you actually seen these “satirical” images? If they were of Jews would be “anti-Semitism.” No?Daniel Mendelsohn @DMendelsohn1960 3 hours ago
@deborahsolo @JoyceCarolOates but the cultural context is quite different in France. Surely that is a factor?Joyce Carol Oates @JoyceCarolOates 2 hours ago
@deborahsolo That may be. But you would not give “Mein Kampf” a National Book Award if you were a judge–right?
Oh dear god – she compared Charlie Hebdo to Mein Kampf.
Ike Aramba @shmarxism 1 hour ago
@JoyceCarolOates @deborahsolo One of the CH journalists was murdered for being Jewish – now you’re comparing it to “Mein Kampf”.
Quite.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
