2010 in Dicks

2011 has started and seems disappointingly familiar, but it gives us all a chance to look back at the year just gone. And I felt that I'd look back at all the dicks who have made the world slightly worse. And where better to start than...

THE CONSERVATIVE-LEAD GOVERNMENT: We all knew it was coming. There was no way that New Labour could hold on any longer, but the popularity of the Liberal Democrats (a phrase that is as laughable now as it was last January) just kept the Tories from a majority. And then gave them the MPs they needed anyway. Much of the anger has been (rightly) directed at Nick Clegg for backtracking on virtually every promise that made him so popular in the first place, but let's not forget that to bend to the every whim of the Conservative Party, there needs to be Conservative policies to begin with. So whilst Cameron and Osborne are happily pissing on everyone, let's not take out all of our anger on the guy pointing and laughing.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: This was the year when Paul Chambers was convicted for an illegal use of irony, but at least he was fortunate enough not to end up in hospital at the hands of the police (allegedly, of course). Surely the worst injustice of the year is of the rape victim jailed for eight months for retracting her genuine allegations. Though she has since been released, she still has to fight for her children. The husband had all the charges against him dropped, begging the question: How can they convict someone of falsely retracting allegations of sexual assault, and yet not convict the (therefore genuine) rapist? It saddens me that the organisations that are suppose to protect me -- the police and the CPS -- have shown themselves to be thuggish and shockingly misguided.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Not for his work with WikiLeaks, an organisation which I support and I believe has done a remarkable amount of good work in revealing what it has, but for his entirely dick-ish remarks following the recent allegations against him. Sunny Hundal has compiled a brilliant piece on whether the accusations of conspiracy stand up, but regardless of his guilt or innocence (neither of which have yet been proven in court, and I would not like to speculate on it), he has recently said some phenomenally unpleasant things, such as claiming he fell into a "hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism", that Switzerland is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism", and that these women had got into a "tizzy" about something as trivial about the very serious subject of STDs. WikiLeaks would do very well without him.

KAY BURLEY, ADAM BOULTON AND BEN BROWN: 3 journalists, two working for Sky and one for the BBC. Boulton and Burley provided us with such shoddy journalism that people were compelled to shout at them in the street, but then at least you would expect that of Sky "News". Ben Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre was a different matter, with the supposedly "impartial" BBC doing all they can to pin blame on a victim of a violent and horrific incident. The official statement from the editors completely misses the point. Would they really interview anyone in the same way? Is Crimewatch an interrogation of the victims, ascertaining whether they were "rolling towards" the criminals, perhaps? It was not a balanced view, but a disgusting display of victim-blaming.

NADINE DORRIES: I have tried several times to write a post about Dorries, about her 70% fictitious blog that she uses to make personal attacks on her constituents, but every time I begin I realise that Tim Ireland has said it earlier and better than I ever will (and been the victim of some vicious and nasty smearing as the result), so I'll just point you in his direction.

DANNY DYER AND ZOO MAGAZINE: Oh how we laughed back in May when Danny Dyer joked about cutting women's faces. Except we didn't, because it was deeply unpleasant. Dyer initially claimed to have been misquoted, but has since offered this apology, in which it becomes clear that the problem was that he was quoted, albeit an off-record aside. He has since resigned, and released the film Pimp to huge box-office takings of £205. Zoo magazine, however, which approved and printed the column, continues to be published to a wide readership.

THE POPE: An inevitable inclusion on this list, the Pope currently feels more like the head of SPECTRE than the Catholic Church. Accusation after accusation after accusation of child abuse and subsequent cover-ups have been leveled at Catholic Priests (too many to link to, but the length of this Wikipedia article is startling in itself), and yet all Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his lot have done is attack homosexuals, secularists, and women. I said back in September that

I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Since then, the Pope has claimed that paedophilia wasn't a big deal in the '70s, and that child pornography is increasingly seen as "normal". Am I really expected to moral advice from a man who opposes the use of condoms more than child pornography?

So, that's why he's my Dick of 2010. Until the end of Monday you can vote for five dicks here (Cameron, Osborne, Dorries and Dyer were my other choices, by the way).

Happy New Year!

The New Atheism

This is something I've been meaning to say for a while, something that riles me more than almost anything: The myth of "New Atheism".

I fail to see just how there can be a "New Atheism". Atheism is the same as it has always been, namely, a lack of belief in God and, subsequently, a distancing of oneself from any religious organisation. That's it. What people mean when they say "New Atheism" is "more atheists", or perhaps "more vocal atheists". I don't see why this is such a problem – people have been expressing faith far more vocally for years.

And then you get to the big points: Atheism is a religion as bad as any other, and Richard Dawkins is its leader. And they're all smug.

writerJames wrote a brilliant piece about that "smug" notice, but suffice it to say that most commentators using that term are not being awfully humble themselves. You can basically describe anybody who has an opinion that they feel strongly enough about to voice as “smug”, and so it just becomes a convenient way to belittle an argument without going through the exhausting process of actually conveying a rational argument. I think the Pope is unbearably smug, but that doesn’t render his arguments invalid (there are far more things that do that).

The issue of Richard Dawkins is curious as well. A very important point to make right now would be that DAWKINS IS NOT ATHEISM. Dawkins is an atheist. This would be (I would have thought) a pretty obvious distinction, were it not for the fact that so few people seem to be able to make it. I hold Dawkins in very high esteem, but he is not my Pope. I do not feel compelled to agree with him because he is a representative for a perfect being. In many ways, he is more similar to an actor or musician – I enjoy his work, but were he to suddenly offer opinions that I continually disagreed with I would feel no more compelled to stay with him than I was with “Heroes”.

It seems to me that people outside of atheism are more obsessed with Dawkins than those within. Perhaps that is doing them an injustice, but he is undeniably the go-to guy whenever an atheist story drops. The Atheist Bus campaign and the idea of arresting the Pope were all attributed to him simply because when the ideas arose, journalists went to him asking if he approved. Any hint that he did resulted in them becoming Dawkins’s plans.

Things reached a nadir when Stephen Fry was accused of leading an “Atheist Hate Campaign”. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that Stephen Fry could lead a Hate Campaign. But, of course, this was shoddy, scaremongering journalism that was wrong on every count. As Fry’s wonderful blog describes (and, just as a side note, is it possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?), he was a signatory of a letter, not a leader. This letter began with the phrase:

“I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…”

It is sheer religious privilege that makes atheists the enemies. Our arguments challenge their beliefs and question their actions, as all worthwhile arguments do, and as a result we are accused of bullying, and labelled no better than racists, misogynists and homophobes – all things promoted, at one time or another, on religious grounds.

A Secular Society is a Better Society

I was recently asked to speak at a debate with this blog's title as its motion. I have reproduced my argument in full below, and must point out that throughout I was indebted to Evan Harris's excellent Secularist manifesto:

A secular society is not only a better society, it is the only fair society. It is a society that does not judge a person by their religion, nor does it make decisions based on religious privilege. It is a society that treats everyone equally, regardless of faith, but does not let their faith impact on others. Essentially, it is an ability to express any and all religious beliefs openly, limited only by, as Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights puts it, “the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". This separation of Church from State also allows for decisions to be made based on what is fairest to the society at that time, rather than being held to the unswaying doctrines of other eras; doctrines that we would mostly now consider to be outdated. Finally, it offers a greater accountability of politicians and decision-makers, who must justify their actions beyond matters of faith.

You have heard the arguments in favour of Secular Schools*. A Secularist is not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools – even Richard Dawkins admits that without an understanding of Christianity, it would be difficult to understand the history of Britain, for instance. But it is essential that no one religion should be forced onto a person, and that they should be free to decide which, if any, religion is appropriate for them. It is not up to any state authority to push one set of beliefs onto children, even if the state were to fund many different Faith Schools. These choices should be made by well-informed, well-balanced individuals, who are in possession of all the facts.

This society should not be atheist, agnostic, or humanist in views, but impartial. Protecting the right of all religions to say whatever they want is essential to a secular government, but with that also comes the right for anyone to challenge any view or opinion. No-one should have the right not to be offended. This is why the English blasphemy laws were so vigorously campaigned against by secularists, as well as the fact that they were Christian-only, up until the point that they were abolished in 2008. These laws showed a clear bias towards both faith in general and Christianity in particular at the heart of government – a government that has been elected to represent the whole country, and not just those who believe in the Christian God.

A secular nation is also a free nation, in the sense that it is unchained from the past. I shall use the example of homosexuality, since this is something treated with the severest punishments in a huge number of religions, including, but not limited to, Christianity. Despite the religious imperative to criminalise it, we as a society realised the injustice of this law, and legalised it in 1967. This abolition has led to countless people being freed from the threat of legal action simply for being who they are, and has resulted in a better standard of life for them. Crucially, it also does not criminalise opposition to homosexuality. Religious organisations, such as the Catholic Church, are still free to condemn homosexuality in exactly the same way that organisations like Stonewall are able to criticise their statements.

This freedom of religious expression ends when it starts to impact on the lives of others. Anyone may say anything, provided that it does not incite violence, and provided that they do not engage in any activity that is detrimental to the welfare of that individual or group. Let’s take the example of the gay couple barred from the Christian run Bed and Breakfast this March. The views of the Christian couple running the B&B are protected by law, no matter what your personal opinions on that may be. However, their actions were not, as they directly affected the happiness and welfare of the gay couple specifically because of their homosexuality. A secular law should allow for no justification on religious grounds. Why should someone be mistreated simply because the person behind the actions believes in a deity of some kind? An impartial system should accept only a rational argument to something like this, and not accept a supernatural one. The same rules apply to any religious organisation delivering a public service, such as a charitable organisation. They are more than welcome to provide that service, provided that they do not withhold any part of it from users for religious reasons.

A Secular Nation is stronger because its reliance on a rational argument, which emphasises the consequences of actions. Whatever your opinions of the Iraq war, it was shocking to hear that Tony Blair – a well-known opponent of secularism – made the decision to go in feeling that “God will be [his] judge”**. This reliance on a God which a huge percentage of his country does not believe in can easily cause arguments to be cyclical (“Why?” “Because God says!” “Why?” etc...), leaving those who hold different or no beliefs to feel unrepresented. A secular society deals purely with what unites us, our common humanity.

To conclude, a Secular society is neither theocratic nor atheist, but a society which supports freedom of religious, or indeed any other belief. However, it does not permit religious belief to be a justification for actions that in some way adversely affect another person. It promotes each belief system without bias on one or the other, leading to a fairer society for all, whilst at the same time vetting religious privilege. It allows for reasonable debate, and the jettisoning of old-fashioned ideology. Simply, it is the most inclusive society possible.

Despite the support that the religious societies had rallied, we only narrowly lost the vote 57 to 70.

*I was the second speaker for the proposition, and education was a large part of the first, hence the rather cursory reference.

**This argument was challenged, as Blair's statement was a reflection, rather than a reason, on the decision to go to war. Whilst I would say that it's true that I oversimplified the point, I maintain its relevance to the argument: a decision on the scale of going to war should not be made on the basis of faith, and its airing clearly caused a lot of anguish to people who saw Blair as leading the invasion under false pretenses.

5 Minutes with the Pope

I've been meaning to do a blog on the Pope UK visit for some time now, but this article in the New Humanist has finally inspired me to get around to it. So, if I had five minutes with the Pope, this is what I would like to say:

Pope Benedict, may I assume, for a second, that there is no God -- the primary justification for your actions and your position of authority. If this is the case, you have made women second class citizens and homosexuals outcasts for no reason. You have helped to spread HIV/AIDS by condemning condoms on the basis of a myth. And people in your organisation (and, if many reports are to be believed, you yourself) have covered up child molesters to protect the reputation of a lie. Given these countless millions who have suffered or have been killed, how is it that you can be regarded as a figure of moral authority, and how can you say, with the complete confidence that it would require, that you have acted justly?

I believe that this is the closest I can come to expressing my disgust at the actions of the Catholic Church, but I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

The Debate About The Debate

Debate is healthy. Most of the time. It can either reaffirm your beliefs, change them, or even tear them down (and the world would be a much better place if fewer people were afraid of that last point). A wider debate would be appreciated in, say, the Daily Express, where stories like "NOW ASYLUM IF YOU'RE GAY" are classed as news, when, in fact, they are mostly speculation and opinion. However, today Ann Widdecombe reversed the problem, as, rather than confusing opinion with fact, she confused fact with opinion.

So what do we learn from Ann's piece, aside from the fact that either she or The Express possesses a shocking inability to use capital letters (I'm not one for grammatical pedantry, but "Really, Mr sanderson?"? The "NHs"? Really??)? Well:

Last week it was reported that the British Humanist [A]ssociation [BHA] has condemned an award given to Noah’s [A]rk Zoo, a creationist centre near Bristol.

Yes, there is a creationist Zoo in North Somerset. You can read a review of it here. For the most part it is exactly what you'd expect from a zoo, except for the fact that it teaches that everything was designed by God, and contradicts evolution with posters like "“30 reasons why apes are not related to man”. And it is described by Widdecombe as "a moderate, education-focused organisation".

But those nasty secularists want to shut it up. They want to stifle the debate. And this is the problem with her argument. There is no debate. The Theory of Evolution is pretty much as sound a theory as we can plan for, with evidence in fossils, genes and anti-biotic resistant bacteria to name but a few sources. It is, to all intents and purposes, undeniable.

"Ah wait", say the creationists, "We're only asking for our opinion to be heard, and for people to make up their own minds". But if you are going to present people with one load of bollocks instead of facts, why stop at Christianity? There's a whole world full of rubbish that might have created everything.

Actually, to be consistent, why stop at the debate over evolution? The same argument is used by anyone going against scientific fact, and particularly pseudo-scientific groups -- that they want people to make up their own minds. Homeopaths are let on to the BBC to "debate" the science behind their magic sugar pills in an effort to remain impartial. Carrying this on, surely every time the Royal Family do anything, David Icke should come on to explain why they are actually acting to further their lizard-alien schemes? Otherwise, are they not just picking and choosing the topics they think open for debate?

Creationism and homeopathy are just conspiracy theories with a lot of followers, but just as careless a disregard for the facts. To claim that anyone wanting to get facts right is "bigoted" would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is such a popular idea, but it is only with these facts that you can have any basis for debate.

writerJames got here first. And better. But I wasn't going to tell you that before you'd read this.

Burqa Off?

So everyone seems to have been talking about the French burqa ban. Even David Mitchell offered his views in a column for the Guardian, and his opinions seem to echo the majority of people that I follow. This being a blog that deals with religious and feminist issues, it was only a matter of time before I had to cover the burqa, and so here is that blogpost.

And I am undecided.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that to impose a ban would restrict freedom of expression, whereas not to do so seems to ignore the current restrictions of freedom suffered by a lot of Muslim women. So either action or inaction would restrict the freedom of a group of people.

Ideally, of course, I would love to live in a world in which the burqa was a thing of the past. It is deeply symbolic of the oppression of women that some areas of Islam impose, and to claim that that is some kind of cultural misunderstanding is to be complicit. Of course, cultural values may differ, but there are certain rights that no human should have to sacrifice simply because they were born into the wrong culture, and to be able to go outside without those oppressive garments is one of them.

The solution could be to tell them that they can't wear it, but isn't this also an imposition on what people can wear, or more specifically what they can't? And so how exactly does this leave you better off? If this is an argument that we all have the right to wear what we want, it's pretty bloody stupid to make that point by forbidding everyone to wear something. And as a man with a penchant for bow ties, it would be a bit hypocritical of me to criticise someone for wearing something different. What you decide to wear should be up to you, given that it is appropriate for what you are doing (as David Mitchell said, "crotchless jeans outside primary schools" is unreasonable, but a trip to the shops in a burqa should be fine).

Right then. So that means I'm against a ban on the grounds that anyone should be allowed to wear whatever they like? Well, yes, but as I said earlier, the burqa is not just an item of clothing. It is a symbol of an aggressive patriarchy within certain quarters of the Muslim community. To take a stand against it is to show those oppressed that we will fight for their rights, even if they feel they cannot. Surely there is nothing we value higher than the right for everyone to live free from fear? I would certainly place it above the right to an alternative fashion.

And so, there's the problem. On the one hand, you want to help oppressed minorities, and on the other, you want to make sure you're not oppressing them yourself. I haven't even mentioned issues of security, which I feel are separate to this issue. It's inescapable that in today's world you will need to be identified, and quite clearly impossible with a covered face, but that is just the same whether it is covered by a burqa, a motorcycle helmet or a mask of Richard Nixon.

Perhaps the answer is just in tutting loudly, or perhaps legislation is the key, but if called upon to vote, I would have to abstain. If you think you can sway me, please feel free to leave a comment below.

Reassuringly Atheist

It's often said that there are no atheists in foxholes; that when nothing else is left, people will turn to God just to keep hope. It's a view that I know a lot of atheists hold, and I would understand why someone would feel this. But reverting to a religious position is not the only course of action in times of trouble, and there have been times when a lack of belief in a deity has been of great comfort to me.

First of all, it inspires you to act on the things that you can change. Without an all-knowing, all-powerful guy working things out for you, you have to rely on yourself (or someone else who, crucially, exists) to sort things out. OK, so maybe that isn't very reassuring, but it's more likely to get results than sitting around waiting for divine intervention. It also allows you to take whatever credit you are due, or to properly credit the parties involved in sorting the situation. I wonder how many surgeons see their hard work attributed to God or a guardian angel?

On the other hand, there are things we must accept we cannot change, or are powerless the prevent. This is never easy, but, for me, it is easier to look at some statistics and place myself in the context of them than it is to equate an awful event with a loving, omnipotent Father.

There seem to me to be three possible reasons why this wonderful figure would allow you to go through these troubles:
1: He is ignoring you. If this is the case, you may wish to ask yourself why you are going to such levels to appease this man. Seriously, you wouldn't stay in a relationship this one-sided.
2: He is doing this as part of an overarching plan. I once went to a talk on why a benevolent God allowed evil, and was presented with this hypothetical situation: a good couple lose a son in a car accident, then set up a successful campaign for road safety, thus leading to a better world. I'm sure you don't need me to point out the circular logic and doublethink at play here, but really?
3: He is punishing you. Leaving you with a large amount of guilt to add to this completely unfortunate tragedy, as it is in some way ALL YOUR FAULT! Or, of course, you've been caught in the crossfire of someone else's punishment, and so you're back to reason 1.

I've never seen bad circumstance as something that makes a god less likely -- maybe he enjoys watching conflict and misery as much as any Eastenders viewer -- but I find it intensely troubling that people feel the need to thank someone they believe is torturing them in some way (such as in this tweet, which is one of today's most ReTweeted).

Is it not enough to accept that the garden is ruined, without having to imagine the fairies want you dead as well?

My Problem With Organised Religion in 100 Words.

The Church of England has recently announced that it is putting an end to years of institutionalised sexism and will start allowing women to become bishops.

It was also announced this year that the Catholic Church had been protecting paedophiles within its organisation for many years, with internal documents claiming that it was the best thing for the image of the church. These allegations even extend as far as the current Pope.

One of these decisions has so angered some of the members of its church that they are threatening to defect to the other.

Can you guess which one?

Forbidden Art

Today I was shocked to read that Russia has fined and convicted a couple of artists for "inciting hatred". Their crime was merely to put on an exhibit featuring some controversial artworks, portraying images of Jesus Christ that some people might have found offensive. At this point I feel that I should point out that I have not personally seen the exhibits themselves, but neither did 131 of the 134 of the prosecution witnesses, who seemed perfectly happy to testify against them.

So, it seems that Russia can't shake off the specter of censorship, so prevalent in Soviet days. It is a tragedy that the country does not seem to believe in the basic human right to freedom of expression. One would hope that Oleg Kassin, of the rather ominously named Council of the People (the group that brought the complaint against the artists), was not indicative of the government when saying

"If you like expressing yourself freely, do it at home, invite some close friends".

Presumably, not everybody "likes expressing" themselves "freely", then, and that this is a dangerous lifestyle choice? Quite clearly, freedom to express one's opinions should not be limited, or else it isn't "freedom". To tolerate expression in private is only to tolerate free will.

Of course, the condemnation sprang from the fact that the exhibits were seen as "anti-Christian". Once again, we see the religious extremists criticising the use of the free will they believe their creator gave them. It is terrible an organisation is allowed to go completely uncriticised because it describes itself as a religion. There will no doubt be supporters of the ruling here, perhaps invoking a previous shameful ruling against the artists' work as an example of people not respecting their faith. But why should "faith" be the only thing exempt from satire, or critique?

The sensitivity of religious organisations is beyond that of any other, beyond even what is reasonable. Is there any other figure that could be placed in Mickey Mouse ears and so anger a group that they claim it is "inciting hatred"? The idea is quite clearly ludicrous. The marches against Jerry Springer: The Opera showed that certain people struggled with the concept of "freedom of speech" in this country, but the BBC refused to give in to this. That in Russia that expression is a criminal offence is nothing short of scandalous.

The Real Bigotgate

Hello all,

The big news of yesterday is that Conservative MP Philippa Stroud used to run prayer sessions to cure people of their homosexuality, claiming that "demons" were possessing them. Naturally this is news that offended a great many people, and before long #PhilippaStroud was trending in the UK.

Actually, the truth of this story is even worse. The church has, shall we say, highly questionable views on the role of women in marriage, all of which the electorate deserve to know about. Any church that preaches:

“A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed”

should be questioned, and its influence on an MP challenged. As Bartley points out, an MP subservient to her husband in all things may not even be voting under her own viewpoint, but under her husbands. This somewhat trumps "Vote Clegg, Get Brown/Cameron", I would argue.

Of course, they also have a right to know about the positive sides, such as their work for charity, but I would imagine Ms Stroud has already covered that in her own leafleting.

The truth remains that Ms Stroud's views on homosexuality and feminism do not match the views of most people living in Great Britain today; A nation whose proudest claim should be its tolerance of all cultures that do not infringe on the happiness of others.

And yet... Shamefully, the worst part of this big news is that it is NOT BIG NEWS! A search for Philippa Stroud on the BBC News Website produces little beyond a Woman's Hour clip from last October. I recognise the institution's stance with regards to impartiality (and, let's face it, none of us were expecting to read this story in the Mail or Sun), but it was happy to publish the controversy surrounding the smear stories of Nick Clegg, and I fail to see why this story should receive special treatment.

Perhaps we can draw one positive from this story. Due to the comparative lack of coverage in the mainstream media, people have been tweeting, Facebooking and blogging about this story just to get it out there, and, by all accounts, it seems to be working. Social media is bypassing barons like Murdoch, and this can only be a good thing.