26 August, 2010 | 2 Comments

I should have known that Christopher Hitchens would offer the most insightful commentary on the “Ground Zero mosque” controversy that I’ve read.  He touches upon some of the issues I raised in my own post, particularly this notion of “tolerance.”  And he also comments on this issue:

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance.

This whole controversy is emblematic of American politics and the left-right binary.  It seems that very few people are capable of nuanced, complex thought nowadays and so our political debates resemble two little kids in the backseat of a car, fighting on a road trip.  She hit me!  No, he hit me!  Wahhhhh!

It’s possible to condemn the right-wing’s lunatic hate campaign against the “mosque” while also refusing to become a cheerleader for religion in the most idiotic, thoughtless and dishonest way.

17 August, 2010 | 11 Comments

I’m really sick of hearing about the “Ground Zero Mosque” and I’m sure I’m not the only one.  Since this is the story that won’t die, I want to address it.

I was quite surprised when President Obama came out in favor of the mosque the other night.  Actually, I was stunned.  Obama took a stand on a controversial topic?  But then the very next day he began to backpedal and I thought – now there’s the Obama I know!

As someone who believes all forms of patriarchal religion should be wiped off the planet, I am not in favor of a giant mega mosque or religious community center being built anywhere.  I am not in favor of a mega Christian or Jewish center either.  What we need is less religion.  Build a mega human rights center that educates people about the damage religion has done throughout history and continues to do.  Then you’ll get my full support and as many donations as I can afford.

Now, it’s clear that no one can stop this mosque being built, just as you can’t stop any place of worship from being built, so it’s pointless to even discuss it.  I am not going to address the views of the right-wing, the Newt Gingriches and Sarah Palins, because I don’t engage with the right-wing.  They don’t interest me and they aren’t worth my time.

What I want to address, and what I want to write about here, is the response of people in favor of the mosque, mostly liberals, though this also includes Mayor Bloomberg.  When these religious debates spring up, as they do all too often, the word “tolerance” is always used.  We, as Americans, must be tolerant.  This irritates me like nothing else, since religions are the least tolerant institutions in society.  Why should I be tolerant of something that isn’t tolerant of me as a woman?  Yes, on a technical level, I must be “tolerant” of religion because they have a right to exist and there’s nothing I can do about it.  But the use of the word “tolerance” in regards to the “Ground Zero Mosque” and other issues of religion implies there is a two-way street here – that we should be tolerant of religion because religion is a force for tolerance and goodness.  We as a society need to stop spreading these lies.

(more…)

13 July, 2009 | Comments are off

So I guess Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin today.  The right-wing is concerned that Sotomayor’s being Latina will influence her view of the law.  Yeah, ‘cuz all the white dudes on the Supreme Court are completely unaffected by their race and gender.  Being white and male is the default human perspective!  Everyone else, like white females and all people of color, are special interest groups.

Of course, it’s possible that Sotomayor is too fat to be on the Supreme Court.

There’s something regarding Sotomayor that I wanted to write about ages ago, but was distracted by other things.  So I’m going to write about it now.

Before these hearings, Sotomayor resigned her membership from an elite women-only club, the Belizean Grove, because Republicans had been raising questions about it.  Sandra Day O’Connor also resigned from this club under pressure before she became a justice.

The NYT: “Federal judges are bound by a code that says they should not join any group that discriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality.”  I think that’s a great code, but I wonder – why weren’t Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts pressured to resign from the Catholic church before joining the Supreme Court?  The church discriminates against all women by not allowing them to become priests and hold other leadership positions.  Over half of the members of the United States Supreme Court belong to an organization treats women as secondary to men.  Does this influence their views on women’s rights?  In the case of many of these men, there can be absolutely no doubt about that.  But you know, as long as Sotomayor is out of the insignificant Belizean Grove – which discriminates against men! – that’s all that matters.

(more…)

27 March, 2009 | 5 Comments

This week I’ve gotten into a couple heated debates with men about patriarchal religion.  If you know me or read this blog, then you know that nothing upsets me more than this topic.  I am a spiritual person in certain ways, but I do not believe in patriarchal religion.  I could never believe in a god that gave men rights that were denied to women and I find it difficult to respect anyone who supports such beliefs.  I know I shouldn’t waste my time arguing with people about this and sometimes I wonder why I do it.  But tonight, I stumbled upon two articles that reminded me why this fight is so important:

-Brazilian Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho tried to prevent a 9-year-old girl from having an abortion.  She was pregnant with twins because her stepfather raped her.  Without an abortion, this abused and tortured child would have likely died.  Thankfully, the girl had the abortion, but in revenge, the Vatican has excommunicated the girl’s mother and the doctors who performed the procedure – however, the rapist is still a member of the church. If that doesn’t say it all, nothing does.  I cannot possibly put my feelings about this into words, so I won’t even try. This editorial in the Guardian by Cath Elliott is worth reading.

-In Turkey, the suicide rate amongst women has skyrocketed. It seems now that the government has cracked down on “honor killings,” girls who violate the family “honor” are being forced to kill themselves instead of being murdered by their fathers and other male relatives.  This article really defies belief.

I know it’s not healthy to spend Friday night reading stuff like this, but if a quick scan through the papers reveals two such horrific stories, then it just shows the degree to which women and girls in this world suffer and die because of patriarchal religion and culture.

11 February, 2009 | 10 Comments

In yet another blow for freedom of speech and democracy courtesy of the British government, Dutch MP Geert Wilders has been banned from entering the UK.  He was due here for a screening of his controversial film about Islam, which he was invited to show by a member of the House of Lords. EU citizens normally travel freely within the EU, which is what makes this ban outrageous.  In response to this, the government has stated that “It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.”

This kind of ban is very selective.  The government is paranoid that anything critical of Islam will trigger off violent protests from radical Muslim groups and thus, they actively attempt to censor any speech that is critical of Islam.  If I were Muslim, I would be offended that the government thinks Muslims are incapable of handling any criticism of their religion.

(more…)

18 May, 2007 | Enter your password to view comments

19 May, 2006 | 4 Comments

Pardon my French, but the critics can go screw themselves. Given the savage reviews this film has gotten, I expected it to be unwatchable. It wasn’t. It’s no better or worse than the rest of the crap that Hollywood produces. I think the media piling-on is in many ways a childish reaction to the lack of pre-release press screenings. I mean, yes, this film is overly long and super talky and very hokey, but I was still entertained (until my ass turned numb). And given that this is a mainstream Hollywood film with a feminist, heretical message that dares to show members of the clergy behaving like thugs in an inner-city street gang, I must give it two thumbs up.
[tags]The Da Vinci Code[/tags]

19 May, 2006 | 3 Comments

I’ve written on this blog before that I have not read The Da Vinci Code, but I am pleased that its themes of female exclusion and suppression within organized Christianity have struck a nerve with millions of people. This is one of my big issues and the fact that people are actually talking about it thrills me.

I would probably go see the movie version (opening worldwide today) no matter what, but the fact that the Vatican, US evangelicals and religious groups around the world are condemning and/or banning this film means that I will definitely see it. The critics who’ve seen the film have not been kind, but I really don’t care if it’s as boring as watching snow melt. That’s not the point. (And really, who had faith in Ron Howard’s abilities? Not me.)

Via Feministing, I’ve discovered a new website called HerCode.org. Sponsored by the organization Faith and Feminism and inspired by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon, the site encourages women to share their stories of struggling with religious faith. The stories are very poignant. One of the site’s creators, Helen LaKelly Hunt, writes in her introductory letter:

(more…)

14 April, 2006 | 2 Comments

The weather was absolutely gorgeous today and I went out for a nice stroll. As I suspected, it seems this entire country has shut down until Tuesday. In my neighbourhood, the streets are virtually empty and almost everything is closed – except for Tesco, natch. Most convenience stores are closed, which is strange. The whole point of convenience stores is that they stay open all the time. And 99 percent of the pubs I passed were closed up. I didn’t think that Britons ever passed up a chance to get sloshed, so color me surprised.

Over in yonder U.S., almost everything is open on Friday, Saturday and Monday of this holiday period. Many restaurants, grocery stories and movie theatres will also be open on Easter Sunday. When I had a proper job, I never had Good Friday or the day after Easter off from work. Schools do shut down for a few days, but under the euphemism “Spring Recess.”

Today on my walk, I was passed by those double-decker tour buses filled with tourists, including Americans who are probably shocked that everything will be closed for the next four days. It’s strange being in a country that has no separation of Church and State, and whose commercial sector observes Christian holidays in such a way. While the sacred tenet of the separation of Church and State is only hanging on by a thread Stateside (unless the masses rise up), I’m thankful it’s still there in theory. I do think it’s sad, however, that Americans never seem to take a break from working. Most businesses would probably close on Friday and/or Monday if they weren’t so damn greedy.

25 March, 2006 | Comments are off

I am appalled by the story of the 41-year-old Afghan man who is on trial for converting to Christianity and could be executed. Western leaders have been on the phone with Afghan president (and U.S. puppet) Hamid Karzai, urging him to intervene. The German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister have both said Karzai assured them the man would not be executed.

If the media is to be believed, the majority of people in Afghanistan want Christian convert Abdul Rahman dead. According to an AP report, senior Muslim clerics have stated that “if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees” Rahman, they will incite the people to kill him.

Abdul Raoulf, who stood up to the Taliban and is considered a moderate, was quoted as saying: “Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.” This so-called moderate goes on to say: “Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.”

Another senior cleric stated that if Rahman is freed, his must not be allowed to go into exile. “If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too. We must set an example. … He must be hanged.”

As you know, I’m usually never at a loss for words. But this story just leaves me speechless.

Link: Amnesty International

12 March, 2006 | Comments are off

I should really do a web search of my blog name more often. I just discovered that on February 10th, Anglofille got a little bit of coverage in Slate magazine. They have a column called “Today’s Blogs,” which provides a round-up of the hot topics being discussed in cyberspace that day. And my post on HBO’s hillbilly perv drama Big Love got a rather nice paragraph, which you can read here (scroll down towards the bottom). The author of the column (who has his own blog) referred to me as a “Latter-Day Londoner,” which is not true, but I’ve been called worse. Hooray for Anglofille! You can read my original post here.

Big Love premiered tonight on HBO. Did anyone watch it? USA Today gave it a bad review. NPR seems to have done a lot of coverage on it. One of their reporters even sat down with “real-life” polygamists and had them watch the first episode. (I refuse to listen to this.) If NPR can find these polygamists, why can’t the police? Well, I guess that’s obvious. They’re not looking for them.

12 March, 2006 | 2 Comments

In anticipation of the upcoming Da Vinci Code film, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have launched a website called Jesus Decoded, which refutes the claims made in the bestselling book. If you need a good laugh, check it out.

My favorite section is called “What Do You Say to a Da Vinci Code Believer?” The site then breaks down such misguided individuals into three categories:

1: “Those who believe every assertion made in the novel is true…”

2: “Those who are startled by the claims of the novel, suspicious because they’ve never heard them before, but at the same time accepting of the possibility.”

3: “Finally, there are those who really don’t care about the exact content of The Da Vinci Code, but are glad that it subverts Christianity, and so ‘believe’ in the project in general, and heartily approve of it.”

This is followed by pages and pages of possible scenarios you might find yourself in if you’re, say, walking down the street and some deranged Da Vinci Code fan holds you up at gunpoint. Behold an excerpt:

“They say…forget the details. The fact is, there were alternate visions of Christianity, and they were brutally suppressed by the Church so that Mary Magdalene’s presence would be erased and women’s voices would be silenced and the males in charge would retain power.

You say….let’s try some logic, before we get to the facts.”

There are then several very lame bulleted points of rebuttal, including this one:

“If those early Christian male powers wanted to suppress the ‘real story’ of Jesus’ ministry and purpose, you would frankly wonder about their sanity.”

Touché!

I suggest adding this point to the list: God has read the Da Vinci Code, and She is pissed.

Besides being hilarious, this website is just sad. Don’t these guys have anything better to do with their time? I’m sure there are other men like former Boston Cardinal and current Vatican resident Bernard Law who could use their help fleeing the country to escape prosecution. Get your priorities straight, fellas!

3 March, 2006 | 6 Comments

Well, who would’ve thought I’d have to whip out the America the Disgraceful headline twice in one week? With all the problems in the world – big, major, nasty problems involving nuclear weapons and the destruction of the planet and genocide and other horrible stuff– Americans’ attention is focused right where it should be: Women’s uteruses. The American uterus is a bigger war zone than Iraq.

What Would Jesus Do?

Mississippi was hoping to pass a South Dakota-style abortion ban, but those hopes were dashed when a few of the legislators decided they didn’t want to burn in Hell.

From the ABC affiliate in the state:

During an emotional 2 1/2-hour debate during which several members quoted scripture, the House voted 62-56 to allow abortions in pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Anyone who voted for this bill in any form should be dropped into the Gulf of Mexico – preferably with something heavy tied around their ankles.

In other news, thanks to Salon’s women’s blog Broadsheet, I stumbled upon links to other scary news stories. Here’s my take:

Salvation in 30 Minutes or Less

The founder of Domino’s Pizza, Thomas S. Monaghan, is founding his own town 25 miles east of Naples, Florida. The utopian hamlet of Ave Maria will be governed by strict Catholic principles and there will be no abortion, pornography — or birth control.

No, I am not making this up.

From the AP: “The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it ‘God’s will.’”

Impossible, you say. This is America, not Afghanistan! Well, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was at the recent groundbreaking himself. According to the AP, Jeb “lauded the development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create a community of like-minded citizens.”

Florida Attorney General Charlie “McWackjob” Crist is quoted as saying: “The community has the right to provide a wholesome environment…If someone disagrees, they have the right to go to court and present facts before a judge.”

Yes, this is a government official. I promise! And the ACLU is already planning to take them to court.

The only real glitch so far is that the town’s motto – Shut Up, Bitch and Bring Me Another Beer – doesn’t fit on the license plates.

No Eggs For Me…But I’ll Have a Side of Sperm To Go

In Arizona, it is now illegal for a woman to sell her eggs. Men, however, are free to sell their seed wherever they damn well please. Ah, America.

From the Arizona Daily Star: “On a voice vote, the House of Representatives said that a woman who sells her eggs could be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $150,000. The same penalty would apply to any organization or doctor who made the purchase.”

Rep. Bob Stump said the law is necessary to protect women. After all, women cannot make their own choices. Bob Stump should decide for them.

Abortion in the Bush Era

A pregnant woman in Virginia shot herself in the abdomen, causing the death of her full-term baby. Tammy Skinner has been arrested and charged with illegally inducing an abortion, which could result in a 10-year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine.

The 22-year-old is already supporting two small children and was depressed. No one knows if she tried to get an abortion before shooting herself, but according to Salon.com, NARAL gives Virginia an F on their abortion report card, meaning that access to abortion is difficult. Whether this woman attempted to get an abortion through legal channels or not, if South Dakota and Mississippi and the Supreme Court have their way, self-induced abortions by desperate women are going to become much more common.

2 March, 2006 | 4 Comments

I have never read The Da Vinci Code. Friends and family rave about it and have urged me to give it a try because of its subject matter, but that ain’t never gonna happen. I’m too much of a book snob. I’m not a slave to high-brow culture – far from it. I love cheesy movies and my favourite music is 80s pop. But books are a different matter. I cannot waste time reading The Da Vinci Code when I haven’t read, for example, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Books are too important to me.

But I applaud Dan Brown for writing pop fiction that grapples with issues of theology and feminism. The Da Vinci Code is the bestselling hardback adult novel of all time and it’s clearly struck a nerve. I’ve seen previews for the movie, opening in May, and I will definitely go see it. Any film that pokes a sharp stick in the eye of patriarchal religion goes right to the top of my must-see list. The Vatican has attacked it. Hurrah! Even little ol’ Westminster Abbey refused to let them film there. Boo hoo! (Meanwhile, one of its substitutes in the film, Winchester Cathedral, is laughing all the way to the bank.)

Author Dan Brown is currently in London, where he is being sued for plagiarism. If the case is successful, I’ll have to take the Eurostar to Paris to see the film, since it won’t be shown here. Two British writers claim Brown based his novel on their books, called Holy Blood and Holy Grail. The third co-author of the books did not join the lawsuit.

From the Telegraph: “At the heart of the case is their theory that Christ did not die on the cross but married Mary Magdalene and had a child, starting a bloodline that was protected by the Knights Templar and hushed up by the Catholic Church. Brown’s thriller is also based on the notion that Jesus married Mary, starting a family in France where their descendants continue to live.” Hey – if this is true, perhaps George W. Bush and the rest of the Christian fundamentalists in America will lay down their weapons and become non-believers. You know how much they hate the French.

Dan Brown openly admits he used the books as research for his novel and apparently, one of the characters even refers to them. This trial – currently on hiatus while the judge reads the books! – is something all writers should be paying attention to. As a fiction writer, I use non-fiction works all the time for my research. The possible implications of this case are chilling. (And as the author of this blog, I regularly commit copyright infringement, but that’s another story.)

In the Guardian, editor Joel Rickett, contemplating a judgment against Brown, says: “It would have seismic implications. Novelists would have to be very, very careful when using non-fiction sources to build their fiction. Many novelists read a single work of history and use it as the basis of their book.”

In the same Guardian piece, Professor Lisa Jardine says: “They are not going to win. I don’t think plagiarism any longer holds up – we live in a world of cut and paste, and in a global village. Creativity is always a beautifully arranged patchwork that nudges something a little further on.”

18 February, 2006 | Comments are off

My dad sent me this cartoon. It’s a brilliant commentary on two of my recent postings, one on Brokeback and the other on polygamy. And by now, we all know that editorial cartoons satirizing religious groups are the most threatened form of expression in the western world, so I thought I’d better post this while it’s still legal.

12 February, 2006 | Comments are off

Minette Marrin published a brilliant editorial today in the London Sunday Times about the cartoon controversy called “Muslims Are Trading Respect for Fear.” It’s one of the best commentaries I’ve read on this issue and well worth checking out. I can’t possibly encapsulate it here, but I’d like to post a few excerpts:

“…All the terrifying Muslim uprisings across the world in response to the Danish cartoons have all been about a demand for respect, as of right. They are demanding respect for religion, or at any rate for their own religion and their own religious sensibilities. The same is true of the more moderate demonstrations in London yesterday. Worse, many westerners are penitentially admitting that Muslims do indeed have a right to respect for their faith, and that it is wrong to express disrespect for a religion. This is disastrous.”

I couldn’t agree more! This week – and I swear I’m not making this up – the EU Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, announced he is considering the creation of a voluntary media code of conduct that “would encourage the media to show ‘prudence’ when covering religion.” Says Frattini: “The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. ‘We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.’” Chilling.

Again, from Marrin’s editorial: “It is hardly surprising, now, that the more extreme and politicised Muslims…feel entitled, in defiance of our greatest freedoms, to demand respect from us, as of right. The tragedy is that what they are now getting from the rest of us is not respect at all, but fear, posing as respect.”

I hope the bureaucrats of the EU actually consider the ramifications of what they’re doing. If they do, perhaps they’ll come to the realization that it’s more important to defend the values of western civilization than it is to pander to extremist groups who threaten violence and economic sanctions.

Here is a link to Franco Frattini’s website that includes various ways to contact him.

10 February, 2006 | 5 Comments

Thanks to William for alerting me to HBO’s new series called Big Love, which stars Bill Paxton as a polygamist in Utah married to three women. The show is actually set in the real Utah town where I spent more than a decade of my growing up years. Oy vey.

Big Love is apparently going to be a high-profile venture, given that it is produced by Tom Hanks and is premiering March 12th after The Sopranos. In the show, Paxton plays a businessman who owns three homes that sit side-by-side; each home contains one of his wives and the kids she has produced. Watch a preview here.

Not surprisingly, given that this is HBO, the show seems to be one big sex romp. The main joke is that Paxton’s character has to take tons of Viagara. HAHAHAHAHA! I swear, you cannot pay these Hollywood scribes enough. I mean, polygamist…taking…Viagara! Hot damn, that’s some cutting edge programming.

The Mormon Church and some conservative groups have condemned the show and have asked HBO to run a disclaimer stating that “plural marriage” is no longer an official practice of the LDS church. Perhaps HBO, privy to the news events of this week, will decide it’s wise to run the disclaimer. After all, they don’t want Bill Paxton taken hostage and beheaded by an angry mob. God-fearing people are the scariest kind.

I have mixed feelings about this show. Well, that’s not entirely true. I think it’s stupid and I wish it didn’t exist. But since it does, I’m glad that the Mormon Church and the people of Utah will once again be shamed on the international stage for the disgusting and degrading practice of polygamy. Despite being outlawed by the Church over a century ago (ahem), it is still practiced by tens of thousands of people in Utah and the Colorado/Arizona border towns. Church leaders and government officials have done virtually nothing to put a stop to a practice that often sees very young girls (we’re talking 12-year-olds) “married” to 60-year-old men. The whole state deserves to suffer from the stigma and ridicule that continues to be heaped upon them.

I am disturbed, however, that the show is making polygamy seem sexy. Yes, I realize that this is HBO, whose idea of realism is Sex and the City. But the general public is for the most part completely ignorant of Mormon practices and life in Utah. I hope that Big Love does not lead uninformed couch potatoes to think that polygamy is just another lifestyle choice. It’s not.

Having lived in Utah, a place that probably has more polygamists than anywhere outside of the Middle East, I know a few things about polygamy. I’ve known polygamists, including a family with a living situation similar to the one portrayed in Big Love. From my knowledge and experience, polygamists are:

1) Desperate losers who no one else would marry
2) Crazy
3) Religious fanatics
4) Wife beaters and child rapists
5) Butt ugly
6) Violent thugs
7) Uneducated, inbred freaks who make the average Jerry Springer Show guest look like Albert Einstein

I am not exaggerating. Polygamous families operate like cults. Extremely violent cults. Think Waco and David Koresh. That’s the kind of mentality that exists. Most of the women in polygamous relationships grew up in this cult-like environment and were “married” as very young girls to old men. These women are uneducated and disempowered. There are privately-run shelters in Salt Lake City (like the one operated by Tapestry) for women and girls trying to escape from polygamy. These women fear for their lives and rightly so. Polygamy in Utah has a long history of murder and violence. There are small towns in Utah, Colorado and Arizona that are by run by polygamous cult leaders, Colorado City being the most famous example. In these towns, even the police are polygamists, meaning that widespread crimes like child rape and domestic violence go unpunished. I know it’s hard to believe that such things are happening right now in America, but I assure you that they are. Click here for more info. With rare exceptions, the authorities in Utah stand by and do nothing. They claim it’s impossible to prove charges of polygamy, given that the participants are not legally married. My theory is that state officials, almost all of them Mormon, cannot condemn these modern-day polygamists without also condemning their own lineage and the church founders.

You may be wondering how a man can support seven wives and 40 children. Well, he’s not supporting them. The American taxpayer is. Polygamists drain the welfare system. Because the wives are not legally married to the husband, they are considered single mothers. The few prosecutions of polygamists that I’ve seen involve welfare fraud.

So HBO can show Bill Paxton sleeping with three different glamorous women, popping his Viagara and having a grand old time. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent victims caught up in the web of polygamy will continue to suffer because no one will help them. They’re an embarrassing secret and it’s just easier to pretend they don’t exist.

9 February, 2006 | Comments are off

After my latest post on the cartoon controversy, I decided I wasn’t going to publish anything else about it until/unless something of importance happened. Well, I think this qualifies.

The London-based magazine The Liberal published one of the cartoons on its website next to an editorial that staunchly defended freedom of speech. (In case you haven’t been following the coverage of this story, the UK print media has avoided publishing the cartoons.) Now it turns out that The Liberal has removed the cartoon from its website. From the Guardian: “Senior police officers at Scotland Yard warned the magazine its staff could not be guaranteed protection from possible protests, after which the cartoon was pulled from the Liberal’s website and replaced by a large white square with the word ‘censored’ placed over it.”

The news of this warning from Scotland Yard sends a chill down my spine. It smacks of government interference and, indeed, a form of censorship. I bet even George Orwell just rolled over in his grave.

According to the Guardian: “Following the withdrawal of the cartoon, Ben Ramm, the magazine’s editor, announced on the website: ‘Despite our wishes and convictions, for reasons of safety the magazine will no longer carry the cartoon itself.’”

Yet before the cartoon was removed, the editorial that accompanied it stated: “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them.”

The irony of this is breathtaking. Memo to The Liberal: If you’re going to make such bold pronouncements about free speech, you better be prepared to back them up, don’t you think?

In other media news:

Charlie Hebdo

The French weekly Charlie-Hebdo has just published the cartoons, in addition to new ones mocking Muhammad and other religious figures. According to the Guardian, the special edition of the paper went on sale after French Muslims lost a court battle to prevent it from happening. From the Guardian: “Charlie Hebdo’s cover shows Muhammad covering his eyes with his hands, saying: ‘It’s hard to be loved by idiots.’” The special edition is expected to shatter sales records.

My take on this is that members of the French media have already proven that they are not intimidated by threats and will defend free speech even at great personal and professional risk. I applaud this. However, at this point, they are just pouring fuel on the fire – not fire, raging inferno – and I wonder if it serves any legitimate purpose?

New York Press

Like the UK media, the US media has in large part refused to publish the cartoons. The alternative weekly, New York Press, was set to publish them in a special edition. At the last minute, however, the publishers chickened out. As a result, the 4-person editorial staff quit in protest. From the New York Observer: “New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization.”

This situation is even more interesting given the fact that New York Press has, on at least one occasion, insulted Catholics just for kicks. As the Pope was dying last year, Matt Taibbi wrote an article called “The 52 Funniest Things about the Death of the Pope.” This article created a huge firestorm in the universe of cable news, at least. The article, which was not funny, original or insightful, was only published to provoke people. It can still be found on the paper’s website. So why were the Muhammad cartoons pulled, when they were being published not to provoke, but to illustrate an important news story? Is it because the publishers weren’t afraid that extremist Catholic fringe groups would firebomb their offices?

NYT and Arab European League

The New York Times – you know, the “paper of record” that is neglecting its journalistic duties by refusing to publish any of the cartoons – weighed in with an article yesterday called “West Beginning to See Islamic Protests as Sign of Deep Gulf.” In the article, which is worth checking out, it discussed how the Arab European League is now publishing their own cartoons mocking Christians and Jews. Their website has apparently crashed due to massive web traffic, so they’ve started their own blog on Blogger. The first cartoon portrayed Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. (To view it, click here.)

This pathetic cartoon is not brave at all. Considering the anti-Semitism that appears regularly in the Arab media, I don’t see anything new about it. And furthermore, it makes no point whatsoever about freedom of speech. With the publication of this cartoon, the Arab European League just proves that they don’t get what this whole debate is about. They do not “get it” and I’m afraid they never will.

8 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

It seems to me that the US media is not covering the cartoon flap in great depth, probably because it’s not occurring on American soil. This is not surprising. The American media is notoriously nearsighted. (For an interesting report on this, click here.)

It’s difficult for me to get an exact sense of how this story is playing out in the US because I don’t have access to US television news or talk radio from here. However, I do peruse the online editions of the major newspapers on a daily basis and it doesn’t seem that this story is a matter of great concern.

My impression is that the right-wing media (Fox News, talk radio, bloggers) is running with this story because it plays into their Islamophobic agenda. The right-wing in Europe is also using this story to their advantage, but at least they are balanced by extensive coverage in the mainstream press. Many right-wing American bloggers (click here for an example) have whipped themselves into a frenzy over this story. However, I doubt their motivation is the defense of secular values. Rather, this story allows the Christian right-wing to attack Islam and in a roundabout way, offer support for George Bush’s Iraq War.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Religious Right in America actively seeks to impose their religious values on a secular society, yet when they witness other religions attempting to do it, they go berserk.

From where I sit, it appears that the right-wing has hijacked this story in the American media. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope I am. But I would not be surprised if liberal writers and thinkers in the States avoid taking on this story because they’re afraid to be lumped in with the right-wing. I think that many liberals are terrified to do anything that may be deemed politically incorrect.

If the Left in America ignores this story out of fear of association with the Right, and let’s the Right shape and define this story, that is a tragedy. This story is extremely important for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the cartoons as such, but whether the media should consider certain topics taboo. Most reasonable people agree that the media should not provoke and insult people just for kicks, but at the same time, should the beliefs of one specific group be placed above the rights of everyone else? And an examination into the way the media self-censors in regards to religion is long overdue. This is a news story that serious writers and thinkers must not be afraid to wrestle with.

8 February, 2006 | Comments are off

Just today, news broke that the first British newspaper published one of the controversial cartoons along with an article on the subject. The paper is the University of Cardiff student newspaper, Gair Rhydd. Once the administration found out, they recalled thousands of copies of the paper and suspended the editor and three journalists. Click here for the university’s statement. According to the Guardian, local councilor Joe Carter said: “We have to have tolerance of people’s views and culture.”

The article continues: “Ashgar Ali, the chairman of Cardiff’s Medina mosque, criticised the publication. ‘You can’t play with someone’s religion,’ he told the website. ‘The Muslim students at the university are going to be upset.’”

But in a free, multicultural society, do we really have a right not to be offended? Are the students at the University of Cardiff so fragile that they will be permanently damaged by seeing the cartoons – which they’ve probably all seen online anyway?

As a feminist, the ideals of women’s empowerment and equality are as dear to me as any religious faith, yet the exploitation of women is widespread in all forms of media. I have to tolerate this misogyny and in exchange, I have the freedom to express my own views. I think this is a better lesson to teach college students.