An open letter from Dylan Farrow

Feb 1st, 2014 8:32 pm | By

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.)



And again, happy World Hijab Day

Feb 1st, 2014 6:41 pm | By

Happy happy happy happy happy.

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



A dud advice bureau

Feb 1st, 2014 6:37 pm | By

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.)



Next up: Vatican conference on secularism

Feb 1st, 2014 6:21 pm | By

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.)



Fighting for something we thought we had won

Feb 1st, 2014 4:14 pm | By

Thousands of people got together in Madrid today to voice their opposition to government plans to take away abortion rights.

Under pressure from the Catholic Church, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative government announced on December 20 it would roll back a 2010 law that allows women to opt freely for abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

The new law — yet to pass parliament, where the ruling People’s Party enjoys an absolute majority — would allow abortion only in cases of rape or a threat to the physical or psychological health of the mother.

Other than that, laydeez, tough shit – you’re stuck with it unless god sends you a miscarriage. No whining. It doesn’t matter if you’re poor and can’t afford it, if you’re in school and don’t feel ready to be a mother, if your husband or boyfriend just left you, if you just have absolutely no desire at all to have a child – you are stuck with it. If you don’t like it you should have plugged that sinful thing up with cement.

The move has outraged pro-choice campaigners, who say the legislation would roll back the decades in Spain, returning to conditions similar to those of a more restrictive 1985 law or even the 1939-1975 dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

“I would never have imagined we would find ourselves back here, fighting for something we thought we had won,” said 57-year-old protestor Maria Pilar Sanchez.

“We don’t want to turn the clock back 40 years. Having an abortion used to be a crime in Spain. We don’t want to return to that.”

You don’t, but the fascists and the Catholics and the falangists and the “family values” bullies do.

Opposition politicians joined the march, including United Left party leader Cayo Lara, who said the proposed law represented only “the most fundamentalist sectors of the religious hierarchy and the most fanatic Francoists”.

The new bill would toughen the conditions for aborting in cases of malformation of the foetus, which the current law authorises freely up to 22 weeks.

Because that’s a decision for legislators, not for the woman who has to take care of the eventual baby.

In Spain, Rajoy’s government has repeatedly postponed the abortion reform, reportedly struggling with internal dissent, after promising in its 2011 election campaign to tighten the rules.

The delay has drawn cries of impatience from the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

Last April, the head of Spain’s Catholic Church, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, said the 2010 law had “led to a rise in the number of abortions to terrifying levels”.

Well clearly it’s the job of a Cardinal to decide whether women can get an abortion or not. Cardinals are ideally placed to decide that because they are officially unmarried and childless and celibate, all of which makes them experts on what’s best for women who don’t want to be pregnant right now.

Proponents of the bill have called their own demonstration for Sunday in Madrid to fight what they call a “phobia of family”.

Oh yeah? Have they said anything to the church about that? The church is officially family-phobic. The church is an institution based on all-male all-bachelor all-celibate rule. It’s run by men who are officially permanently outside of families. That’s more family-phobic than anything else I can think of.

There’s also the fact that wanting to be able to decide for oneself when and if to marry and when and if to have children is not the same thing as affirmatively wanting never to marry and never to have children. There’s also the fact that even affirmatively wanting never to marry and never to have children isn’t necessarily the same thing as being family-phobic: it can be a matter of just not wanting it for oneself, while still thinking it’s a great thing for people who do want it, and/or a matter of wanting forms of family that don’t involve child-rearing.

I hope their demonstration tomorrow is a complete dud.

 

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



Freedom, freedom, freedom

Feb 1st, 2014 11:47 am | By

From Gnu Atheism on Facebook:

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



Showing her hair

Feb 1st, 2014 11:22 am | By

This is from three years ago, but all the same…it has its implications for the festive World Hijab Day.

The Telegraph, January 19 2011.

A British Muslim man threatened to kill his cousin if she continued to refuse to wear a headscarf, a court heard.

Not very festive.

Mohamed Al-Hakim is said to have telephoned Alya Al-Safar, 21, at her home in Hammersmith, west London, giving her a deadline to start wearing a head covering, Isleworth Crown Court was told.

Mr Al-Hakim, of Fulham, west London, is also said to have labelled his cousin’s immediate family “whores” because of her decision to a adopt western style.

The 29 year-old is alleged to have telephoned his cousin around midnight on June 9 last year to tell she had brought shame on her family by showing her hair.

There are bullies everywhere. There are secular bullies, atheist bullies, all sorts. Nevertheless, religious bullies get that extra hit of validation by self-righteousness. “Rules” and “religious obligations” make a fabulous pretext for bullies to bully in A Good Cause.

The court was told that he also allegedly telephoned Miss Safar’s mother, Fatima Al-Musawi, a few days earlier to complain about her decision not to wear the veil any longer.

During the conversation he allegedly told her: “You are all bitches and whores.”

Maybe Mohamed Al-Hakim just hates women, as so many people and gods do. But ideas about women as fly-blown meat and contaminated candy don’t help.

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



Joyous World Hijab Day to you

Feb 1st, 2014 10:37 am | By

Via Muslim & Exmuslim Women for Secularism on Facebook

Photo: Way to go, oversexualising and objectifying yourself! In all seriousness, fuck #HijabDay</p> <p>~ Yasmeen

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.)



Guest post by mirax: The official Friday sermon

Feb 1st, 2014 10:10 am | By

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.)



Just say no

Jan 31st, 2014 6:31 pm | By

I guess the Alabama legislature took a look at what happened to Savita Halappanavar at University Hospital Galway, and liked what they saw. They want that to happen to Alabama women too. From the ACLU blog:

All miscarriages can be devastating. But, for women in Alabama, this nightmare could soon get a lot worse. This week, the Alabama Senate is set to consider a cruel bill (HB 31) that would permit the hospital staff, including any doctor, nurse, counselor, or lab technician, to refuse to participate in any phase of patient medical care related to ending a pregnancy, even if that is what a patient like this woman needs to protect her own health and future fertility.

Yes, you heard that right. Under this law, if you or a loved one is pregnant and go to an emergency room in Alabama because of serious complications, every medical professional in that emergency room could refuse to help you if the care you needed to protect you from serious harm to your health required ending the pregnancy.

“That can’t be true,” you say. “How could a doctor at my local hospital turn me away and refuse to treat me? Isn’t that malpractice?”

The Alabama legislature is one step ahead of you. The bill would also protect health care professionals from liability for refusing to provide necessary medical care. What’s more, the bill would exempt the hospital from liability under Alabama law. This means that even if the hospitals know that the on-duty doctor won’t provide appropriate medical care, Alabama law says that in most cases they have no obligation to find someone who will.

Unfuckingbelievable. The Savita case shocked people in Ireland; some of them went straight to the Dáil to demonstrate their shock; some months later the law was changed to prevent its happening again. The Alabama legislature wants to pass a law so that it will happen there. Talk about dropping all motherfucking pretense of giving a shit about women. Talk about dropping the mask. Like their god, they hate women.

 

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



Lord and Saviour action figure

Jan 31st, 2014 5:43 pm | By

Turn the other cheek eh?

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



The BBC cast him as the faux-Muslim

Jan 31st, 2014 4:44 pm | By

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.)



Challenging power is “offensive”

Jan 31st, 2014 1:41 pm | By

A terrific article by Kenan Malik on Channel 4′s contemptible decision to throw Maajid Nawaz under the bus by siding with the “offended” brigade.

‘Thank you @Channel4News you just pushed us liberal Muslims further into a ditch’. So tweeted Maajid Nawaz, prospective Liberal Democratic parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, last night. He had every right to be incandescent. Channel 4 News had just held a debate about theJesus and Mo cartoons and about the campaign to deselect Nawaz for tweeting one of the cartoons, not finding them offensive. Channel 4 decided that they were offensive and could not be shown. It would have been bad enough had the channel decided simply not to show the cartoon. What it did was worse. It showed the cartoon – but blanked out Muhammad’s face (and only Muhammad’s face). In the context of a debate about whether Nawaz had been right to tweet the cartoon in the first place, or whether his critics were right to hound him for ‘offending’ Muslims, it was an extraordinary decision. The broadcaster had effectively taken sides in the debate – and taken the side of the reactionaries against the liberal.

Preeeeeeecisely. Nawaz invites his fellow Muslims to act like adults and Channel 4 says No, no, no, act like bad-tempered babies!

There is something truly bizarre (and yet in keeping with the zeitgeist of our age) that someone should become the focus of death threats and an international campaign of vilification for suggesting that an inoffensive cartoon was, well, inoffensive.

It’s a bizarre zeitgeist. Somebody should name a band that.

I want to annotate every word, but I’m out of time, so I’ll point out one more important observation:

the giving of offence is not just inevitable, it is also important. Any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities. Or to put it another way: ‘You can’t say that!’ is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged. To accept that certain things cannot be said is to accept that certain forms of power cannot be challenged.

‘Swhat I keep saying. Lots of people are “offended” by demands that women be treated as equals. Lots of people are “offended” by the claim that LGBT people should not be persecuted. Lots of people are “offended” by suggestions that the goal of a decent society should not be the largest possible gap between the poor and the rich.

 

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



Cohesion

Jan 31st, 2014 1:21 pm | By

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:

hayleyk

         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.)



Alex Aan is out of prison

Jan 31st, 2014 12:49 pm | By

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.)



Fine, explain the context

Jan 31st, 2014 11:48 am | By

Mo and Mo – a spinoff of and tribute to the great and wise Jesus and Mo.

Embedded image permalink

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



As we are sure you can appreciate

Jan 30th, 2014 5:25 pm | By

The 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

Doctors 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

That 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

Nick 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.)