I’m going to do a Miss Manners thing here and propose a rule of etiquette.

If you’re in a couple, don’t start fucking one of your partner’s children. No, even if that child is adopted. Really. That’s a rule. It’s a good rule. Follow it.

No, even if that child is no longer a minor. No, don’t stay with your partner waiting patiently until that child turns 18 and then pounce.

No, even if the child says you were never a parental figure. Even if you were always buried in a newspaper or playing a video game whenever that child was in the room – even then, don’t start fucking that child.

Are there exceptions to this rule? All rules have exceptions; there must be exceptions to this rule. Are there?

No.

No, this is an exceptionless rule.

But what if you go on to marry your ex-partner’s child? Is it ok then?

No.

But what if you marry your ex-partner’s child and the two of you adopt children. Then it’s ok, right?

No.

No, it’s not ok if you marry your ex-partner’s child and the two of you adopt children. What’s more, somebody should keep a close watch on those adopted children. As many people as possible should keep an eye on those children. That’s doubly or triply true if those children are the same sex as the parent who is the child of the ex-partner. Everyone involved should be alert to patterns. But that is only damage mitigation; the rule is don’t start fucking one of your partner’s children; if that rule is obeyed then the damage mitigation will not be needed. Just don’t start fucking one of your partner’s children. It’s a simple rule.

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

One take, by Robert Weide in The Daily Beast. First, who he is:

I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

Now, his take:

I was actually somewhat impressed with Ronan Farrow’s now-famous tweet from the summer of 2012: “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” The target was fair game, and I remember thinking Ronan had inherited his father’s wit—before his actual paternity came into question. (A good sense of humor and the ability to think on his feet will serve him well on his own show on MSNBC.)

A different take, this one by Maureen Orth in her long Vanity Fair article last November:

Allen brought another action before Judge Wilk in order to be able to see Dylan and to resume unsupervised visits with Ronan. He and the boy had never gotten along. As I reported in the 1992 Vanity Fair story, Ronan, at three, had kicked Allen, and Allen had twisted the child’s leg until he screamed. According to court testimony in the second trial, in June 1996, Ronan’s psychiatrist testified that on a supervised visit to Allen’s apartment in 1995, Ronan, then seven, reported that he had kicked Allen, who then grabbed him by the neck with both hands and threw him down on the couch. Shortly thereafter, the supervised visits were suspended.

At the end of the trial, in which both sides referred to Ronan’s “phobic reaction” to Allen, Judge Wilk informed Ronan that he would have to resume visits with his father in the office of his psychiatrist—which Allen vehemently objected to. Ronan started heaving uncontrollably, collapsed on the floor in front of everyone, and had to be carried out. The judge ruled that Dylan did not have to see her father at all. Allen appealed again and lost. He never saw Ronan again either. Last year on Father’s Day, Ronan tweeted, “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.”

Weide thought that tweet was a piece of wit, something to smile at, a sign of talent and quick-thinking. Great god almighty.

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

Once more I have to link to the Daily Mail. What is this thing where once in awhile the Mail publishes something good?! It’s so disconcerting. Today’s something good is a neener-neener for the mayor of Sochi who told the world there are no gays in Sochi.

As statements go, last week’s assertion by the mayor of Sochi that there are no gays in the resort hosting the Winter Olympics deserves a gold medal in gibberish.

Ridicule was immediately heaped on Anatoly Pakhomov, a burly Vladimir Putin supporter, after his views were broadcast on the BBC’s Panorama programme, prompting yet more concern over Russia’s fitness to host the Winter Games – the  ‘Putin Olympics’ – which open in five days’ time.

Now, one local gay man has written a scathing open letter to the 53-year-old mayor, making it clear that he is definitely not the only gay in the Olympic Village.

‘The absurdity of your statement is similar to the old canard that there was no sex in the USSR,’ said 24-year-old tour guide Andrey Ozerny.

‘You are mistaken or simply pretending when you say you do not know one single gay person.

‘Believe me, there are enough of them in your own administration, and you probably often share meeting rooms or offices with them.’

It’s Schrödinger’s gays.

Another more famous gay club – Mayak – offers nightly drag shows for up to 400 customers in a dimly  lit, one-storey building close to the seafront.

There is no sign outside because it has been ripped down so often by homophobic youths. The dancers include a Muslim former butcher, an Armenian who also owns a strip club, and a Ukrainian who loves to sing like Whitney Houston and dress like Adele.

The best of the best: A poster for the Mayak gay club pokes fun at the forthcoming winter Games

In a gold sequin dress, drag queen Andrei Kavaltshian, 44, is well known in Sochi. He powders his cleavage before risking a joke about Putin: ‘Our president has sensual lips and such a toned body.’

The mayor’s strange lack of knowledge is tackled by Andrei Tanichev, co-owner of the Mayak.

‘There are many gays in Sochi, more than in most Russian cities,’ he said. ‘Our mayor knows this. He is fully aware of our club, and was in touch with us long before this TV programme.’

Not Schrödinger’s then. More like bullshitter’s.

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

Nicholas Kristof publishes it on his blog.

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

But he’s Woody Allen, so…he gets a Golden Globe lifetime achievement award.

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

Happy happy happy happy happy.

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

In another piece of news that will surprise no one, it is revealed that Swedish mosques tell women to put up with whatever shit their husbands feel like dealing out. Well of course they do. What would be the point of mosques if they didn’t?!

Using hidden cameras and telephone recording equipment, two women posing as abused spouses visited ten of Sweden’s largest mosques as part of a report put together by Sveriges Television (SVT) investigative news programme “Uppdrag granskning”.

The women then asked leaders at the mosques for advice about how to address issues such as polygamy, assault and non-consensual sex.

Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn’t want to.

Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police. Leaders at another mosque were divided on the issue, while women received vague advice from yet another mosque.

Only two of the mosques gave the women clear advice directing them to report their abusive husbands to police.

The women were also told by nine of the ten mosques that men had the right – under certain circumstances – to have more than one wife.

Only one mosque told the women that men didn’t have the right to be married to several women at the same time and that their husbands needed to follow Swedish law.

Silly. God’s law is higher than human law. Luckily, God happens to be a man himself, so God makes laws that are pleasant for men and that way everybody is happy. Except women, but who cares about that.

“This is a clear breach of Swedish law and they commit professional misconduct in their capacities as imams and associations,” Muhammad Fazlhashemi, a professor and author of books on Muslim intellectual history, told the TT news agency.

Fazlhashemi, who also appears in the SVT report, has reviewed a written transcript of the advice given to the women.

“What these men are saying to the woman violates their human rights. The men demean and insult the women when they say ‘you need to tolerate that these men hit you’,” said Fazlhashemi.

He is highly critical of the imams featured in the SVT report for not following Swedish law.

“Considering the fact that the mosques have received state funding, they have also committed to following Swedish law and the basic principles of democracy,” he said.

Fazlhashemi describes the Muslim leaders featured in the piece as “conservative, letter of the law traditionalists”.

And they don’t represent the whole of the “community.”

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

Good news, the Saudis are hosting a meeting of a human rights commission.

No really. They are. Why are you laughing?

It’s the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission, the OIC being the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That’s the outfit that issued its own special “declaration of human rights” that added to every right the stipulation “as long as this complies with Islam” thus making nonsense of the whole idea. The meeting is in Jeddah, as is only right, because you can’t get much more Islamic than that, unless you hold it in Mecca, but then you might get trampled by people doing the haj.

The Fourth Session of the OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) will be held from 02 to 06 February 2014 in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The inaugural session will be held in the afternoon of 02 February 2014, which will be addressed by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation H.E Mr. Iyad Ameen Madani and Chairman of the OIC IPHRC Ambassador Muhammad Kawu Ibrahim. The meeting will be attended by all OIC Member and Observer States as well as Senior officials of the OIC General Secretariat and media. 

In the week long Session, the Commission is expected to comprehensively discuss all issues on its agenda, including the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in OIC Member States. During the Session, the four working groups on Palestine; Islamophobia and Muslim minorities; Right to development; and Rights of Women and Children will also have detailed discussions on related aspects of their mandates.

The meeting is also expected to dwell on how the OIC IPHRC can network with Member States, international and regional organizations, national human rights institutions, and civil society for collectively promoting the universal human rights framework.

The Commission is the principal organ of the OIC in the domain of human rights. It consists of 18 Members, who serve in their personal capacity in supporting Member States for the promotion and protection of human rights for all in an independent manner, in accordance with the OIC Charter and its Statute.

In Saudi Arabia. That pillar of human rights.

No, this is not from the Onion.

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

From Gnu Atheism on Facebook:

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

Via Muslim & Exmuslim Women for Secularism on Facebook

Hell yes, because women are exactly comparable to food that can be contaminated if it’s not wrapped. (But then why is that foodwoman in the photo letting her face and hands be contaminated? Gross!!)

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

Originally a comment on Alex Aan is out of prison.

Christians are helping Alex Aan because Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia are increasingly aware that they are in the cross sights of Islam. Islam as defined by the majority of muslims who practise it, the laws which prop up its status as state religion affirming its supremacism over all other faiths and the political and civic figures who step out as the defenders of the religion of ”peace”. In Malaysia there is constant brainwashing and incitement of muslims at the Friday sermons (the official one delivered by a government department to all mosques in the country) and the results are frightening. Polls of ordinary malaysian muslims’ views on recent issues point to the overwhelming majority – 80% or more – taking a very hardline stance.

You want a taste of how Islam is practiced in this part of the world, you read this from the Malay Mail Online:

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 31 — Christians and Jews are responsible for turning Muslims against each other and tricking them into losing their rights, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) said in its Friday sermon today.

Singling out Christians and Jews as the “enemies of Islam”, Jakim claimed that Muslims in Malaysia will always be under siege as long as this threat is not addressed.

According to the sermon, Muslims here were being tricked into destroying the “walls” that have long protected their “sovereignty”.

“Muslims will definitely face attacks and our enemies will want to destroy Islam in whatever way possible,” it said.

The sermon claimed that some Muslims were working together with the Christians and the Jews, and that this would serve to expedite the downfall of Islam in Malaysia.

“This extreme action only destroys the faith of Muslims in an effort to undermine the sovereignty of the Muslim community,” it said.

The sermon added that Muslims in the country should cast aside petty differences and unite as it was their only protection against a bigger common threat.

“Take a deep breath and look at what is going on. Isn’t Islam always being challenged? Aren’t the dignity of Muslims always being insulted? Aren’t our Muslim leaders being belittled by the enemies of Islam?

“Therefore what is our cause and what role have we played? Or are we just spectators?” Jakim added.

Today’s Friday sermon echoes recent conspiracy claims made by Muslim groups such as Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma).

Isma recently alleged that Muslims in Malaysia face real conspiracies coming from Christians and “chauvinists”.

The group had slammed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for accusing political rivals Umno of falsely perpetuating the idea that Islam was under siege, saying the opposition leader is turning a blind eyes towards continued allegations of attempts to subvert Islam’s position in Malaysia.

“Muslims are facing threats from evangelist Christians and chauvinists who are becoming more aggressive and rude by insulting the faith, practices and tradition of Muslims,” Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman had said.

“Nobody can deny that the agenda of liberalism, religious pluralism, total equality and Christianisation were brought to this country through various approaches through proxies and certain networks linked to international Jews, Freemasons and evangelist Christians.”

Isma also accused Anwar of using the ongoing tussle over “Allah” between Christians and Muslims to depict himself as a “true statesman”, and disregarding the concerns of the latter religious community by supporting opposing claims to the Arabic word for God.

Anwar has called for a bipartisan dialogue today between the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) and opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalitions to solve the “Allah” dispute he argued is derailing Malaysia from its economic goals.

Following that, Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak said on Monday that he will bring Anwar’s idea of a “national consensus” to the Cabinet.

Malaysia is currently grappling with an intractable religious conflict between Muslims and Christians over “Allah”, the Arabic word for God, which culminated in two Molotov cocktails being thrown at a church in Penang on Monday, just as how houses of worship were attacked in 2010 over the same issue.

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

Turn the other cheek eh?

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

Another good (meaning: reasonable) piece on The Veiling of Jesus and Mo, by Janice Turner in the Times. It’s paywalled, but it’s good to know it’s there anyway.

It’s about Newsnight’s terrible and ridiculous decision to hide the Mo of Jesus and Mo behind a black egg. Turner notes the absurdity of hiding the very subject of the segment. She acknowledges the risks involved in possibly pissing off “people who might kill us.” But.

Mr Nawaz’s frustration is understandable. In banning the image, the BBC cast him as the faux-Muslim, his opponents as the rational, majority voice that must be heeded.

And what, I would love to be able to ask a senior BBC executive, does that do to British Muslims in general? It casts them as unreasonable and authoritarian – not the angry few, but all of them. That’s the real “Islamophobia,” if you ask me.

How can moderate Muslims be expected to speak out, if they are cast as apostates by national TV? Those who have not yet made up their minds will see angry offence as the default position.

Right? Right? Wouldn’t it be nice if the BBC would grok that? Never mind us, never mind the pesky atheists and satirists and arguers; consider what you are doing to what you always call “the Muslim community,” BBC boffins. Think long-term. Think big picture. It may seem easiest or safest now to hide Mo behind a black egg, but think of the consequences over time. Use your loaf.

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

More from the “danger to community cohesion” crowd at Plymouth University. They had their demonstration against Usama Hasan Wednesday evening, and the Facebook page for that demo is full of poisonous commentary. It does a good job of illustrating why people like Maajid Nawaz and Usama Hasan (and Tehmina Kazi and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah and Taj Hargey etc etc) are so desperately needed.

Top item on the page at the moment:

         Hayley Kemp

This is the kind of thing I would expect to see on an EDL twitter account – disgusting & offensive. Dr Usama Hasan (QF speaker on 29th) retweets trivialisation of domestic violence:
https://twitter.com/drusamahasan/status/421834533580075008

Tehmina is commenting on that thread, trying to persuade Hayley Kemp to grasp that the cartoon is not in the least trivializing domestic violence, it’s protesting it via a bitter joke. It’s a pretty basic distinction. Also on that thread is…Yusuf Chambers of IERA. Some of his wisdom:

Yusuf Chambers Hayley and I have discussed QF and their team and come to the conclusion that they counter peaceful coexistance and community cohesion. Our dear Bro usama has moved his position from a moderate Muslim to a person that works against the middle ground and everyone in the Muslim community knows this very well. He has clearly left off following Normative Islam and we pray he will return to the correct path soon and join us in condemning violence against women and hate against Muslims that hold a different view to his. Thank you for your contribution Tehmina.

“He has clearly left off following Normative Islam” – says it all, dunnit.

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

The Jakarta Post reports:

Alexander Aan, who was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison on June 15, 2012 under the Blasphemy Law for publicly declaring himself an atheist on Facebook, was released from prison on Jan. 27.

Aan, a 30-year-old former civil servant, posted statements and pictures on the social networking site stating that he was a member of the Minang atheist Facebook group, which some considered insulting to Islam and Prophet Muhammad. 

On Jan. 20, 2012, Aan was charged under Article 28(2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction Law for disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility and Criminal Code articles 156a(a) and 156a(b) for blasphemy and for encouraging others to embrace atheism.

Besides being sentenced to prison, Aan was also fined Rp 100 million rupiah (US$8,190).

What’s there to say? It’s ridiculous. There shouldn’t be laws against “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hostility” – at least not when mere atheism is interpreted as incitement to religious hostility – not when not being something is interpreted as incitement to hostility toward people who are the something that you are not.* Theism shouldn’t be helped to protect its monopoly by laws that criminalize the refusal to be religious.* Theism’s groundless beliefs shouldn’t be propped up by laws that forbid people to say those beliefs are groundless.*

There should be no articles in any criminal code that forbid encouraging others to embrace atheism.*

*Cf the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

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