Egypt: If You Want Respect Earn It

If not totally relevant to this particular case, the graphic reflects my basic philosophy regarding Islam.

Before morphing into my new persona, Teddy first made his appearance as my helper/protester in the insane case of "Muhammad the Bear." Have a scroll through, old Ted used to get about a bit in those days.

Ahmed Mansour Karni's birth certificate was presented after state security forces added his name to the list of accused.

So I think we can safely assume that the birth certificate carried the date of birth of the four year old felon and not, as is suggested in the comments, a case of mistaken identity.

A four-year-old boy has been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty on a murder charge. More

But then can we accuse the Egyptians, in what might still be a case of mistaken identity, of being any worse than the Americans?

Not at all at all, at least the Egyptians don't defer for a decade their petty vindictiveness before going to see: How Many Kids Lives Can We Destroy Today? Do read, it's a shocker.

Try this in Google/Google images if you want more. American school children in handcuffs

Conditioning

Aided and abetted by teach.

We The People

I don't suppose I would have made the effort to post these photographs, had I not posted a few others in the meme of "Officer Friendly."

I most certainly wouldn't have posted them, had I had not dropped on The 45 Most Powerful Photos Of 2013 For the most part, quite an emotional and visual experience and thoroughly recommended.  

The images below were not all gleaned from the 2013 gallery, but from the equally viewable previous two years as well.

Apart from the obvious, posted randomly. And they are quite large, right click and open in tag, if you wish.

H/T John ‏@goodinohio (Twitter)

Iconic photo of what must be the most famous pepper-spray incident in the world.

See: "Photoshop Justice" Cop Art: The Rise of the Citizen Satirist Link

I don't know how this snook in, but I shall leave it.

This just in today, obviously from a different source. Maybe the rose wasn't a futile gesture after all.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The photo above though, was from the same source, and I post it here, because it was my own choice of picture for iconic photo 2011.

Not only that, it gives me opportunity to post another personal choice, for iconic photo. Frankie Hughes American Icon

Critical Thought I know Thee Not: Srinagar Kashmir

Srinagar, Kashmir
Feb. 1, 2013

Kashmiri Muslims react as an unseen priest shows a relic believed to be a hair from the beard of Prophet Mohammed.

Multiculturalism Oh Please Stop!

I'm posting this article from the telegraph, not for its news value, but as a shining example of the mindset of those that have no place in any society, let alone a modern, sophisticated and tolerant one, such as we like to consider ourselves to be.

And for those that wish to tell me this isn't "Islam" well I've got news for you, it is. Complete with all its intolerance, misogyny, ignorance and delusional arrogance that personifies this insane, backward ideology.

Death, death, death, the Muslim answer to everything that they don't happen to agree with on any particular day. Just how much hate does a person have to carry around that blowing total strangers to bloody pieces is an acceptable and normal part of your persona?

Non-Muslims have 'sex like donkeys' and deserve to be blown-up, said 'terror plot' leader

Westerners have 'sex like donkeys' so 'why shouldn't we terrorise them?' the alleged leader of a terror plot was recorded saying.
By Tom Whitehead
25 Oct 2012

The leader of alleged suicide bomb plot said non-believers deserved to be attacked because they “have sex like donkeys”, orgies and took drugs, a court heard.

Ifan Naseer said the whole world was **** and people deserved to be terrorized.

The al-Qaeda inspired gang is accused of plotting to use eight suicide bombers detonating rucksacks packed with explosives in crowded places to cause “mass death” and carnage on the streets of Britain.

Naseer, 31, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Ashik Ali, 27, all unemployed from Birmingham, are the alleged “senior members” of the group and were among 12 people arrested and charged last year.

They all deny the charges against them.

Naseer, a trained chemist and alleged ringleader, was secretly recorded by the police trying to justify the plot.

He said: “You know the main thing is bro all this world is **** bro, you like know what it is the only thing which is good yeah, is Allah’s Deen (faith).”

Criticising others, he went on: “They wanna you know have sex like donkeys on the street, they wanna club, act like animals and why shouldn’t we terrorise them, tell me that?”

“No, you think about it, if someone came in your house yeah and started dancing and throughout the night and started basically having orgies and smoking drugs and stuff, yeah, would you do Sabr (Patience) or would you look, you would, you would terrorise them ainit, yeah, there you go, so it’s on Allah’s earth, it’s Allah’s earth, then Allah created it, everybody and Allah gave you everything as well, then you tell me that one.”

Brian Altman QC, prosecuting, told the jury: “He is disdainful of Western values so why should he not terrorise them.”

Naseer also raised the prospect of a second wave of suicide bombers after his group’s plot.

At one stage Naseer is explaining the destruction just a small bomb weighing 1kg could do, “especially if shrapnel like nuts or nails were sellotaped to it”, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

He said: “You put it in the middle (of a street) both ways people at both ends would be harmed.”

He added that “you probably kill about 25 people with one kg one” and “injure about 60, 50”.

Naseer also spoke about using bombs on timers with an alarm clock.

The secret recording was played to the jury, the first time they had heard Naseer's voice.

He said the "kuffars" - non-believers - would wet themselves and "probably die of a heart attack" because of the noise, which is as loud as "50 bullets together".

Naseer also talked about 7 or 8 bombs on different places with timers to all go off at the same time. "Boom boom boom everywhere", he said.

Yesterday it emerged that the cell applied for “pay day loans” to help fund their plot and were worried about exorbitant interest rates suggesting they would not be around to pay it back.

The gang, from Birmingham, also looked in to bank loans worth between £15,000 and £18,000, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

The group also planned to set up an Islamic learning centre to act as a “beautiful cover” and a mystery benefactor had offered £50,000 to help set it up although he did not know about the terror plot.

At the time, the men were based at a property in White Street, Birmingham, and when police raided it they discovered evidence of plans to make a bomb.

A partially burnt note was discovered contained formulae and diagrams, Brian Altman QC, prosecuting, told the jury.

Naseer, who has a pharmacy degree, was recorded talking about items needed including quantities of chemicals, syringes to be used to create a detonator, glue and drinking straws.

He also discussed nail polish remover, powder from match heads, electrical wiring, the use of batteries, sulphuric acid, hydrogen peroxide, ice packs and alarm clocks.

They planned to extract ammonium nitrate from sports injury cold packs, the jury was told.

The trial continues. Telegraph

If Ever a Pair of Eyes Promised Paradise Jezebel It Was You.

Far too early in the morning for a rant, drive on.

Saudi moral committee threatens to cover “tempting” women’s eyes 
Manar Ammar
16 November 2011

 Women with sexy eyes in Saudi Arabia may be forced to cover them up, according to the spokesperson of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) in the conservative Gulf kingdom.

Spokesman of the Ha’eal district, Sheikh Motlab al-Nabet said the committee has the right to stop a women whose eyes seem “tempting” and order her to cover them immediately.

Saudi women are already forced to wear a loose black dress and to cover their hair and in some areas, their face, while in public or face fines or sometimes worse, including public lashings.

The announcement came days after the Saudi newspaper al-Watan reported that a Saudi man was admitted to a hospital after a fight with a member of the committee when he ordered his wife to cover her eyes. The husband was then stabbed twice in the hand.

The CPVPV is Saudi’s Sharia, Islamic law, executive arm and was founded in 1940 to ensure Islamic laws are not broken in public, yet over the years, the committee has been largely criticized over its human rights violations.

In 2002, the committee refused to let female students out of their burning schools in Mecca for “not wearing the proper head cover,” which contributed to a large number of dead. (See previous)

15 young girls died in the fire and dozens more were injured. The CPVPV men banned the firemen and policemen from accessing the girls as “it is not okay for girls to be seen without their full Islamic dress in front of strangers.”

The committee, which only accepts and trains volunteers, has questionable powers on the Saudi street, as they operate under the supervision of the King himself.

A Wikileaks document released last year mentioned that “wild Western-style parties” are regularly held at royal palaces in Jeddah, away from the reach of the committee, who stands helpless against any royal violations.

It was reported that the parties had alcohol, drugs, dancing and sex, according to American consulate wires published by the whistle-blower organization. bikyamasr.com

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil

Toronto Tarts: Cover Up - Muslim Cleric

Brings a whole new meaning to 'fuck me shoes' I guess.

Just another misogynist Muslim headbanger sharing his Islamic wisdom with us, because if I had a nickel for every time I have heard the same argument, I could retire.

Or better still, Atangana and his ilk, could apply to join the twenty first century.

Muslim Cleric: If Women Don’t Want to Get Raped, Politicians Should Make it Illegal for Them to Dress Provocatively

York University (in Canada) has been the site of several sexual assaults over the past few weeks and students are angry because they don’t feel the school has done enough to prevent future attacks.

They’re really not going to like this.

Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, a Muslim cleric, wrote to the Toronto Sun to offer his own suggestions as to how these crimes can be stopped:

Brings a whole new meaning to 'fuck me shoes' I guess.

Just another misogynist Muslim headbanger, because if I had a nickel for every time I have heard the same argument, I could retire.

I wanted to mention that the reason why these sex attacks are continuously happening is because the Canadian laws, which gives too much freedom to women, are the cause of these sex attacks. It has been revealed that every 5 seconds a woman is being sexually assaulted in North America. Women in North America are falling victims of the Democratic Freedom that you they passionly believe in. The reason why a woman gets raped is because of the way she dress. Women dress so provocatively so much that they receive too much attention for themselves and that attention at times leads to death.

If the law enforcements and the Canadian politicians were very serious about solving this problem, they would introduce laws that would make it illegal for women to dress provocatively in the streets. It is true that many people would object to this if that were to happen. and this will definitely create protests and opposition. However by arresting sexual predators is not going to solve the problem because as long women continue to dress like this there will always be perverts and rapist who will continue to remain on the loose. more

~ ~ ~

Saudi cleric favours one-eye veil
A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.
3 October 2008
Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.
The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.
The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair.
Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd. BBC

~ ~ ~

The 1-eyed burqa
Exclusive: Marylou Barry shakes head at Saudi sheikh's demand for female dress
10/07/2008

From the You-Couldn’t-Make-This-Stuff-Up-If-You-Tried Department:

Over the weekend a short but remarkable news article made its way around the Internet. It was remarkable not so much for its content – which was only about what we Westerners have come to expect from the seventh-century barbarians who also inhabit the planet – as for the fact that it was published by the normally very liberal British Broadcasting Corporation.

“A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia,” the story states without comment, “has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye. Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.”

Now, I am aware that the Brits are known for their tongue-in-cheek sense of humor and “the Beeb” for its tolerance of politically correct insanity, but, boy, not embroidering on that must have been tough. Wouldn’t you have just loved to be a fly on the newsroom wall when the editor read that guy’s report? Wouldn’t you have loved to be at the unscheduled meetings that must have resulted, as corporate lawyers and risk-assessment teams conspired to run the blurb, but inoffensively enough to keep from hearing from the Wahhabi Lobby? more

~ ~ ~

A reader left a link to this website, which is replete, nay, encyclopedic in superstitious nonsense. Below are just some random examples of the glory of Islam.

I thought to include the subtle graphic that headed the piece, entitled 'notpraying' just in case you don't get the message.

The Terrible Consequences of not Praying Salah

Bismillah. Today, insha’Allah we’re going to touch on a slightly different angle on the concept of salah. Now, you know that salah is fard–the 5x daily prayers–and that the reward of doing so is great, and the sin of doing so are terrible. Hellfire, punishment on the Day of Judgment, punishment in this life, all these things are but possibilities.

But let’s take a look at a slightly different angle: scholars. What’s the position of the scholars on someone who doesn’t pray?

The position of all four madhaahib–Maliki, Shafi’ee, Hanbali, and Hanafi–with no difference of opinion–is that a person who does not pray, ever, is not a Muslim.

Think about that. Not a Muslim. Not anyone who has a chance of Paradise.

Why? There’s a very explicit hadith on this–the hadith of the Prophet

The contract between us and them is salaah. Whoever leaves it, he has disbelieved.

This is a very direct, explicit hadith–salaah is the contract, part of the mithaaq, the original contract, with Allah that all humans took. And this is only one of the explicit ahadith like this.

What’s more, it was inconceivable in the time of the sahaba that someone could be a “Muslim” and not pray. It just doesn’t make sense.

Scared yet?

No? Well, there’s more. What is the position of the scholars of Islam on someone who doesn’t pray, today, who lives in that now-extinct species of Islamic State? Then what happens?

Again, there’s no difference of opinion on this.

The position of a Muslim in an Islamic state, who doesn’t pray, is to be jailed.

And once they’re in jail, they should be advised. That what they’re doing is haram. That prayer is so, so important. That it is a major sin. That it just takes five minutes, five times a day–less than one sitcom.

And if they don’t repent? Keep advising them for a day. Then, a second day. Then, a third day.

And if they still don’t repent?

Then they are executed.

So think about that, next time you feel like skipping a salah. Honestly, it just takes five minutes. Don’t let your lame excuses side-track you. Just do it. Not Praying

~ ~ ~

I thought this sounded rather familiar; perhaps I was just thinking of Catholicism.

The fear of Allah

The Arabic word for the “fear of Allah” is taqwâ . It comes from the root word meaning “to protect from something, to prevent”. Indeed, a person exhibits the fear of Allah by seeking to prevent Allah's punishment by carrying out what Allah has commanded of him and abstaining from what Allah has prohibited him.

Allah had called upon all people in every era to fear Him. Allah says: “And We had enjoined upon those who were given the Scripture before – as well as yourselves – to fear Allah.”

It is Allah's right over His servants that they fear Him as He ought to be feared. Allah says: “O you who believe! Fear Allah as He ought to be feared and do not die except as believers.”

Ibn Mas`ûd explained what it means to fear Allah as He ought to be feared by saying: “It means that He is to be obeyed not disobeyed, remembered not forgotten, and shown gratitude not ingratitude.”

The fear of Allah is the path to forgiveness, salvation, and the attainment of Allah's mercy. Allah says:

“Indeed, Allah is with those who fear Him and those who do good.”

“And My mercy encompasses all things, and I shall decree it for those who fear Me.”

“He is worthy of being feared and worthy of granting forgiveness.”

“And whoever fears Allah – He will pardon him his sins and grant him a great reward.”

“Indeed, those who fear Allah will be among gardens and rivers, in a seat of truth near an All-Powerful Sovereign.”

Allah promises those who fear Him that He will provide for their needs and grant them a way out of their worldly difficulties. Allah says: “And whoever fears Allah, He will make for him a way out, and provide for him from whence he could never imagine.”

This is Allah's promise. We should draw strength from it when we are tried in life with difficulties that tempt us to resort to what Allah has forbidden.

The relationship between knowledge and the fear of Allah

Allah says: “It is only those who have knowledge among Allah's servants who fear Him.”

There are two ways in which knowledge and the fear of Allah are related. The first is that true fear of Allah comes about as the result of having proper knowledge of Allah and His perfect attributes.

Ibn `Abbâs said about this verse: “They are those who know that Allah is capable of all things.” blah blah

~ ~ ~

I wouldn't even attempt to single out anything on the subject of homosexuality, but there is this from heaven on earth, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Treatment of homosexuals within Islam:

........The Sha'fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act. Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army. Blah

Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

Why should you respect any religion for that matter?

If the utter nonsense that people come out with, didn't have the 'Religion' tag attached, it would qualify them for the funny farm.

And people who actually think that there is some invisible entity who not only listens to, but acts on their prayers and beseechings and intercedes on their behalf in a physical manner here on earth, well quite frankly, they are fucking insane.

An old draft I found of an even older article.

Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
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.

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. Independent

Jesus Christ! You Can't Do That, It's 2012: Spain Blasphemy Trial

Update: Not Guilty.

From reading this short report, and his "previous," a fellow might be forgiven for thinking that the decision to prosecute Spanish artist, Javier Krahe for blasphemy, was a tad political. But whatever the reason, their are certainly dark forces at play here. As I say in the header, it's 2012, not 1512.

But to actually prosecute someone for blasphemy in 2012 Western Europe, is simply staggering. But then the fellow isn't actually being prosecuted for blasphemy, he is being prosecuted for "offending religious feelings," which surpasses staggering to go far beyond the pale.

How dangerous a precedent is that; what next trials for witchcraft? Jesus wept! this is Spain we are talking about here, not Saudi bloody Arabia. Perhaps Spain too should kick the Gregorian calendar into touch and join the Saudi goatherds back in the year 1433, because that's the message Spain is sending the world. Our level of sophistication has reverted to that of Saudi, land of darkness, Arabia.

Offending religious feelings! what about my feelings and all those like me? All those people who are rational, does Spain realise just how offensive this trial is to the likes us?

And is Spain so culturally far removed from Portugal, that it, Spain, prosecutes artists, yet a Portuguese artist, Jose Saramago, whose writings include at least two works that were labelled blasphemous, is awarded the title, Nobel Laureate? But much I suppose depends on who is adjudicating and upon what. A committee of rational thinkers for the Nobel and the Catholic bloody Church on what is considered blasphemous. Theocrats determining what is, or what isn't, offensive. What could possibly go wrong?

Which only leaves me now, to have a look in my 'blasphemy' folder for a bit of something to decorate this post with.

Oh! and perhaps inquire of my contacts in Spain to see if I can get a better insight into what is actually going on in this case.

Update, opinion from Spain:

My personal opinion about that case, fortunately like nearly everyone in this country, is that this judgment is an absurdity.

The case hase been kicking around the courthouses for eight years, has already been filed twice, but this time a Madrid court has applied for "first time" Article 525 of our Penal Code that prescribes a sentence of up to 12 months for offending "the feelings of the members of a religious denomination."

I hope that everything stays in nothing. When I get information about the sentence I'll get in touch with you, for now we are still waiting. Mercedes: Hasta que se sepa la Verdad

Spanish artist faces prison over 'how to cook Christ' film

Javier Krahe prosecuted for 'offending religious feelings' after 1978 short film was broadcast on Spanish TV
Ben Child
28 May 2012

A leading Spanish artist faces up to a year in prison after being prosecuted for "offending religious feelings" in relation to a short film he made more than 30 years ago that claimed to show "how to cook Jesus Christ".

Javier Krahe, who has been a popular and provocative figure in Spain for nearly half a century, made the film in 1978 but it was only shown on Spanish TV in 2004 as a backdrop to an interview with its creator. The little-known charge – comparable with but not identical to Britain's blasphemy law, remains part of the penal code despite never having been applied before in Spanish legal history.
Krahe's 54-second film uses the tone of a cooking programme, with chefs advised to remove Jesus' nails and separate him from his crucifix, which should be left to one side. Christ's tiny white body – a small figurine is used – is then shown being washed, lightly smothered in butter, placed on a bed of aromatic herbs in a glass tray and popped into an oven. "One gaunt Christ" is apparently enough to feed two, and when the dish is ready (after three days) it miraculously emerges from the oven without assistance.
There have been two previous failed attempts to prosecute Krahe, who is currently on bail for €192,000 (£153,000). The latest prosecution is the result of a court action by the Catholic legal association the Centro Juridico Tomas Moro.
"How do you show that someone's religious feelings have been hurt?" Krahe told El Pais newspaper, adding that he considers the prosecution to be absurd. "I'm accused of a series of things that I haven't done. I don't appear on television cooking Christ, and I haven't ever used these images [in a performance]." His supporters say freedom of speech laws should be changed to allow room for blasphemy.
Krahe is due to appear in Madrid's regional court, where statements from witnesses in the case are due to be heard on Monday. Gruniad

Other: Spain Review
Just the one above for decoration, but a small gallery of Jesus and Mo below. Two birds with one blasphemous stone as it were.

Poor Muhammad Poor Kuwaiti Ten Years For a Tweet

I despair, I really do; these people are insane.

Muhammad brutally assaulted via Twitter; criminal sentenced to 10 years
by: Mike Daniels
June 4, 2012

Rather than defending the all-powerful Allah from nasty words, a Kuwait court has instead defended a collection of dead people from “blasphemy”.

A court sentenced a 26-year-old Kuwaiti to 10 years in prison on Monday after ruling that he had endangered state security by insulting the Prophet Mohammed, his wife Ayesha and his companions on social media, his lawyer Khaled al-Shatti said.

“We plan to challenge the ruling against my client Hamad al-Naqi in the appeals court and we are very optimistic that the higher court will cancel the sentence,” Shatti told AFP.

Naqi was also charged with insulting the Gulf regimes of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and for spreading false news that undermined Kuwait’s image abroad.

The charges were based on a number of tweets on his Twitter account, but Naqi told the interrogators that his account had been hacked, the lawyer said.

The particular assaults–that is, tweets–are not available for review, so we don’t know exactly what he said. We do know that the plaintiff and some Kuwaiti politicians called for the death penalty:

The civil plaintiff arguing the case against Naqi, as well as some Kuwaiti politicians, had called for Naqi to be executed in a case that stoked sectarian tensions in the Gulf state.

“This verdict is a deterrent to those who insult the Prophet Mohammad, his companions and the mothers of the believers,” civil plaintiff Dowaem al-Mowazry said in a text message.

Naqi was also attacked in prison by a fellow inmate.

If the fellow inmate is so devout, why is he in prison? Always a curious situation.

Last month, Kuwait’s parliament approved an amendment to their constitution making insulting Allah and Muhammad (by Muslims) punishable by death. Kuwait being a constitutional monarchy, Sheikh Sabah would have to approve the measure, and has not yet done so. He recently declined to approve a proposal to make all Kuwait law comply with Shariah law. secularnewsdaily

France Hands Down Shockingly Lenient Sentences To Parents of FGM Victims

Before we crack on with the current post, I thought it might be prudent to import something I said previously in a post entitled: Democracy! I’ll Take Anarchy Any Day. A bizarre enough post in its own right, but certainly pertinent to this post, if only to highlight the (misogynist) attitudes of the Georgia House of Representatives.

But it is for more reasons than that, that I make use of the words. The pathetically lenient sentience handed down to the father and mother, twenty four and eighteen months respectively, for systematically maiming and disfiguring their own four daughters, is I think, and particularly for France, is nothing short of an outrage, and in itself borders on the criminal.

The text below is response to the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Georgia House of Representatives in regard to legislation banning the practice of female genital mutilation. (FGM) What I must stress however, is just how polite I am being regarding my feelings to acts of such barbarity.

Two to twenty years; I wouldn’t have a problem with the full twenty being handed down to any parent who subjected a daughter to such a selfish act of barbarism, in fact if religion were cited as the reason for carrying out this heinous act, I would give them forty years.

And my reasons would not be, as you might have so easily gathered, that I am anti religion, for this practice is nothing whatsoever to do with religion, it is but for the purposes of subjugating women and robbing them of their sexuality and as such, make them less likely to “stray.” And in doing so, bolster against the overriding insecurity of the misogynist males that abound in the countries where this practice still takes place.

As I said above, it is a bizarre post, because the House went on to include a ban female genital piercings, displaying in the twenty first century, attitudes that are simply astounding.

The legislation applies only to females mind you, it doesn't apply to the male of the species. Democracy! I’ll Take Anarchy Any Day

A slight change from original plans, the Wail has a more comprehensive article than the one I intended to employ.

Islamic holy man and his wife are jailed for mutilating the genitals of their four daughters

Victims sob in court as parents are led away
Minister brands female circumcision a 'grave crime'
By Craig Mackenzie
3 June 2012

An Islamic holy man and his wife have been jailed for the genital mutilation of their four daughters.

The case has shocked France and was branded by a female government minister as a 'grave crime' and an 'intolerable affront to women's dignity.'

All four of the victims, now aged between 11 and 20, were in court to hear the sentence and wept and cried out as their parents were led away from the dock.

The unnamed father was sentenced to two years and his wife got 18 months for allowing a 'doctor' to remove parts of their vaginas.

They were charged with ‘complicity in voluntary violence having led to mutilation by an older person of a minor under the age of 15 years’ , a crime punishable by a maximum of 20 years jail.

The father was said to be a ‘ marabout’ - an Arabic word for an Islamic ascetic holy man alleged to be endowed with magical powers.

The couple originally came from the west African state of Guinea where according to a 2007 study, 96 per cent of young girls have their genitals mutilated in the name of religion. More with photo's.

More in the sidebar under FGM. A previous French related issue posted under the 'Us and Them' tag: 'Your religious values are not superior to the laws of the republic.' French Muslim Jailed

How Very Apt Official Saudi Calender Says It Is The Year 1433

Extremely civil of them to acquiesce to such modernity. But must be said, it strikes me as fairly accurate; about six hundred years behind the times.

Saudi Arabia bans using Gregorian dates

The use of the English language to answer calls or communicate, mainly in companies and hotels, has also been banned
May 17, 2012

Saudi Arabia has banned all government and private agencies from using the Gregorian calendar in official dealings.

The use of the English language to answer calls or communicate, mainly in companies and hotels, has also been banned, a local daily said.

All ministries and agencies have to use the Hijri dates (Islamic calendar) and the Arabic language, the interior ministry said. The ministry attributed its decision to preserving the Islamic calendar and the Arabic language, Arabic daily Al Watan reported.

In the statement to the ministries and establishments, the ministry said that it noted that some government entities were using Gregorian dates "unnecessarily", in a violation of high orders and instructions. Several hotel and company receptions used English in their communications, the ministry said.

However, ministries and agencies could use the Gregorian calendar, whenever needed, on the condition that it is associated with the corresponding Hijri date. Gulfnews

Plenty more on the Land of Darkness in the side-bar, tagged, Saudi and Us and Them.

The Kingdom in the Closet 'The land of sand and sodomites'

The first of three posts on religion and sex. (2) (3)

The article below was linked from, and is the essence of, Pat Condell's video.

The Kingdom in the Closet
Nadya Labi
May 2007

Sodomy is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, but gay life flourishes there. Why it is “easier to be gay than straight” in a society where everyone, homosexual and otherwise, lives in the closet
By Nadya Labi

Yasser, a 26-year-old artist, was taking me on an impromptu tour of his hometown of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on a sweltering September afternoon. The air conditioner of his dusty Honda battled the heat, prayer beads dangled from the rearview mirror, and the smell of the cigarette he’d just smoked wafted toward me as he stopped to show me a barbershop that his friends frequent. Officially, men in Saudi Arabia aren’t allowed to wear their hair long or to display jewelry—such vanities are usually deemed to violate an Islamic instruction that the sexes must not be too similar in appearance. But Yasser wears a silver necklace, a silver bracelet, and a sparkly red stud in his left ear, and his hair is shaggy. Yasser is homosexual, or so we would describe him in the West, and the barbershop we visited caters to gay men. Business is brisk.

Leaving the barbershop, we drove onto Tahlia Street, a broad avenue framed by palm trees, then went past a succession of sleek malls and slowed in front of a glass-and-steel shopping center. Men congregated outside and in nearby cafés. Whereas most such establishments have a family section, two of this area’s cafés allow only men; not surprisingly, they are popular among men who prefer one another’s company. Yasser gestured to a parking lot across from the shopping center, explaining that after midnight it would be “full of men picking up men.” These days, he said, “you see gay people everywhere.”

Yasser turned onto a side street, then braked suddenly. “Oh shit, it’s a checkpoint,” he said, inclining his head toward some traffic cops in brown uniforms. “Do you have your ID?” he asked me. He wasn’t worried about the gay-themed nature of his tour—he didn’t want to be caught alone with a woman. I rummaged through my purse, realizing that I’d left my passport in the hotel for safekeeping. Yasser looked behind him to see if he could reverse the car, but had no choice except to proceed. To his relief, the cops nodded us through. “God, they freaked me out,” Yasser said. As he resumed his narration, I recalled something he had told me earlier. “It’s a lot easier to be gay than straight here,” he had said. “If you go out with a girl, people will start to ask her questions. But if I have a date upstairs and my family is downstairs, they won’t even come up.”

Notorious for its adherence to Wahhabism, a puritanical strain of Islam, and as the birthplace of most of the 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country that claims sharia, or Islamic law, as its sole legal code. The list of prohibitions is long: It’s haram—forbidden—to smoke, drink, go to discos, or mix with an unrelated person of the opposite gender. The rules are enforced by the mutawwa'in, religious authorities employed by the government’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The kingdom is dominated by mosques and malls, which the mutawwa'in patrol in leather sandals and shortened versions of the thawb, the traditional ankle-length white robe that many Saudis wear. Some mutawwa'in even bear marks of their devotion on their faces; they bow to God so adamantly that pressing their foreheads against the ground leaves a visible dent. The mutawwa'in prod shoppers to say their devotions when the shops close for prayer, several times daily. If they catch a boy and a girl on a date, they might haul the couple to the police station. They make sure that single men steer clear of the malls, which are family-only zones for the most part, unless they are with a female relative. Though the power of the mutawwa'in has been curtailed recently, their presence still inspires fear.

In Saudi Arabia, sodomy is punishable by death. Though that penalty is seldom applied, just this February a man in the Mecca region was executed for having sex with a boy, among other crimes. (For this reason, the names of most people in this story have been changed.) Ask many Saudis about homosexuality, and they’ll wince with repugnance. “I disapprove,” Rania, a 32-year-old human-resources manager, told me firmly. “Women weren’t meant to be with women, and men aren’t supposed to be with men.”

This legal and public condemnation notwithstanding, the kingdom leaves considerable space for homosexual behavior. As long as gays and lesbians maintain a public front of obeisance to Wahhabist norms, they are left to do what they want in private. Vibrant communities of men who enjoy sex with other men can be found in cosmopolitan cities like Jeddah and Riyadh. They meet in schools, in cafés, in the streets, and on the Internet. “You can be cruised anywhere in Saudi Arabia, any time of the day,” said Radwan, a 42-year-old gay Saudi American who grew up in various Western cities and now lives in Jeddah. “They’re quite shameless about it.” Talal, a Syrian who moved to Riyadh in 2000, calls the Saudi capital a “gay heaven.”

This is surprising enough. But what seems more startling, at least from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity. Nor does it strip a man of his masculinity, as long as he is in the “top,” or active, role. This attitude gives Saudi men who engage in homosexual behavior a degree of freedom. But as a more Westernized notion of gayness—a notion that stresses orientation over acts—takes hold in the country, will this delicate balance survive?

‘They will seduce you’

When Yasser hit puberty, he grew attracted to his male cousins. Like many gay and lesbian teenagers everywhere, he felt isolated. “I used to have the feeling that I was the queerest in the country,” he recalled. “But then I went to high school and discovered there are others like me. Then I find out, it’s a whole society.”

This society thrives just below the surface. During the afternoon, traffic cops patrol outside girls’ schools as classes end, in part to keep boys away. But they exert little control over what goes on inside. A few years ago, a Jeddah- based newspaper ran a story on lesbianism in high schools, reporting that girls were having sex in the bathrooms. Yasmin, a 21-year-old student in Riyadh who’d had a brief sexual relationship with a girlfriend (and was the only Saudi woman who’d had a lesbian relationship who was willing to speak with me for this story), told me that one of the department buildings at her college is known as a lesbian enclave. The building has large bathroom stalls, which provide privacy, and walls covered with graffiti offering romantic and religious advice; tips include “she doesn’t really love you no matter what she tells you” and “before you engage in anything with [her] remember: God is watching you.” In Saudi Arabia, “It’s easier to be a lesbian [than a heterosexual]. There’s an overwhelming number of people who turn to lesbianism,” Yasmin said, adding that the number of men in the kingdom who turn to gay sex is even greater. “They’re not really homosexual,” she said. “They’re like cell mates in prison.”

This analogy came up again and again during my conversations. As Radwan, the Saudi American, put it, “Some Saudi [men] can’t have sex with women, so they have sex with guys. When the sexes are so strictly segregated”—men are allowed little contact with women outside their families, in order to protect women’s purity—“how do they have a chance to have sex with a woman and not get into trouble?” Tariq, a 24-year-old in the travel industry, explains that many “tops” are simply hard up for sex, looking to break their abstinence in whatever way they can. Francis, a 34-year-old beauty queen from the Philippines (in 2003 he won a gay beauty pageant held in a private house in Jeddah by a group of Filipinos), reported that he’s had sex with Saudi men whose wives were pregnant or menstruating; when those circumstances changed, most of the men stopped calling. “If they can’t use their wives,” Francis said, “they have this option with gays.”

Gay courting in the kingdom is often overt—in fact, the preferred mode is cruising. “When I was new here, I was worried when six or seven cars would follow me as I walked down the street,” Jamie, a 31-year-old Filipino florist living in Jeddah, told me. “Especially if you’re pretty like me, they won’t stop chasing you.” John Bradley, the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis (2005), says that most male Western expatriates here, gay or not, have been propositioned by Saudi men driving by “at any time of the day or night, quite openly and usually very, very persistently.”

Many gay expatriates say they feel more at home in the kingdom than in their native lands. Jason, a South African educator who has lived in Jeddah since 2002, notes that although South Africa allows gay marriage, “it’s as though there are more gays here.” For Talal, Riyadh became an escape. When he was 17 and living in Da­mas­cus, his father walked in on him having sex with a male friend. He hit Talal and grounded him for two months, letting him out of the house only after he swore he was no longer attracted to men. Talal’s pale face flushed crimson as he recalled his shame at disappointing his family. Eager to escape the weight of their expectations, he took a job in Riyadh. When he announced that he would be moving, his father responded, “You know all Saudis like boys, and you are white. Take care.” Talal was pleased to find a measure of truth in his father’s warning—his fair skin made him a hit among the locals.

Marcos, a 41-year-old from the Philippines, was arrested in 1996 for attending a party featuring a drag show. He spent nine months in prison, where he got 200 lashes, before being deported. Still, he opted to return; he loves his work in fashion, which pays decently, and the social opportunities are an added bonus. “Guys romp around and parade in front of you,” he told me. “They will seduce you. It’s up to you how many you want, every day.” Go to page two.

Will Pakistan's Oscar Help Stop a Disfiguring Crime Against Women?

Will Pakistan's Oscar Help Stop a Disfiguring Crime Against Women?
Omar Waraich
March 3, 2012


When Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy became the first Pakistani filmmaker to win an Oscar last weekend, she saw it not just as a rare moment of global pride for her country, but also as a source of hope for its struggling women. "All the women in Pakistan who are working for change," she said on stage while holding aloft the small golden statue, "don't give up on your dreams, this is for you." In the audience, actress Sandra Bullock could be seen applauding as she struggled to suppress her tears.

It was a historic moment in the decades-long struggle to counter violence against women in Pakistan. Saving Face, the winning documentary short, tells the story of hundreds of Pakistani women who endure acid attacks that disfigure their looks and devastate their lives. The attacks have been carried out with impunity for decades. But, as Obaid-Chinoy told TIME in an interview, her film shows that some Pakistanis are now fighting back. "It's a film about acid violence in Pakistan and what these women go through on a day-to-day basis," she says. "But it's not just a film about despair, but also about what people are doing to change that." The heroes of the story include Dr. Mohammad Jawad, a British surgeon of Pakistani origin, who abandons his lucrative practice in London to travel to Pakistan in order to help rehabilitate the suffering women, using his own revolutionary techniques.

The idea of the film came about when Jawad's name appeared in the press after he helped the British television presenter Katie Piper recover from an 2009 acid attack by an associate of an ex-boyfriend. Daniel Junge, who co-directed the film with Obaid-Chinoy, asked Jawad if he was familiar with the acid attacks on women in Pakistan. "I'm going there next week," the doctor told the filmmaker. "Why don't you come with me?"

The other heroes of the film are a lawyer, Sarkar Abbas, who represents acid victims for free; Valerie Khan, an activist who helps women find work and provides them with shelter; and a group of female parliamentarians who pushed through a bill that finally criminalized the practice. Marvi Memon, a former parliamentarian who appears in the film, was moved to author the bill after she saw a woman who was fatally burned by acid. "I promised her on her deathbed that I would get this bill passed," says Memon.

Acid attacks chiefly take place in Pakistan's southern Punjab area and parts of Sindh province. The acid is widely available there; no license is required to purchase it. The area also has a combustible mix of high unemployment, very low levels of literacy and a grotesque tolerance in society for violence against women. The courts also enable the crimes with a shockingly low rate of convictions. There are at least 150 cases of acid attacks that are registered each year, but the actual figure is much higher. The majority of women are too fearful to come forward to accuse their attackers.

Almost all of the offenders are either suitors who have been rejected or abusive husbands. In many cases, when men have been turned down, their reaction, Obaid-Chinoy explains, is: "If I can't have her, the no one else can." By hurling acid in their faces, they feel they have avenged their lost pride and denied the women any chance of another marriage. In other cases, the victims are women who asked for a divorce but are turned down. "These men," adds Obaid-Chinoy, "think it's related to their honor." And a third category is domestic violence, where angry men who feel slighted hurl acid on their wives as punishment.

(PHOTOS: Women of Afghanistan Under Taliban Threat)

Family pressures often compound the problem. In southern Punjab and parts of Sindh, many women are customarily married within their clan or receive offers of marriage from relatives. When they endure acid attacks, the families can have a disturbing tendency to remain quiet. Many of the women are denied the opportunity to approach an NGO working on the issue and receive help, let alone complain to the police. It is not unusual for these women to be cast into seclusion, their burns seen as a mark of shame. In the worst cases, the families disown the women, leaving them without any financial support.

The Oscar win has won much notice for the issue and a buzz of publicity. Angelina Jolie praised Obaid-Chinoy and said she would watch the documentary, which airs on HBO on March 8. Harvey Weinstein told her that it made him "feel good to know the kind of work we do as filmmakers." When Obaid-Chinoy returns to her native Karachi, she is planning to use the success to launch "an educational outreach service in Pakistan." There will be radio and television public-service announcements raising awareness of the acid attacks. And versions of the film will be dubbed in local languages and played in the affected areas.

Back in Pakistan, the Oscar win has been heralded as a rare piece of good news. All too often accustomed to hearing their country's name associated with acts of terrorism, natural disasters or political instability, Pakistanis were ecstatic to be acknowledged positively in Hollywood. Television news channels played montages of Obaid-Chinoy's acceptance speech, running patriotic songs in the background. But for all the cheer, the Oscar has also laid down a challenge: Will more people now step forward and help those who are working to end this barbarous practice? time.com

Youtube's Censorship of Free Speech Regarding Religion

Unedited.

I hope this post still works, because for one reason or another, it has taken a rather circuitous path to get where it has.

Though it is basically a tale of censorship, and in my case as a UK resident, one of censorship and copyright, the underlying theme is one of disappointment.

Disappointment, great disappointment in where we as a species are headed. In an age and in a period of our history when we should be glorying in, and of our own enlightenment, there are still great swathes of humanity, whose purpose and intent is that we remain, or even less unacceptable, regress to a pre-industrial era of superstition and theocracy.

For those that would have us remain, and in a period far earlier than pre-industrial, earlier by a millennium or more in fact, of them, the followers of the Prophet Mohamed, there is no hope whatsoever. No hope whatsoever that those of the Islamic faith will ever embrace modernity or enlightenment. But as we know, content as they might be to live by the dark ages edicts of an illiterate bandit, there is no such contentment that the rest of us are disinclined to embrace their particular brand of mythology.

The refusal to accept the science of what we are doing to our planet apart, the tenets of Islam constitute one the greatest threats imaginable to a civilised, just and harmonious society.

But, but, yes I hear you, I know your argument; what about the rest of them, the Christian fundamentalists, are they any better? Simply, no.

Are they in fact worse? Only in the fact that Christianity has been replaced as the religion of death they're not; and I'll truck no argument from anybody, that Islam is anything other than this. Fundamental to its core, if you don't accept its teachings your dead. Well, if you open your mouth to say as much you are, let alone tweet such thoughts, but of the tweets, we will look a little later to one of the featured videos.

It's not my intention to turn this post into us and them, or my God is bigger than your God kind of thing, because quite frankly, I think both sides are insane, only by varying degrees. But as it is their turn under the spotlight, let us see to what degree, they disappoint us in terms of our modern day society. And to do this, there is no better place to look than the politics of the Christian right of America.

At which point reason, regarding religion and politics in American public life, ceased to be part of the equation, I couldn't really say, I have only been observing such things since 2006, but nonetheless, extremism was every bit as present then as now. The outrageous inclusion of 'faith' and politics that we see so inextricably mixed today, was as I say, still at the forefront of political life then. The most astounding example would have had to have been in a televised 2007 Presidential debate candidates, when asked to raise their hands if they don't believe in evolution, Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo all said they do not.

My point being, is it so very far removed from having Mullahs in charge of the running of a country?



Two more short clips, where the response of the audience is quite frightening.





Here's a short bonus clip, just forty three seconds, it's enough.



Bad enough then that this blatant religiosity is such a part of modern politics, but even worse, is the extreme platform that today's politicians, both those already elected and potential candidates, adopt as though somehow being quite reasonable and acceptable. But those platforms are anything but reasonable and acceptable, they are in fact nothing less than biblical.

Already we see around the US such policies in force, and more on the way each passing day. And everyone of those policies the recipient is a female; how could it not be when the legislation, semantics apart, comes straight out of the Bible, written when I ask?

Again bad enough, that these policies are being implemented by those already in office, but to actually run as a candidate for POTUS with a platform based on such fables, just staggers the imagination. And perhaps even more staggering, these policies are looked on favourably by no small percentage of the electorate.

Bringing us full circle, back to disappointment in what should be an enlightened period in our history as a species.

So what exactly was it that caused me to write about this disappointment? To answer that question we have to look at the recent behaviour of an organisation that should epitomise enlightenment, Google/Youtube. It should, but it doesn't; not when it starts to censor content based on religion, could anything really be more disappointing than that I ask?

I am going to make use of a few screenshots, both to explain my path to this sorry state of affairs and to clarify certain points, a picture being worth a thousand words blah blah.

We start off with something I re-tweeted.



Coincidentally, the featured video was the same one as in my own digest alert from Youtube.


Let's see what all the fuss is about says I. Therein lay a problem.



This because the clip contained a few seconds of Richard Dawkins taken from his Root of All Evil. A program I am fully entitled to watch in this country by the way, via Channel iplayer. Let's leave the logic of that one out of it all and move straight on.

Looking at the associated videos, I came up with this from the Amazing Atheist, who, if you pick them out, makes some germane and salient points.





24 hours later:

It seems Youtube has had a change of heart regarding its policy, shown below.




So much for enlightenment in the 21st century.

Why such a reversal on the part of Youtube? Enter Isaac Newton and his third law, for every action ....



Ah so! Not only that, with a thousand others mirroring the clip, we can kiss the copyright issue goodbye, it just becomes unenforceable. And of course, then allowing me to view the clip in question.

But the critical thing here, is not the content per say, inoffensive that it is, but that, quote: Youtube's professional team of moderators reviewed these videos and impartially came to the conclusion that they did not confirm to Youtube's stated policy.

To other little note worthies regarding this video; enter the tweets, and yer man ain't never going to get an Oscar




And one of the offending videos, the Best Emotional Porn, below for you to take offence at.

Most people will look at communal animals, and their need to be in groups will be outstandingly obvious. However people are that taken up by the first person perspective of life, that they don't immediately recognize their own biological need to be in groups. Its not just a preference, its biologically hardwired into your brain. Being with friends is good, and being with powerful friends is even better. It is therefore unsurprising that if you are going to fantasise about a friendship, that as the rewards are better for having a powerful invisible friend, than a weak one, that most people end up having a 'relationships' with an ultrapowerful god.

It is hard to contest that there are real emotional rewards yielded from such fantasies, and I have no problem with that. However when these fantasies have destructive effects on the society around those who hold them it becomes an issue. Indeed the extent to which such fantasies can pervert and corrupt a member of society are aptly summed up in William Lane Craig. Arguably the strongest interpersonal behavior is that of protecting infants. William Lane Craigs religion perverts his behavior to such an extent that he will happily justify putting a sword through a babies skull with a smile on his face and a tune in his heart knowing that, according to his fantasy, that the infant received an infinite good as a consequence of him killing it.

Banned video list.


Rules on (emotional) masturbation.




The end.


Bonus.

The Sad Race for Bottom on the Loony Right

As Santorum and Romney battle for the extremist vote, progressives should be worried, not gloating.
Robert B. Reich
February 27, 2012

My father was a Republican for the first 78 years of his life. For the last twenty, he’s been a Democrat (he just celebrated his 98th.) What happened? “They lost me,” he says.

They’re losing even more Americans now, as the four remaining GOP candidates seek to out-do one another in their race for the votes of the loony right that’s taken over the Grand Old Party.

But the rest of us have reason to worry.

A party of birthers, creationists, theocrats, climate-change deniers, nativists, gay-bashers, anti-abortionists, media paranoids, anti-intellectuals, and out-of-touch country clubbers cannot govern America.

Yet even if they lose the presidency on Election Day they’re still likely to be in charge of at least one house of Congress as well as several state legislators and governorships. That’s a problem for the nation.

The GOP’s drift toward loopyness started in 1993 when Bill Clinton became the first Democrat in the White House in a dozen years – and promptly allowed gays in the military, pushed through the Brady handgun act, had the audacity to staff his administration with strong women and African-Americans, and gave Hillary the task of crafting a national health bill. Bill and Hillary were secular boomers with Ivy League credentials who thought government had a positive role to play in peoples’ lives.

This was enough to stir right-wing evangelicals in the South, social conservatives in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, and stop-at-nothing extremists in Washington and the media who hounded Bill Clinton for eight years, then stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, and Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004.

They were not pleased to have a Democrat back in the White House in 2008, let alone a black one. They rose up in the 2010 election cycle as “tea partiers” and have by now pushed the GOP further right than it has been in more than eighty years. Even formerly sensible senators like Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, and Dick Lugar are moving to the extreme right in order to keep their seats.

At this rate the GOP will end up on the dust heap of history. Young Americans are more tolerant, cosmopolitan, better educated, and more socially liberal than their parents. And relative to the typical middle-aged America, they are also more Hispanic and more shades of brown. Today’s Republican Party is as relevant to what America is becoming as an ice pick in New Orleans.

In the meantime, though, we are in trouble. America is a winner-take-all election system in which a party needs only 51 percent (or, in a three-way race, a plurality) in order to gain control.

In parliamentary systems of government, small groups representing loony fringes can be absorbed relatively harmlessly into adult governing coalitions.

But here, as we’re seeing, a loony fringe can take over an entire party — and that party will inevitably take over some part of our federal, state, and local governments.

As such, the loony right is a clear and present danger. Alternet