You KNOW they're all SCAMS
The big debate in atheist circles these days is the “tone debate”, which I’ve touched on here before. I’ve also mentioned American Atheists president David Silverman before in a criticism of his lousy philosophy in the (mis)handling of the “Burn a Koran Day” incident. Silverman is busy with a new philosophical defence – this time against a real philosopher – that relates to the “tone debate”, and this time… Silverman has it right on the nose. continue reading…
Salman Taseer
I read with great sadness today that Salman Taseer has been shot dead. Salman Taseer was the Governor of the Punjab region of Pakistan. He was shot by his own bodyguard with a sub-machine-gun. The reason? He was an outspoken critic of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.* Those of us in the relative security of Western democracies sometimes don’t fully appreciate the bravery and committment needed to speak-out in other parts of the world. This is a timely reminder and I hope that people will use this occasion to reflect for a few minutes on this.
Well, I don’t celebrate any official holidays this time of year, but I get the time off so I use it. So, I’m off until
We can do good better
Religious people often claim moral superiority because of the fact that there are so many religious charities, and so few explicitly secular ones. The reason for that, of course, is that atheists generally don’t care whether the charity is labelled “Christian” (or whatever other religion), so long as it does good work. Unfortunately, it turns out that in some cases, the label does matter, and one of those cases is The Salvation Army. continue reading…
In part 1 of this two-part article, I corrected a commonly held misconception about what the “War on Christmas” is about. Now, in the second and final part, I will explain why this is a matter involving the religious intolerance of free expression. continue reading…
You may have heard the term “War on Christmas”, if not this year than in years past. Unfortunately, if you’re like most people, you probably misunderstand what this “war” is about, and why it is a free expression issue worth discussing here. The “War on Christmas” is an issue of religious intolerance of free expression, but before I can explain why, I first have to clear up the common misunderstanding. This will require a two part article; in the first part, this part, I will clearly explain what the “War on Christmas” really is so that I can explain why it is free expression issue in the second part. continue reading…
I couldn’t make this up, and if I didn’t have a real news source to back me up, I wouldn’t forgive you for thinking I was joking.
One of the major concerns listed in the recent Freedom House report on blasphemy laws was that said laws were often used solely to settle personal disputes, and not really for the sake of protecting the religion from “offence”. Well now, I submit, for your approval, the case of the sacred business card. continue reading…
Recently I wrote about a report published by Freedom House about blasphemy laws around the world. While that report includes several disturbing examples of blasphemy law in action, they are only the tip of the iceberg. And the situation isn’t improving, either. From Pharyngula comes two more tales of blasphemy laws in action. continue reading…
A couple of cases have arisen in the UK over the past few weeks that raise interesting questions over free speech and the ‘new’ media. These cases both relate to the use of Twitter.
In January, accountant Phil Chambers was arrested and prosecuted for tweeting the following :
“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
(This was in response to the airport (Doncaster) being closed due to snow on the runways.)
Chambers argued in court that he was obviously joking and it was clear that his message was not a serious threat. The court disagreed and he was convicted of ‘menace’ and fined £1000.
He appealed and the result was not what he hoped for. The Judge said the tweet contained clear menace and ordered him to pay another £2000 in court costs.
This week a Conservative Councillor was arrested after tweeting
“Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”
(Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a journalist and human rights campaigner and the tweet was in response to her comments on a radio breakfast show).
Now, clearly both these tweets were crass, stupid and, in the second case, offensive. That is not the point, however. I think it is quite clear in both cases that they were not serious. Someone planning to blow-up an airport is hardly likely to tweet his intentions, and the context of the ‘stoning’ tweet makes it clear that it is a (bad) attempt at humour rather than a serious incitement to violence. I find myself concerned that there is widespread acceptance that both were criminal offences – very few people have stuck their necks out to defend the principle of free speech in either case and people have been queuing up to condemn in both cases.
If either comment had been made by a comic during a show then would there have been any prosecution? I think not. The argument would probably be that the context made it quite clear that these were jokes and not serious threats/incitement . The question therefore arises – at what point does a joke, over twitter or email or any other medium, become unacceptable and liable to criminal action?
My personal opinion is that the law has got this wrong. Once comments obviously intended humorously are forbidden then we really are in dangerous territory.
Let me be quite clear – incitement to violence/murder is most certainly NOT permissable under the principle of freedom of expression, and neither are genuine threats of violence. It seems to me, however, that both of these cases require a perversely literal interpretation to arrive at any genuine threat/incitement, when it is obvious from the context in both cases that neither was meant literally. If a literal reading of text is established as being the intended meaning then what happens to metaphor? Am I to be prosecuted when, as I have, I mutter something about ‘killing that damn student’, after a particularly hairy lecture?
Surely we are sophisticated enough to be able to tell when a threat or incitement is not to be taken literally? Nobody I know would read either of these in that way and I submit that it would require a particularly perverse or naive person to do so. UK law is shot through with references to ‘reasonable’. We talk about what a ‘reasonable person’ would do, what force can be ‘reasonably’ exercised in self-defence etc. These two cases seem to me to be entirely unreasonable and, because of that, very dangerous.
Postscript – Stephen Fry has offered to pay Chambers’ costs in full and a campaign is now in full swing by twitter users who are now reposting Chambers’ tweet as a protest. Read More Here
This issue is likely to run and run methinks….
Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights
The official and unofficial discrimination associated with the application of blasphemy laws has been seen to foster a general climate of intolerance for religious diversity. Contrary to the arguments of many governments and judicial authorities, these laws damage rather than preserve communal harmony.
But what is most interesting about the report, and the reason I would recommend taking the time to read through its 128 pages, are the examples of blasphemy law put into practice. For instance:[2]
In October 1990, Arswendo Atmowiloto, then editor of the Monitor newspaper, was arrested under Article 156(A) of the Penal Code. He was reportedly responsible for publishing the results of a readers’ poll on the most admired person in Indonesia, which showed that the prophet Muhammad came in 11th. The feature was met with outrage from Muslim organizations, and protesters stormed the newspaper’s offices, breaking windows and destroying equipment. The newspaper was shut down later the same month after its publication license was revoked by the government, allegedly in response to mounting pressure from extremist groups. In April 1991, Arswendo was sentenced to five years in prison, the maximum penalty possible under Article 156(A), and he went on to serve all but six months of the term.
That particular case comes from Indonesia, often presented as a model of a pluralist, democratic, moderate Islamic state.
The atheist/secular/humanist/sceptical world is currently abuzz with a long-running discussion about “tone”. This is a gross simplification, but essentially there are two camps: the confrontationalists, who refuse to moderate their criticisms, even when their criticisms make people uncomfortable, and the accommodationists, who believe that criticism that is too strident drives moderates away. [1] We here at ARISE have stayed out of the debate, but it is relevant not only to how we present our arguments (the “tone” issue applies as much to us as it does to any current secular writers), but to the very issues we have chosen to focus on. Our position is that we support free expression in defiance of religious oppression, but we would be irresponsible if we did not also consider what kinds of free expression is good or bad. And, of course, the question of which kinds of expression are appropriate and which are not is an issue we have discussed before.
A lot of the debate between the two sides thus far has relied on straw men, or, at the very least, pointing to extremist cases on either side followed by a slippery slope argument. A recent case has come up that I believe serves as an ideal platform to analyze the case for confrontationalism using a practical test bed. continue reading…
It is often taken for granted that interfaith dialogue will lead to peace and mutual understanding between religions. That may be, but what else might it lead to?
The benefits of interfaith dialogue (click for larger image)
This cartoon is released under a Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike-NoCommercial licence.
Burn a Koran Day did not happen. At the last minute, the pastor responsible backed down. Some are claiming that it was due to the pressure from moderates and the media, others that it was due to threats of reprisal from Muslims. Is this as a victory for the moderates, or for the terrorists? Sadly, it is not a victory for anyone. continue reading…
Personal Comment by one of the site authors
The unsinkable Christopher Hitchens, in a recent article in Slate titled “Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.”, challenges the “untrammelled” free expression of religion. Hitchens cites a recent flurry of articles by “liberal” writers that he suggests are attempting to marginalize the concerns of people who assert that there should be limits put on the practice of religious beliefs. continue reading…
In a previous essay, I mentioned an incident on the American Atheists blog where, after Vice President David Silverman published a statement denouncing “Burn a Koran Day”, a commenter called attention to the hypocrisy of saying that on the one hand, and cheering on the destruction of Bibles in hotels on the other. Now someone at AA (possibly Silverman) has responded to that charge, but has done so in such a ham-handed way that that post’s comments are abuzz with people pointing out the blatant double-standard. Ah, the poor Americans seem to be in well over their head, and even though I helped them out before, it seems necessary to throw them another bone. continue reading…
