Mo and Mo – a spinoff of and tribute to the great and wise Jesus and Mo.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
As we are sure you can appreciate
Jan 30th, 2014 5:25 pm | By Ophelia BensonThe National Secular Society shares the form letter it got in response to its open letter to Channel 4 about its wretched decision to paste a black egg over Mo when it reported on the childish fuss over Maajid Nawaz and Jesus & Mo.
The letter, from Steve Reynolds of Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries, reads:
As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full.
But I don’t appreciate. I don’t think the “sensitivity” is legitimate, just as I don’t think the potential “hurt sentiments” of people in Bangladesh who might possibly maybe perhaps not like Taslima Nasrin’s tv serial were legitimate. By creasing their brows over the “potential for offence to some viewers” they gave in to emotional blackmail and encouraged more of it in the future, while also cutting the ground out from under Maajid Nawaz. I think that’s pathetic.
Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form.
Aaaaaaaaaand there’s your problem right there.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: “The claim that showing the entire illustration was ‘not integral to the story’ is ludicrous. It was the story. The truth is that Channel 4, like so many others, is intimidated and afraid of the reaction from violent extremists. Such extremists have got this country in a fearful stranglehold that is gradually destroying our commitment to freedom of speech. We may have abolished the blasphemy law, but who needs it when the same effect can be achieved by terrorising people?”
Mr Sanderson said that Channel 4 should be ashamed of itself for capitulating in this way to supposed ‘sensitivities’ that it does not respect in any other context. “Channel 4 does not hesitate to create controversy and offence in its other output, indeed it prides itself on doing so.”
Meanwhile, the Muslim Association of Britain is now attempting to work this controversy up into a similar level as the Danish cartoon controversy by issuing a condemnation of the cartoon.
Well of course they are. Look at all the encouragement they’re getting from the great and the good in UK media. Why wouldn’t they try to work the controversy up? It’s all good from their point of view.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The sacred tradition of cutting off bits
Jan 30th, 2014 4:59 pm | By Ophelia BensonDoctors in Sweden and Denmark have recommended a ban on non-medical circumcision. Unfortunately they’re putting the age of consent at 12, which seems obviously too young, since minors are just that – they’re subject to their parents.
The recommendation is contained in a resolution approved by majority members of the Sweden Medical Association which covers about 85 per cent of doctors in Sweden.
Similarly, the Danish College of General Practitioners, which has 3,000 members, issued a statement that ritual circumcision of male children is equal to abuse and mutilation. About 87 per cent of Danish GPs favored the ban on non-medical circumcision.
…
Even prior to the recommendation of the two medical groups, the Child Rights International Network in a joint statement with the Nordic Ombudsmen for children and pediatric experts in September 2013 opined that circumcision without medical indication is in conflict with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The article gives the child the right to express his or her views in all matters concerning him or her.
The statement also cited Article 24, point 3, which mandates protection of children against traditional practices that could be bad for their health.
It seems to be only a recommendation though, even though the headline says it’s a ban.
But there are those who view the recommendations as a mirror of anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant outlook in Nordic nations.
Quoting Erik Ullenhag, the Swedish minister for integration, who said that current regulations would not be altered despite the recommendation, pointed out, “I have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault … The procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition.”
I wish people wouldn’t say things like that. I don’t think parents do have the the right to cut bits of their children off because that’s “according to their faith and tradition.” I think such rights should be limited to “within reason” and that genital mutilation isn’t within reason.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The real problem? He dresses too well
Jan 30th, 2014 1:18 pm | By Ophelia BensonThat 5pillarz place has another post about the Sinz of Maajid Nawaz, this one outdoing all the others I’ve seen in wit and polish and elegant subtlety of thought.
Maajid Nawaz believes in the right to offend. Well so do I, writes Roshan Muhammed Salih. And that’s why today I’m calling him a donkey (apologies in advance to all donkeys).
Good start. Joke and meta-joke; always a winner.
Following his tweeting of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Prophet Isa (as) and the massive reaction to it, Nawaz wrote a ludicrous article in the Guardian claiming that he was trying to save Islam from being hijacked by extremists. In the risible piece which should be recycled as toilet paper, he was obviously trying to portray himself as some kind of “free speech martyr.”
But it is simply grotesque to compare Maajid Nawaz to any martyr who has ever lived, and far more accurate to liken him to an annoying horse-like creature which makes irritating noises.
Toilet paper; geddit? Pee po belly bum drawers. Poopies. Dirties. Toilet paper. Snigger snigger giggle.
Notice also the creepy deference to “martyrs” and remember some of the famous “martyrs” we’ve heard about over the past few years. It is grotesque to compare Nawaz to people who squander their own lives for the sake of killing a bunch of other random people, but not for the reasons Roshan Muhammad Salih meant to suggest.
Let’s get a few things straight.
Firstly, there is a broad cross-section of opinion within the Muslim community against Maajid Donkey Nawaz. In fact the only thing which brings us Muslims together like Mr Donkey is Israel.
He gets up the noses of Sufis, Shias, Salafis, “Islamists” and “non-Islamists” alike. This is because we can all see him for what he is – a vain attention-seeker whose voice has been artificially amplified by government finances, the BBC and the right-wing media.
Not true. This stupid mindless attack on Nawaz has been bringing liberal and secular Muslims together too. There are such Muslims, and no they do not see him the way Salih and his friends do.
And in his crusade to combat “Islamic extremism” all he’s really achieved is to make non-Muslims hate Muslims even more and to solidify the government narrative that British foreign policy is not the main motivating factor behind domestic radicalization.
Not true. Quite the contrary – it’s crude ragers like Salih who make non-Muslims wary of Islam. and reasonable people like Nawaz who make them rejoice that Islam can be compatible with secular democracy.
The truth is that for Muslims the petition campaign against Maajid Nawaz (which has garnered around 22,000 signatures) is not just about the cartoons he tweeted. Although most Muslims will definitely find the cartoons offensive the anger directed against him cannot be explained with reference to them alone.
Rather, we see it as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world how much all sections of the community revile this guy – and not just crazy, demented “Islamists” who want to behead all kufaar.
For us this is visceral and this is personal. It’s payback for six years of seeing him given a platform he doesn’t deserve to attack a community which is itself under attack.
Frankly, I don’t care if this campaign fails to achieve its stated goal – none of us should expect the Lib Dems to de-select him as a parliamentary candidate because they are part of the same establishment that has spewed him forth.
Rather, this campaign is an opportunity for all sections of the Muslim community to come together and tell the British media and establishment that this guy is persona non grata as far as we are concerned.
We are sick and tired of seeing him presented as a “Muslim commentator”, as the “voice of moderate Islam” or the voice of reason against hordes of fanatics. We are sick of seeing his sharp suits, perfect grooming and smarmy grin. We are fed up of seeing his know-it-all stare invading our personal space.
Wow. That’s letting the mask slip, and no mistake.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
“I would not have tweeted that thing, clearly.”
Jan 30th, 2014 10:40 am | By Ophelia BensonNick Clegg has said again that Maajid Nawaz will not be dropped as a candidate, which is good. But in saying that he also said a lot of “I would never do that” bullshit, in other words basically agreeing that Maajid was a naughty boy. Not so good.
…the Lib Dem leader said: “He is not going to be dropped as a Liberal Democrat candidate. He has the right – as any Muslim, non-Muslim or anyone of any faith or none in this country has – to say things even if that causes offence to other people.
“It so happens that what he did does cause real offence to many, many Muslims in this country. All I would say is that we have to make sure that that debate, sensitive though it is, is conducted in a respectful way in moderate terms.
“I would not have tweeted that thing, clearly. I will defend anyone’s right to deploy the freedom of expression in this country. I’m not going to start censoring people in a free society.”
But you are going to start reproaching and tut tutting them, over something there should be zero qualms about from anyone. Don’t.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Secularist of the Year shortlist
Jan 30th, 2014 10:08 am | By Ophelia BensonAnd guess who’s on it, proudly modeling their Jesus and Mo T shirts?
Also Gita, and Nick. An excellent shortlist!
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Guest post by Gordon Willis: Why shouldn’t they learn to be reasonable?
Jan 30th, 2014 9:47 am | By Ophelia BensonOriginally a comment by Gordon Willis on A right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.
It’s the problem with ideologists, whether they’re religious or secular, and it’s the same problem with rigid moralists, because they too are ideologists. They really believe that everyone has to be identical, that there is only one correct pattern for a human being, and everyone is required conform to it, by god, social realism or proper principles. Diversity is sin: that is, the existence of sin is proved by the fact that not everyone is the same, and some are so different as to be frighteningly incomprehensible to the simplistic mind.
Of course, they talk blissfully about individuality as a marvellous gift of god or a wonderful fact of nature, but when outside their fuzzy imaginations they really don’t like the actuality, oh, not at all! It is then that they talk disapprovingly about mere facts of nature, like the moralists they ultimately are. They point to wicked things done by others, and are unable to see that their own acts are also wicked, because what is condemned as badness in them by others is true adherence to sacred or politically correct or moral precepts in their own minds. And when I say “wicked”, I really do mean it, for all wickedness is at root the belief that I am absolutely justified or that what I want takes precedence over any consideration of others, or simply that others (women)* do not really matter. I am convinced that wickedness is about such things: it is simply me rather than you, my (conception of) god rather than you or yours, my ownership or security rather than yours. It is ultimately selfishness, even when it appears as political or religious expediency.
Morally stupid, narrow, bigoted, arrogant, self-preferential and cowardly, all in one miserable bunch of powerful and power-seeking fools. And they are all men! It’s all a man’s imposition of his will upon the rest of the world, and especially upon women, who most of all have to be kept in their places (otherwise hell would break loose, wouldn’t it?) After all, we know what happened in the Garden of Eden, don’t we? Man is shamefully tempted by vile Woman who listens to dirt-eating talking snakes instead of doing what she is told by the gardener whose enjoyment of the cool of the day is totally ruined for ever and ever and becomes eternally most cross.
Perhaps imposing the fear of hell has been too successful: even the moralists secretly believe it — they just don’t know they do (there are countless very fiery demonic Wedges which have fine but exceedingly sharp ends). Perhaps it is time to consider the conservative mind as a real cause of compassionate concern. These people need to be helped. They must certainly be stopped from trying to run everything, seeing as their incompetence is killing everyone else. But they can’t help themselves — it’s how they are, or how they were brought up (or it’s how we all are, beyond a certain point which is closer to some than to others). I don’t want them to lose their rights and be sectioned, but why are they allowed to go on destroying our lives? Why shouldn’t they learn to be reasonable? How many hangings from cranes, stonings, suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, concentration camps and lampshades do we need?
* or women, Jews, muslims, christians, women, slaves, women, children, the working class; or competitors, women, heretics, other men, philosophers, scientists, women…
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A right for all children, as mentioned in Islam
Jan 29th, 2014 5:17 pm | By Ophelia BensonThe Federal National Council in Abu Dhabi passed a law last week that mothers have to breastfeed their babies up to the age of two. Yes a law, that they have to.
Salem Al Ameri (Abu Dhabi) insisted that breastfeeding was a right for all children, as mentioned in Islam.
Dr Amal Al Qubaisi (Abu Dhabi) said that because labour laws already allow working women to take time to breastfeed, adding the requirement to the legislation showed consistency.
The clause was added to the law once it was passed to the council’s health, labour and social affairs committee for review.
Sultan Al Sammahi (Fujairah), a member of the committee, said it was the right of all children to be breast fed up to the age of 2.
But what about the rights of the woman to decide for herself?
The what? The who?
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Doesn’t that suggest that you deliberately set out to court outrage?
Jan 29th, 2014 4:56 pm | By Ophelia BensonThanks to Chigau, here is Author talking to Jeremy Paxman, Author in a shadow with his voice distorted to sound like Some Grey Bloke.
Paxman asks how Jesus and Mo started, and Author says he’d had the idea of a religious satire cartoon for a long time but it was the Danish cartoons fiasco that prompted him to start. ”Doesn’t that suggest that you deliberately set out to court outrage?” Paxman asked.
Whether it did or whether it didn’t, that’s not a reprehensible thing to do. Satire; comedy; outrage; they’re all permitted. There can be bad stupid satire and outrage done in a bad cause, but that doesn’t mean that all outrage is haram.
More talk, and back he came. ”But you do understand that depicting the prophet is a great offense to Muslims.” About as much as I understand that refusing to eat fish on Friday is a great offense to Catholics. Other people’s religious taboos are their problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JETbhvU2BYw
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Disguised as Marie of Romania
Jan 29th, 2014 3:55 pm | By Ophelia BensonJesus and Mo Author was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman an hour ago – which I didn’t know until it was over, so I missed it, because the BBC doesn’t let people watch outside the UK. He was incognito of course, with the shadow thing and the spooky voice thing.
What we can see, though, is a segment from Channel 4 (yes them again) in which Mo Shafiq and his bully friends meet with the LibDems but are disappointed in their attempt to get Maajid Nawaz deselected.
On a happier note, they also talk to Mohammed Amin of the Conservative Muslim Forum, who says the threateners and shouters are the ones who are giving Muslims a bad name and damaging the image of Islam. ”Jesus and Mo cartoons do nothing to damage the image of Islam among normal human beings,” he said. That is correct! Well said!
Then there’s Paddy Ashdown, who seems oddly intent on insisting that Maajid’s refusal to be “offended” by the Jesus and Mo image is a “minority Muslim view” but who also says Maajid is not going to be deselected and that Mo Shafiq is a pain in the ass. Not quite in those words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW7tPlZc–Y
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Guest post by Chris Muir: Must We Burn Maajid Nawaz?
Jan 29th, 2014 11:50 am | By Ophelia BensonChris Muir reviews Maajid Nawaz’s memoir Radical.
There’s no getting around it. The Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, Maajid Nawaz, is a controversial guy. Described by Muslim crackpot Anjem Choudary as a ‘traitor to the faith’ and suggested to be a secret Islamist by Christian crackpot Glenn Beck, it’s clear he has ruffled more than a few feathers. In fact, it would take the entirety of this blog post to list the enemies he’s accrued – many of whom are a lot more dangerous than the aforementioned talking heads.
In spite of this, Nawaz has fiercely loyal supporters. Recently, after another Liberal Democrat activist, Mohammed Shafiq, spearheaded a campaign to have Nawaz deselected as the Lib Dem Hampstead and Kilburn PPC, Nawaz’ supporters launched a petition in his favour which has accumulated more than 6000 signatures at the time of writing. What bonds Nawaz’s supporters, whether they’re atheists or theists, right wing or left wing, is their belief in and defence of liberalism.
So just who is this man, capable of infuriating religious extremists and hooligans alike? Where did he come from? And why should you listen to him? Well, put simply, because he knows what he’s talking about.
In Radical, Nawaz’s recently released autobiography, he recounts the extraordinary journey which took him from being just another teenaged, rap-loving, ‘b-boy’ in sleepy Southend to a highly dedicated recruiter for the notorious Islamic extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, to then subsequently found the world’s first counter-extremist think-tank, Quilliam.
Radical is a fascinating autobiography, telling a truly exceptional life story. But it’s more than that. It’s a mission statement and a case study. Nawaz’s story gives us a unique insight into how a Brit, raised with Western values, can grow to deplore the country he calls home. How one can assume a supranational identity, bound not to country but to an alien ideology. Radical is Nawaz’s vow to once again separate that ideology from his religion. He wants to communicate that Islamism and Islam are not the same.
Islam is a religion of peace, he argues, but is being used to bind Muslims to a deceptive yet highly convincing meta-narrative calling for a caliphate. By conflating legitimate grievances regarding the effect Western foreign policy has had on Muslims in other countries with half-truths and propaganda, these recruiters have successfully established a siren call to the alienated and the angry. It is an ideology that has resonated with the disaffected and been enflamed by further Western military interventions, allowing a hegemony to be established.
Nawaz has a gift for communicating in prose. What really brings the book to life is his ability to paint a picture. Even knowing the dark path he’ll later take, it’s impossible not to sympathise with his young self when we read of the barbaric violence he witnesses at the hands of racist thugs, or the discriminatory way he is treated by the police just because he isn’t white. The young Nawaz is relatable, vulnerable, normal – which is why his decline into extremism is particularly striking. It’s striking because it’s clear that religion has little to do with why the young Maajid becomes entangled in jihad.
Whilst reading Radical I couldn’t help but recall Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. Dawkins identified in The God Delusion that it is faith itself which allows extremism to breed. He argues that the very concept of faith – the willingness to accept instruction or explanation, no matter how irrational, as long as told in the name of God – creates a pliable mind, easily manipulated by extremists to further their own ends. After all, one is surely more likely to kamikaze into a building if they think they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife. I think this is a reasonable conclusion to reach, but It wasn’t until I read Radical that I realised it’s a reductive and simple explanation. Radical has been for me, an ‘antitheist’, what Dawkins would call a ‘consciousness raiser’.
I no longer think of the issue of extremism in black and white, in absolutes. The many shades of grey, and the many disparate components of the process of radicalisation are now visible to me. Radical feels like the breakthrough moment of a culture shift, and I wish Maajid and his movement all the success in the world.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The jargon of authenticity
Jan 29th, 2014 11:13 am | By Ophelia BensonStephen Evans of the National Secular Society writes an excellent open letter to Channel 4 about the Black Egg censorship of the image of Mo, sending it via the Huffington Post UK.
We were surprised and extremely disappointed to see that Channel 4 News took the decision to cover up the image of Mohammed when showing the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and we are thus keen to elicit the rationale behind that particular editorial decision.
During the report, it was noted that this decision was taken so as not to cause offence to some viewers; however we would like to point out that by your making this decision you have effectively taken a side in a debate where a Muslim man has suffered violent death threats after he explicitly said he did not find the cartoons offensive. You have taken the side of the reactionaries – the side of people who bully and violently threaten Muslims, such as Mr Nawaz, online.
That’s exactly what they have done, and it’s disgusting. Why would anyone do that? I don’t buy the claim that it’s personal fear. I have to suspect it’s something more like a deeply entrenched assumption that the reactionaries are the more “authentic” Muslims and that therefore it’s more compassionate or progressive or postcolonialist or whatever to side with them instead of with not so “authentic” Muslims like Nawaz. It doesn’t take much thought to perceive how massively insulting that is to Muslims as a group – indeed, how “Islamophobic” it is.
Oh look, Evans says the same thing. I annotated as I went, so I hadn’t read that paragraph yet.
Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an ‘authentic Muslim’.
Exactly. Well of course it’s not an original thought with either of us; we’ve been seeing it for years and years. People have been accusing Salman Rushdie of being “inauthentic” for decades because he’s a cosmopolitan.
Whilst we understand that you covered both sides of the issue through your report and subsequent interview, we were keen to highlight the dangerous precedent you have set by taking the editorial decision to censor the Jesus & Mo cartoon, and the deeply symbolic implications that decision has.
Really. Stop doing that. Stop making terrible decisions like that.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Kicking back
Jan 29th, 2014 10:23 am | By Ophelia BensonFrom the Onion – Woman Takes Short Half-Hour Break From Being Feminist To Enjoy TV Show.
Oh yes, I know how that goes.
Jenkins, 29, told reporters that after a long and tiring day at her office, all she wanted to do was return home, sit down on her couch, turn on an episode of the TLC reality show Say Yes To The Dress, and treat herself to a brief half hour in which she could look past all the various and near constant ways popular culture undermines the progress of women.
“Every once in a while, it’s nice to watch a little television without worrying about how frequently the mainstream media perpetuates traditional gender roles,” Jenkins said before putting her feet up on her coffee table and tuning in to the popular program that follows women as they shop for wedding gowns. “No mentally cataloging all the times women are subtly mocked or shamed for not living up to an unrealistic body image, no examining how women are depicted as superficial and irrationally emotional, and no thinking about how these shows reinforce the belief that women should simply aspire to find a man and get married—none of that. Not tonight. I’m just watching an episode of Say Yes To The Dress and enjoying it for what it is.”
Huh. What I watch for when I turn off the feminist part of my brain is kind of the opposite – stuff like Deadliest Catch where it’s all guys muscling everything and calling each other “girls” when they drop something.
Jenkins acknowledged that she witnessed dozens of moments in which the brides-to-be abandoned the notion that they should be valued for their personalities and intellects and instead seemed to derive their sole sense of worth from embellishing their appearance. However, she said she was able to consistently remind herself that this was “Natalie time” and that the feminist movement “could do without [her] for 30 minutes.”
“Normally, I’d be pretty irritated at the thought of millions of people across the country mindlessly watching such a backward representation of what it means to be a woman in the 21st century, but tonight I’m just unwinding and not letting it get to me,” Jenkins said. “It’s actually been kind of nice to push all the insinuations that marriage is the one true path for women to achieve happiness and fulfillment to the back of my mind and just lie back and have a good time.”
For sure. It’s very soothing watching giant waves crash over the deck and drench all the dudes.
While affirming that she had fully recommitted herself to the cause of gender equality as soon as the show’s credits ended, Jenkins admitted she was already looking forward to the next time she could let herself disregard the many ways women are reduced to stale caricatures on national television.
“Honestly, it’s pretty exhausting to call out every sexist stereotype or instance of misogyny in popular culture, so sometimes I have to just throw my hands up and grant myself a little time off,” Jenkins said. “And given the state of modern media, momentarily suspending my feminist ideals is the only way to get through a night of TV without becoming totally livid or discouraged.”
As of press time, Jenkins’ sense of relaxation and contentment had been entirely undone by the first 30 seconds of 2 Broke Girls.
Switch to the Discovery channel! There’s bound to be something about lumberjacks or moonshiners or guns or cars.
H/t Pieter
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Jesus and Mo and the Black Egg
Jan 29th, 2014 9:22 am | By Ophelia Benson
Damn right. By doing that stupid, stupid, stupid thing yesterday Channel 4 simply re-enforced the stereotype that all Muslims are enraged bullies who demand the power to silence anything they dislike.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Opponents of the book launch wanted to please the Taliban
Jan 28th, 2014 6:02 pm | By Ophelia BensonThe Guardian has more detail on the suppression of Malala’s book launch.
Malala Yousafzai’s book was due to be launched at an event on Monday at Peshawar University but organisers were forced to scrap it after the intervention of two senior members of the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (KP).
The episode underlines the antipathy among many Pakistanis towards the 16-year-old who campaigned for education in the face of Taliban opposition.
While she has been hailed in the west for her campaign against extremism, in Pakistan she is widely regarded with suspicion, with many people believing conspiracy theories that the story of the Taliban attempt to assassinate her as she travelled to school in October 2012 was untrue or exaggerated.
Well of course there’s antipathy among many Pakistanis. Many Pakistanis are very conservative and theocratic.
The event that was to have been held at the university’s Central Asia Area Study Centre had been intended to raise awareness of a book which is not widely available in Pakistan.
Few booksellers dare stock it after the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which is particularly strong in KP, threatened to attack shops selling copies of I Am Malala.
Organisers said they came under enormous pressure to abandon the event, with ministers, the police and university officials all intervening.
“They all made so many excuses,” said Khadim Hussain, director of the Baacha Khan Education Foundation and one of the organisers. “First they said it was a security risk, then they said the book was not relevant to the study centre.”
He said opponents of the book launch simply wanted to please the Taliban.
And cheer them up over their failure to kill Malala. Poor Taliban.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Political pressure had also been put on
Jan 28th, 2014 5:00 pm | By Ophelia BensonMeanwhile, in Peshawar – there was going to be an event to launch Malala Yousafzai’s book today, but it got canceled because some bullies demanded that it should be.
The book launch had been organised by Peshawar University’s Area Study Centre in collaboration with the Bacha Khan Education Trust (BKET), a non-profit education network set up by the secular Pashtun ANP party, and a civil society NGO called Strengthening Participatory Organisation (SPO).
Dr Hussain of BKET said that police had informed organisers they could not provide security for the programme. But he added that political pressure had also been put on the university administration to suspend the event.
“Two ministers of the KP government put pressure on the university administration to call off the programme. Some important state functionaries also made telephone calls to senior professors of the Area Study Centre,” he told BBC Urdu.
Peshawar’s police chief Ijaz Khan told the BBC that the book launch was stopped “due to security concerns”.
He added that the centre had not provided any information to the police about the programme, which meant that arranging security in such a short time was not possible.
“Also, the university administration itself had voiced some reservations over Area Study Centre’s plans for the book launch, after which permission for the programme was withheld,” he said.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Minister Shah Farman told the AFP news agency that the local government had indeed halted the ceremony.
“It is true that we stopped them and there were many reasons for that.”
All of them bad.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
We’ve taken the decision
Jan 28th, 2014 4:08 pm | By Ophelia BensonNow for some video that’s not Pete Seeger singing. Channel 4 did a piece on Maajid Nawaz and Jesus and Mo and Mo Shafiq this evening. And what did they do in the process? They covered up Mo.
The journalist who gave a brief background explained, ”We’ve taken the decision to cover up the depiction of Mohammed so that we don’t cause offense to some viewers.”
So they caused offense to some other viewers, who find it highly offensive to give in to the petulant demands of reactionary religious bigots.
She talked to Chris Moos after that. Then Jon Snow said that Nick Clegg is meeting tomorrow with “dozens of Muslim groups” who are offended by Maajid’s tweet to discuss the matter.
Dozens? Dozens of groups? That sounds exaggerated. But besides that the whole thing just sounds like a horrendous train wreck. He needs to tell them to stop being so bossy, deal with it, and go away. But he won’t.
Update: Never mind.
I should have watched the whole thing before I posted. (I hate watching videos. I get so impatient.) Somebody must have whispered in Jon Snow’s ear while Shafiq was ranting. He interrupted him to inform him that Clegg says tomorrow’s meeting was scheduled long ago and he has no intention of discussing this issue. Whew. That’s a relief. Shafiq looked very disconcerted for a second.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Joe Hill
Jan 28th, 2014 3:49 pm | By Ophelia BensonSays Joe, “But I ain’t dead.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_yC4ffyGiw
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
We shall not be moved
Jan 28th, 2014 11:08 am | By Ophelia BensonWe’re women and men together, we shall not be moved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt7soE8gVf8
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
