http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/south/vs-seeks-cms%E2%80%99-support-endosulfan-ban-836
This is only a paid and sponsored campaign by some rival company that manufactures costlier pesticides. Shame on all that are taken in by it!
The people of Kerala are being taken for a media ride again, as with the Manchium, goat farms swindles, and the false rosy publicity about the Smart City and other cities.
Disaster happened in Kasargode only because the Plantation Corporation owned by the government, kept on spraying the pesticide indiscriminately from the sky from helicopters, for decades together. Why they did so is clear; they acted at the behest of the helicopter leasers. This is/was an act of biological warfare by the State against its own citizens. PEOPLE WILL SUFFER IF IT IS MERE TALCUM POWDER THAT YOU SPRAY DOWN DAY IN DAY OUT FROM THE SKIES; NOT TO SPEAK OF PESTICIDES.
The pesticide is produced mostly by the public sector HIL and not by any private company alone. Some private interests are trying to dislodge this PSU from the field. For once, Pawar is being fair!
The media, politicians and the paid intellectuals are all acting under vicious influence. That the power to ban a pesticide is within the State government's jurisdiction from 2006, is very pertinent; and calls the lie on the LDF.
The unpleasant truth has to be told! NEVERTHELESS, ALL CHEMICAL FERTILISERS AND PESTICIDES ARE TO BE SHUNNED.
Showing posts with label LDF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LDF. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Kerala LDF Goes Islamic
http://www.dailypioneer.com/158025/Left-moots-pension-for-Madrassa-teachers-to-please-Muslims.html
Left moots pension for Madrassa teachers to please Muslims
Daily Pioneer: Kozhikode: 22 Feb 2009
The CPI(M)-led LDF Government in Kerala are planning some quick pre-poll measures to regain the trust of the minorities, especially Muslims, which has been affected of late by moves like the one by the Law Reforms Commission which has suggested strict controls on polygamy.
Local Administration Minister Paloli Muhammad Kutty, who had headed a panel for studying the possibilities of implementing the Sachar Committee recommendations in Kerala, announced on Saturday that the Government wanted to implement a programme for providing a handsome pension to those who retired as full-time Madrassa teachers.
At a function organized here to announce the formation of a welfare fund for the Madrassa teachers, Paloli said the plan was to give a sum of at least Rs 4,000 a month as pension to those who had completed at least ten years' service as full-time Madrassa teachers.
He also said that the Government was also considering to institute 5,000 scholarships for students from the minority community. There was also a plan to provide Rs 1,000 towards hostel fee for minority students in the higher education sector. Centres would be started for imparting training to minority candidates for preparing for civil service examinations, he said.
The Paloli-headed committee appointed to study the ways to implement the Sachar Committee recommendations in Kerala had in February 2008 last suggested that all Muslim children below poverty line should be given all the educational concessions presently enjoyed by those in the scheduled tribes. The committee's report had said special scholarships of up to Rs 2,000 should be given to these children on the basis of an income ceiling.
The report had also asked for a hike in the grant for children living in orphanages (Yateem Khanas) from the present Rs 175 to Rs 250 per month and for increasing this by Rs 25 every year. The LDF Government, disregarding the serious concerns and criticisms raised by leading political parties and community organizations in the State, had on April 30 last decided to implement the report of the Paloli committee. Various organizations had complained that the CPI(M) effort to implement the report was part of its efforts to win the Muslim vote-bank even by jeopardizing the religious harmony in the State.
The report had recommended creation of a Muslim Development Corporation, establishment of an Arabic university and more government schools in Muslim majority areas, etc. The committee also recommended constitution of minority cells in the district level. It also suggested starting of more educational institutions in the Government or aided sector in places with higher density of Muslim population.
Paloli's new announcements have come just when several Muslim outfits, including Jama'at-e-Islami and the Sunni sect led by Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliar, have indicated that they could not support the Left in the coming elections. Jama'at-e-Islami's Kerala Amir T Arifali had recently said that they might reconsider their association with the CPI(M)-led LDF.
=============================================
To pay a monthly pension of Rs.4000/- each to about one lakh Madrassa teachers is an abuse of public funds.
These Madrassa teachers, unlike all other segments of pensioners in the country, are to be allowed pension after a mere 10 years of service. A large number of the pensioners would thus be in their 30s and would henceforth be free to spread Jihad on a government pension. The quantum of pension [Rs. 4000/-] is higher than what even most government employees would receive after 30 years of service. The annual burden to the exchequer would be around 500 crores. This in a State with a mere Rs 30000 crore Budget!
The Madrassa teachers are without any specified academic qualifications. Many of them are even illiterate. They are not appointed on the basis of any reasonable standards. There are no recognised or approved track trails of their service either. That many of them are responsible for all the communal tension in the State is known to all. They are merely teachers of Islam and not of benefit to the general society. In the absence of any such pension scheme to priests and religion teachers of other communities, the government move is extremely partisan. Before long, pension would be demanded by Christian priests and preachers also.
That Communists have always been responsible for much of the religious divide in Kerala, beginning with their creation of the Moslem Malappuram district, is beyond dispute. In West Bengal, they drive out Taslima Nasrins or imprison Statesman editors to appease Moslems. If the move is not opposed and force backed, a dangerous trend of communal appeasement and misuse of government funds to catch votes would be further impressed upon styles of administration in the State for times to come.
===========================================================================
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/22madarsa.htm
Government to fund maths and science in madrassas
New Delhi. January 22, 2008
The human resource development ministry will link madrassas with the National Institute of Open School and introduce mathematics, social sciences, Hindi, English and other regular subjects as part of the modernisation process of the religious schools.
There are demands to treat madrassa degrees at par with those of public schools.
Left moots pension for Madrassa teachers to please Muslims
Daily Pioneer: Kozhikode: 22 Feb 2009
The CPI(M)-led LDF Government in Kerala are planning some quick pre-poll measures to regain the trust of the minorities, especially Muslims, which has been affected of late by moves like the one by the Law Reforms Commission which has suggested strict controls on polygamy.
Local Administration Minister Paloli Muhammad Kutty, who had headed a panel for studying the possibilities of implementing the Sachar Committee recommendations in Kerala, announced on Saturday that the Government wanted to implement a programme for providing a handsome pension to those who retired as full-time Madrassa teachers.
At a function organized here to announce the formation of a welfare fund for the Madrassa teachers, Paloli said the plan was to give a sum of at least Rs 4,000 a month as pension to those who had completed at least ten years' service as full-time Madrassa teachers.
He also said that the Government was also considering to institute 5,000 scholarships for students from the minority community. There was also a plan to provide Rs 1,000 towards hostel fee for minority students in the higher education sector. Centres would be started for imparting training to minority candidates for preparing for civil service examinations, he said.
The Paloli-headed committee appointed to study the ways to implement the Sachar Committee recommendations in Kerala had in February 2008 last suggested that all Muslim children below poverty line should be given all the educational concessions presently enjoyed by those in the scheduled tribes. The committee's report had said special scholarships of up to Rs 2,000 should be given to these children on the basis of an income ceiling.
The report had also asked for a hike in the grant for children living in orphanages (Yateem Khanas) from the present Rs 175 to Rs 250 per month and for increasing this by Rs 25 every year. The LDF Government, disregarding the serious concerns and criticisms raised by leading political parties and community organizations in the State, had on April 30 last decided to implement the report of the Paloli committee. Various organizations had complained that the CPI(M) effort to implement the report was part of its efforts to win the Muslim vote-bank even by jeopardizing the religious harmony in the State.
The report had recommended creation of a Muslim Development Corporation, establishment of an Arabic university and more government schools in Muslim majority areas, etc. The committee also recommended constitution of minority cells in the district level. It also suggested starting of more educational institutions in the Government or aided sector in places with higher density of Muslim population.
Paloli's new announcements have come just when several Muslim outfits, including Jama'at-e-Islami and the Sunni sect led by Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliar, have indicated that they could not support the Left in the coming elections. Jama'at-e-Islami's Kerala Amir T Arifali had recently said that they might reconsider their association with the CPI(M)-led LDF.
=============================================
To pay a monthly pension of Rs.4000/- each to about one lakh Madrassa teachers is an abuse of public funds.
These Madrassa teachers, unlike all other segments of pensioners in the country, are to be allowed pension after a mere 10 years of service. A large number of the pensioners would thus be in their 30s and would henceforth be free to spread Jihad on a government pension. The quantum of pension [Rs. 4000/-] is higher than what even most government employees would receive after 30 years of service. The annual burden to the exchequer would be around 500 crores. This in a State with a mere Rs 30000 crore Budget!
The Madrassa teachers are without any specified academic qualifications. Many of them are even illiterate. They are not appointed on the basis of any reasonable standards. There are no recognised or approved track trails of their service either. That many of them are responsible for all the communal tension in the State is known to all. They are merely teachers of Islam and not of benefit to the general society. In the absence of any such pension scheme to priests and religion teachers of other communities, the government move is extremely partisan. Before long, pension would be demanded by Christian priests and preachers also.
That Communists have always been responsible for much of the religious divide in Kerala, beginning with their creation of the Moslem Malappuram district, is beyond dispute. In West Bengal, they drive out Taslima Nasrins or imprison Statesman editors to appease Moslems. If the move is not opposed and force backed, a dangerous trend of communal appeasement and misuse of government funds to catch votes would be further impressed upon styles of administration in the State for times to come.
===========================================================================
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/22madarsa.htm
Government to fund maths and science in madrassas
New Delhi. January 22, 2008
The human resource development ministry will link madrassas with the National Institute of Open School and introduce mathematics, social sciences, Hindi, English and other regular subjects as part of the modernisation process of the religious schools.
There are demands to treat madrassa degrees at par with those of public schools.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
If you want to get involved in fighting for secularism, join the National Secular Society here.
==================================================================================
February 13, 2009
Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote
The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech
Last week, I wrote an article defending free speech for everyone – and in response there have been riots, death threats, and the arrest of an editor who published the article.
Here's how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.
I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.
This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass.
That's why I wrote: "All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him. I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade."
An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."
Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.
What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.
I did not write a sectarian attack on any particular religion of the kind that could lead to a rerun of India's hellish anti-Muslim or anti-Sikh pogroms, but rather a principled critique of all religions who try to forcibly silence their critics. The right to free speech I am defending protects Muslims as much as everyone else. I passionately support their right to say anything they want – as long as I too have the right to respond.
It's worth going through the arguments put forward by the rioting fundamentalists, because they will keep recurring in the twenty-first century as secularism is assaulted again and again. They said I had upset "the harmony" of India, and it could only be restored by my arrest. But this is a lop-sided vision of "harmony". It would mean that religious fundamentalists are free to say whatever they want – and the rest of us have to shut up and agree.
The protestors said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.
You do not have a right to be ring-fenced from offence. Every day, I am offended – not least by ancient religious texts filled with hate-speech. But I am glad, because I know that the price of taking offence is that I can give it too, if that is where the facts lead me. But again, the protestors propose a lop-sided world. They do not propose to stop voicing their own heinously offensive views about women's rights or homosexuality, but we have to shut up and take it – or we are the ones being "insulting".
It's also worth going through the arguments of the Western defenders of these protestors, because they too aren't going away. Already I have had e-mails and bloggers saying I was "asking for it" by writing a "needlessly provocative" article. When there is a disagreement and one side uses violence, it is a reassuring rhetorical stance to claim both sides are in the wrong, and you take a happy position somewhere in the middle. But is this true? I wrote an article defending human rights, and stating simple facts. Fanatics want to arrest or kill me for it. Is there equivalence here?
The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he ‘know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been ‘asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.
These events are also a reminder of why it is so important to try to let the oxygen of rationality into religious debates – and introduce doubt. Voltaire – one of the great anti-clericalists – said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." If you can be made to believe the absurd notion that an invisible deity dictated The Eternal Unchanging Truth to a specific person at a specific time in history and anyone who questions this is Evil, then you can easily be made to demand the death of journalists and free women and homosexuals who question that Truth. But if they have a moment of doubt – if there is a single nagging question at the back of their minds – then they are more likely to hesitate. That's why these ideas must be challenged at their core, using words and reason.
But the fundamentalists are determined not to allow those rational ideas to be heard – because at some level they know they will persuade for many people, especially children and teenagers in the slow process of being indoctrinated.
If, after all the discussion and all the facts about how contradictory and periodically vile their ‘holy' texts are, religious people still choose fanatical faith, I passionately defend their right to articulate it. Free speech is for the stupid and the wicked and the wrong – whether it is fanatics or the racist Geert Wilders – just as much as for the rational and the right. All I say is that they do not have the right to force it on other people or silence the other side. In this respect, Wilders resembles the Islamists he professes to despise: he wants to ban the Koran. Fine. Let him make his argument. He discredits himself by speaking such ugly nonsense.
The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial.
Please do not imagine that if you defend these rioters, you are defending ordinary Muslims. If we allow fanatics to silence all questioning voices, the primary victims today will be Muslim women, Muslim gay people, and the many good and honourable Muslim men who support them. Imagine what Britain would look like now if everybody who offered dissenting thoughts about Christianity in the seventeenth century and since was intimidated into silence by the mobs and tyrants who wanted to preserve the most literalist and fanatical readings of the Bible. Imagine how women and gay people would live.
You can see this if you compare my experience to that of journalists living under religious-Islamist regimes. Because generations of British people sought to create a secular space, when I went to the police, they offered total protection. When they go to the police, they are handed over to the fanatics – or charged for their "crimes." They are people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the young Afghan journalism student who was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights. They are people like the staff of Zanan, one of Iran's leading reform-minded women's magazines, who have been told they will be jailed if they carry on publishing. They are people like the 27-year old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman who has been seized, jailed and tortured in Egypt for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah law.
It would be a betrayal of them – and the tens of thousands of journalists like them – to apologize for what I wrote. Yes, if we speak out now, there will be turbulence and threats, and some people may get hurt. But if we fall silent – if we leave the basic human values of free speech, feminism and gay rights undefended in the face of violent religious mobs – then many, many more people will be hurt in the long term. Today, we have to use our right to criticise religion – or lose it.
Postscript: If you are appalled by the erosion of secularism across the world and want to do something about it, there are a number of organizations you can join, volunteer for or donate to.
Some good places to start are the National Secular Society [http://www.secularism.org.uk/join.html], the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason [http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,donations], or – if you want the money to go specifically to work in India – the International Humanist and Ethical Union [http://www.iheu.org/donate]. (Mark your donation as for their India branch.)
Even donating a few hours or a few pounds can really make a difference to defending people subject to religious oppression – by providing them with legal help, education materials, and lobbying for changes in the law.
An essential source of news for secularists is the terrific website Butterflies and Wheels. [http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notes.php]
===================================================================================
February 12, 2009
Editor arrested for 'outraging Muslims'
By Jerome Taylor
Protests against Indian newspaper over article reprinted from Independent
The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, appeared in court yesterday charged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which forbids "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings".
Sections of central Kolkata have been paralysed by protests for much of the past week after The Statesman republished an article by The Independent's columnist Johann Hari. Titled "Why should I respect oppressive religions?", the piece was originally printed in The Independent on 28 January. In it, Hari said he believed the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world.
The Statesman, a highly respected liberal English-language daily, reprinted the article on 5 February, causing a major backlash among a small group of Muslims who felt that the piece slighted the Prophet Mohamed and insulted their religion. Peaceful protests were held outside The Statesman's offices at the weekend but by Monday, demonstrations had turned violent. Angry crowds began blocking roads, attacking police and calling for the arrest of the article's author and the newspaper's publisher and editor. On Monday and Tuesday police used baton charges to try to disperse crowds and more than 70 protesters were arrested.
Staff at The Statesman were forced to barricade the front entrance to their building and were escorted into their offices through a side door by police. The office is opposite the Tipu Sultan Masjid, Kolkata's largest mosque.
One journalist at The Statesman said: "The police have surrounded our building all this week but the protesters kept coming back. There was a small section who were absolutely hellbent on causing problems."
Last night, Hari defended his article. "I wrote in defence of the right to criticise religion – all religion – and it is vitally important to keep that right alive in the world's largest, and in many ways most admirable, democracy," he said. On two separate occasions Mr Kumar, The Statesman's editor, issued statements standing by his decision to publish the article. But he also said he had not meant to cause offence to any religion. A note published on 8 February said The Statesman had reprinted Hari's article because "it mourned the marginalisation of the middle, liberal path in modern society". It added: "The Statesman has always upheld secular values and has a record of providing space to all viewpoints, even contentious ones. If we were unable to fulfil this role, we would rather cease publication with honour than compromise our basic values.
"The publication of Johann Hari's opinion was not intended to cause hurt, or defame any community or religion. Nor was it intended to provoke societal tension. If unwittingly we have aggrieved any section of society, we deeply regret it."
As well as the protests, a complaint was also filed at a police station by a member of the public, Mohd Shahid, calling for arrests. Speaking to The Independent last night, Mr Kumar said he voluntarily attended the police station yesterday to try to calm tensions. "Upon learning that a case had been registered by Kolkata police, I contacted officers and offered to assist the investigation and to aid efforts to defuse tensions," he said. "Following this, the arrests were made early today and we were released on bail last night."
Since Mr Kumar's arrest yesterday protesters have dispersed.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
If you want to get involved in fighting for secularism, join the National Secular Society here.
==================================================================================
February 13, 2009
Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote
The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech
Last week, I wrote an article defending free speech for everyone – and in response there have been riots, death threats, and the arrest of an editor who published the article.
Here's how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.
I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.
This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass.
That's why I wrote: "All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him. I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade."
An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."
Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.
What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.
I did not write a sectarian attack on any particular religion of the kind that could lead to a rerun of India's hellish anti-Muslim or anti-Sikh pogroms, but rather a principled critique of all religions who try to forcibly silence their critics. The right to free speech I am defending protects Muslims as much as everyone else. I passionately support their right to say anything they want – as long as I too have the right to respond.
It's worth going through the arguments put forward by the rioting fundamentalists, because they will keep recurring in the twenty-first century as secularism is assaulted again and again. They said I had upset "the harmony" of India, and it could only be restored by my arrest. But this is a lop-sided vision of "harmony". It would mean that religious fundamentalists are free to say whatever they want – and the rest of us have to shut up and agree.
The protestors said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.
You do not have a right to be ring-fenced from offence. Every day, I am offended – not least by ancient religious texts filled with hate-speech. But I am glad, because I know that the price of taking offence is that I can give it too, if that is where the facts lead me. But again, the protestors propose a lop-sided world. They do not propose to stop voicing their own heinously offensive views about women's rights or homosexuality, but we have to shut up and take it – or we are the ones being "insulting".
It's also worth going through the arguments of the Western defenders of these protestors, because they too aren't going away. Already I have had e-mails and bloggers saying I was "asking for it" by writing a "needlessly provocative" article. When there is a disagreement and one side uses violence, it is a reassuring rhetorical stance to claim both sides are in the wrong, and you take a happy position somewhere in the middle. But is this true? I wrote an article defending human rights, and stating simple facts. Fanatics want to arrest or kill me for it. Is there equivalence here?
The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he ‘know what he was doing' and so deserve his death? When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been ‘asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.
These events are also a reminder of why it is so important to try to let the oxygen of rationality into religious debates – and introduce doubt. Voltaire – one of the great anti-clericalists – said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." If you can be made to believe the absurd notion that an invisible deity dictated The Eternal Unchanging Truth to a specific person at a specific time in history and anyone who questions this is Evil, then you can easily be made to demand the death of journalists and free women and homosexuals who question that Truth. But if they have a moment of doubt – if there is a single nagging question at the back of their minds – then they are more likely to hesitate. That's why these ideas must be challenged at their core, using words and reason.
But the fundamentalists are determined not to allow those rational ideas to be heard – because at some level they know they will persuade for many people, especially children and teenagers in the slow process of being indoctrinated.
If, after all the discussion and all the facts about how contradictory and periodically vile their ‘holy' texts are, religious people still choose fanatical faith, I passionately defend their right to articulate it. Free speech is for the stupid and the wicked and the wrong – whether it is fanatics or the racist Geert Wilders – just as much as for the rational and the right. All I say is that they do not have the right to force it on other people or silence the other side. In this respect, Wilders resembles the Islamists he professes to despise: he wants to ban the Koran. Fine. Let him make his argument. He discredits himself by speaking such ugly nonsense.
The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial.
Please do not imagine that if you defend these rioters, you are defending ordinary Muslims. If we allow fanatics to silence all questioning voices, the primary victims today will be Muslim women, Muslim gay people, and the many good and honourable Muslim men who support them. Imagine what Britain would look like now if everybody who offered dissenting thoughts about Christianity in the seventeenth century and since was intimidated into silence by the mobs and tyrants who wanted to preserve the most literalist and fanatical readings of the Bible. Imagine how women and gay people would live.
You can see this if you compare my experience to that of journalists living under religious-Islamist regimes. Because generations of British people sought to create a secular space, when I went to the police, they offered total protection. When they go to the police, they are handed over to the fanatics – or charged for their "crimes." They are people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the young Afghan journalism student who was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights. They are people like the staff of Zanan, one of Iran's leading reform-minded women's magazines, who have been told they will be jailed if they carry on publishing. They are people like the 27-year old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman who has been seized, jailed and tortured in Egypt for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah law.
It would be a betrayal of them – and the tens of thousands of journalists like them – to apologize for what I wrote. Yes, if we speak out now, there will be turbulence and threats, and some people may get hurt. But if we fall silent – if we leave the basic human values of free speech, feminism and gay rights undefended in the face of violent religious mobs – then many, many more people will be hurt in the long term. Today, we have to use our right to criticise religion – or lose it.
Postscript: If you are appalled by the erosion of secularism across the world and want to do something about it, there are a number of organizations you can join, volunteer for or donate to.
Some good places to start are the National Secular Society [http://www.secularism.org.uk/join.html], the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason [http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,donations], or – if you want the money to go specifically to work in India – the International Humanist and Ethical Union [http://www.iheu.org/donate]. (Mark your donation as for their India branch.)
Even donating a few hours or a few pounds can really make a difference to defending people subject to religious oppression – by providing them with legal help, education materials, and lobbying for changes in the law.
An essential source of news for secularists is the terrific website Butterflies and Wheels. [http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notes.php]
===================================================================================
February 12, 2009
Editor arrested for 'outraging Muslims'
By Jerome Taylor
Protests against Indian newspaper over article reprinted from Independent
The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, the editor and publisher of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, appeared in court yesterday charged under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which forbids "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings".
Sections of central Kolkata have been paralysed by protests for much of the past week after The Statesman republished an article by The Independent's columnist Johann Hari. Titled "Why should I respect oppressive religions?", the piece was originally printed in The Independent on 28 January. In it, Hari said he believed the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world.
The Statesman, a highly respected liberal English-language daily, reprinted the article on 5 February, causing a major backlash among a small group of Muslims who felt that the piece slighted the Prophet Mohamed and insulted their religion. Peaceful protests were held outside The Statesman's offices at the weekend but by Monday, demonstrations had turned violent. Angry crowds began blocking roads, attacking police and calling for the arrest of the article's author and the newspaper's publisher and editor. On Monday and Tuesday police used baton charges to try to disperse crowds and more than 70 protesters were arrested.
Staff at The Statesman were forced to barricade the front entrance to their building and were escorted into their offices through a side door by police. The office is opposite the Tipu Sultan Masjid, Kolkata's largest mosque.
One journalist at The Statesman said: "The police have surrounded our building all this week but the protesters kept coming back. There was a small section who were absolutely hellbent on causing problems."
Last night, Hari defended his article. "I wrote in defence of the right to criticise religion – all religion – and it is vitally important to keep that right alive in the world's largest, and in many ways most admirable, democracy," he said. On two separate occasions Mr Kumar, The Statesman's editor, issued statements standing by his decision to publish the article. But he also said he had not meant to cause offence to any religion. A note published on 8 February said The Statesman had reprinted Hari's article because "it mourned the marginalisation of the middle, liberal path in modern society". It added: "The Statesman has always upheld secular values and has a record of providing space to all viewpoints, even contentious ones. If we were unable to fulfil this role, we would rather cease publication with honour than compromise our basic values.
"The publication of Johann Hari's opinion was not intended to cause hurt, or defame any community or religion. Nor was it intended to provoke societal tension. If unwittingly we have aggrieved any section of society, we deeply regret it."
As well as the protests, a complaint was also filed at a police station by a member of the public, Mohd Shahid, calling for arrests. Speaking to The Independent last night, Mr Kumar said he voluntarily attended the police station yesterday to try to calm tensions. "Upon learning that a case had been registered by Kolkata police, I contacted officers and offered to assist the investigation and to aid efforts to defuse tensions," he said. "Following this, the arrests were made early today and we were released on bail last night."
Since Mr Kumar's arrest yesterday protesters have dispersed.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Sunday, 1 February 2009
Kerala's Communist Government Gives Crores-worth of Free Land to Churches in pre-Election Dole
Malayala Manorama daily has reported on 1st February that the Kerala Government has completed procedures to allot free land to private schools and colleges run by Christian and Moslem religious institutions in the State. Some of these are already housed in government land that has been technically leased to them. The lease amounts have not been paid by these institutions for decades and the arrears come to hundreds of crores of Rupees. No government dares to recover the dues out of fear of minority community protests.
One funny thing about these minority educational institutions is that they are on government land, and are built with money collected from the public. The annual maintenance, providing of all study utilities and salary payment of all staff members are done by the government. However, appointment of all staff and admission of students is a prerogative of the Churches and Moslem Mahals, who are recognised as owners of the institutions. A College teacher’s job involves a bribe of around Rs 20-25 lakhs to the owners; a school teacher pays Rs 10 lakhs. Medical College admissions are 15 lakhs to 30 lakhs. Additional privileges as are allowed to minority institutions are also enjoyed.
Land is an unavailable commodity in small Kerala and inability to obtain or attach required land is the main cause of retrogression of its industrialisation. Projects like the Smart City ran into trouble because of squabbles about unequal sharing of spoils from the allotment of free government land. Average cost of land in Kerala is Rs. 10000/- per Cent [40m2 ]. In towns and cities, and around institutions and projects, there is no determinable limit to land cost. At District Head Quarters, average is around one crore Rupees per Cent [40m2 ].
KP Rajendran, Kerala Revenue minister, has told the Malayala Manorama that St.Thomas College, St.Mary’s College, Christ College, St.Albert’s College, Ponnani Moslem Education Service College would be the initial beneficiaries. Other institutions will be accommodated as soon as they submit applications. 10 to 25 acres are expected to be thus allotted to each institution. An acre of land [an acre is 100 cents] in the vicinity of these colleges is valued at a minimum of 10 to 15 crores of Rupees.
Kerala has an LDF ministry and a CPM Education minister. In return for the land, the minority communities would support LDF candidates from the minority communities at the Parliamentary elections. Adequate financial compensation and accommodation through admissions and appointments are also offered by the education mafia.
http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentType=EDITORIAL&programId=1073753765&articleType=Malayalam%20News&contentId=5086340&BV_ID=@@@
One funny thing about these minority educational institutions is that they are on government land, and are built with money collected from the public. The annual maintenance, providing of all study utilities and salary payment of all staff members are done by the government. However, appointment of all staff and admission of students is a prerogative of the Churches and Moslem Mahals, who are recognised as owners of the institutions. A College teacher’s job involves a bribe of around Rs 20-25 lakhs to the owners; a school teacher pays Rs 10 lakhs. Medical College admissions are 15 lakhs to 30 lakhs. Additional privileges as are allowed to minority institutions are also enjoyed.
Land is an unavailable commodity in small Kerala and inability to obtain or attach required land is the main cause of retrogression of its industrialisation. Projects like the Smart City ran into trouble because of squabbles about unequal sharing of spoils from the allotment of free government land. Average cost of land in Kerala is Rs. 10000/- per Cent [40m2 ]. In towns and cities, and around institutions and projects, there is no determinable limit to land cost. At District Head Quarters, average is around one crore Rupees per Cent [40m2 ].
KP Rajendran, Kerala Revenue minister, has told the Malayala Manorama that St.Thomas College, St.Mary’s College, Christ College, St.Albert’s College, Ponnani Moslem Education Service College would be the initial beneficiaries. Other institutions will be accommodated as soon as they submit applications. 10 to 25 acres are expected to be thus allotted to each institution. An acre of land [an acre is 100 cents] in the vicinity of these colleges is valued at a minimum of 10 to 15 crores of Rupees.
Kerala has an LDF ministry and a CPM Education minister. In return for the land, the minority communities would support LDF candidates from the minority communities at the Parliamentary elections. Adequate financial compensation and accommodation through admissions and appointments are also offered by the education mafia.
http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentType=EDITORIAL&programId=1073753765&articleType=Malayalam%20News&contentId=5086340&BV_ID=@@@
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Suresh Kumar and his Suspension!
http://english.mathrubhumi.com/news.php?id=9667&cat=1&sub=14&subit=0
I am surprised that people are making this much noise about Suresh Kumar’s being suspended from service. I presume that it is all only because of the politics involved. I am sure that Suresh Kumar himself welcomes the relieving period of enforced leisure. Anybody that has a care for himself would only welcome suspension from service as long as they pay you living money or Subsistence Pay, for not working. This on the assumption that you belong to a service where you do not have the system of daily 'collection' and sharing of it!
You do not have to get up in the morning; rush to the office and face the bullies there. You can sit idle, sleep whenever you feel like it, watch TV, browse, chat, read, listen to music, watch all the movies….! No phone calls, no visitors. It is heaven on earth.
I myself keep myself at the Computer or TV till 8 in the morning; then sleep till midday. Wife has gone to school, son to the college. Food is ready on the dining table. I eat and go back to the Net or do whatever I feel like doing. I am totally the master of my life.
People – they keep away from you once you are suspended - ask me if I do not feel humiliated, ashamed and prestige-lost. I tell them no. Why should I? It is not as if I have been suspended because I raped or stole. They did not like an Email that I sent; they felt insecure, belittled, inferior and threatened. They suspended me. Now they have to manufacture charges and go the full way with the proceedings. And in the end, they would end up paying me damages. That money would be my gift to my family.
You can imagine the relief and floating feeling of lack of care that one feels in my circumstances. I shall have to refer to the Thesaurus to describe it. If someone were to ask Suresh Kumar, I am sure that he would express similar thoughts.
"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing."
################################################
The ‘blasphemous’ Email that caused my Suspension:
################################################
Bullying Lessons:3
To all offices:
Why junior staff members are afraid to speak out against senior colleagues
Why they try to remain bystanders, onlookers, witnesses, eyewitnesses, spectators, and turncoats
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it”: Martin Luther King
──────────────────────
In most bullying situations, the target of bullying finds himself/herself isolated and alone. Work colleagues, who may formerly have been friendly and supportive, melt away and the target is left feeling like a pariah and an outcast.
There are many reasons why colleagues at work fail to come to the aid of a fellow worker that is being bullied. These include:
• the bully has gone round the department and warned everybody off, often using implied threats of reorganisation (redundancy), restructuring (redundancy) or even disciplinary action against anyone who helps the target
• the bully creates a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak out or take action
• fear of reprisal
• very few people, when put to the test, have the integrity and moral courage to stand up against bullying, harassment, corruption etc; the target is selected often because he does have this moral courage; most people will pass by on the other side, only targets have the integrity to be good Samaritans
• in the presence of an aggressor, particularly a devious, manipulative, charming one, many people prefer to act more like sheep than humans
• many bystanders are only mediocre at their jobs and their sense of vulnerability through fear of being targeted is thus greater
• understanding about/of bullying is low and many people still hold outdated views such as "why don't you stand up for yourself?" [answer - because the moment you assert your right not to be bullied, the bully moves into phase two of the bullying process which is elimination] and "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"
• work colleagues often have no understanding or experience of bullying, manipulation, psychological violence, etc
• some bystanders are able to employ the "I didn't know what to do" excuse to abdicate and deny their responsibility; bystanders who use this excuse make no effort to find out
• you'll be surprised to realise how many work colleagues have brown noses which you hadn't noticed before or which you'd put down to sunburn
• some of your workmates will turn out to be turncoats
• denial is everywhere
• in environments where the bullying is entrenched, it's regarded as "normal" behaviour
• work mates think that if they keep their heads down, their mouths shut and pretend nothing is happening then it won't happen to them [wrong - their turn will come eventually]
• work colleagues have their own share of problems and they're not going to risk losing their job for someone else
• your workmates are not people you have chosen to be with and they may not be friends - they just happen to be there
• work is an institution, not a family or community; your co-workers have no legal obligation towards you
• bullying goes on over a long period of time, the target eventually becomes obsessive about the bullying, work colleagues start to experience compassion-fatigue and turn off; if the bullying continues, colleagues may become aggressive and actively join in with the mobbing, victimising and scape-goating as the pack mentality takes over
• unlike assault and harassment, bullying is subtle and comprises hundreds, perhaps thousands, of incidents which out of context and in isolation are trivial - thus bystanders can't see the full picture
• bullies exert power and control by a combination of selectively withholding information and spreading disinformation, therefore everyone has a distorted picture - of only what the bully wants them to see
• bullying often goes on behind closed doors so no-one sees it or recognises it
• bullying may be carried out in front of people who are unable to recognise the tactics of bullying, especially the use of guilt and sarcasm
• the bully goes to great lengths to undermine their target and portray them as a poor performer - work colleagues are encouraged to regard the target as a threat to the organisation
• the bully is a smooth, slimy, sycophantic individual who excels at deception using a combination of compulsive lying, Jekyll and Hyde nature, manipulation, mimicry of normal behaviour, self-assuredness and charm
• bullies, especially female bullies, are masters of manipulation, and are fond of manipulating people through their emotions (eg: guilt); bullies see any form of vulnerability (eg: the need to pay the mortgage) as an opportunity for manipulation and exploitation
• your colleagues at work have vulnerabilities too
• bullies are adept at manipulating peoples' perceptions with intent to engender a negative view of the target in the minds of work colleagues, management and personnel - this is achieved through undermining, including the creation of doubts and suspicions and the sharing of false concerns
• bullies poison the atmosphere and actively poison people's minds against the target
• when close to being outwitted and exposed, the bully feigns victim-hood and turns the focus on themselves - another example of manipulating people through their emotion of guilt, eg: sympathy, feeling sorry
• most bystanders are hoodwinked by the bully's ruses for abdicating responsibility and evading accountability, eg: "that's all in the past, let's focus on the future", "what's in the past is no longer relevant", "you need to make a fresh start", and "forgive and forget, you've got to move on", etc.
• the bully encourages and manipulates bystanders to lie, act dishonourably and dishonestly, withhold information and spread misinformation
• the bully manipulates bystanders to punish the target for alleged infractions, ie the bystanders become instruments of harassment
• the bully is often able to bewitch one especially emotionally needy bystander into being their easily controlled spokesperson / advocate / supporter / denier
• the bully often forms an alliance with a colleague who has the same behaviour profile, thus increasing the levels of threat, fear and dysfunction
• the bully is able to charm and manipulate a number of bystanders to act as supporters, assistants, re-inforcers, appeasers, deniers, apologists and minimisers
• in an environment where aggression is dominant, good people become disempowered and disenfranchised
• many people do not have the emotional intelligence or behavioural maturity to understand bullying, let alone deal with it
• when there's conflict in the air, most people want to be on the winning side, or the side they think will survive
• some people gain gratification (a perverse feeling of satisfaction) from seeing others in distress and thus become complicit in the bullying
• a few sad people think that bullying is funny
• some observers regard behavioural responses that are reasonable and civilised as a sign of weakness rather than maturity
• many people lack critical thinking skills and analytical abilities and thus cannot see through the facade or the bully's mask of deceit
• apathy is rampant
• many employers are interested only in creating a workforce of corporate clones and drones so this is what employees are programmed to be
• the bully grooms bystanders, and the target, to believe the target deserves the treatment he is receiving
• when the target of bullying is off sick, the bully labels them as having a "mental health problem" and forbids staff to contact the person
• the bystanders see only the Dr Jekyll side of the bully, but only the target sees the Mr/Ms Hyde side; Dr Jekyll is sweet and charming, Mr/Ms Hyde is evil; Mr/Ms Hyde is the real person, Dr Jekyll is an act
• many workplaces undergo reorganisation every six months (or more) therefore there's never sufficient time for employees to gain an accurate picture of the bully
It's easy to see the parallels between the actions and inactions of workplace colleagues and how Hitler was able to co-opt so many of the German people into supporting him - those with the moral integrity to refuse were arrested, tortured and shot. Hitler was not the first dictator to eliminate anyone who objected. Rome created a great empire, not by having meetings, but by killing all those who opposed them. In the workplace, those who decline to support the bully are isolated, victimised, scapegoat-ed, have undue constraints and excessive workloads imposed, and are then subjected to disciplinary proceedings on trumped-up charges as a prelude to losing their job (as well as their career, livelihood and health). In very rare cases you may receive information from a bystander who wants to help but is afraid to do so publicly for fear of retribution - and fear of becoming the next target.
Bystanders can make a significant difference in the workplace (and in bullying situations in school); because bullies are cowards and if they sense that someone other than their target is going to expose them, they may slink away with their tail between their legs. However, bullies are extremely vindictive and will do everything in their power to destroy anyone who can see through their mask of deceit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
