AndromedasWake and I attended a conversation between Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers yesterday. Well, we tried. But we were slightly obstructed by the protesters who forcibly entered the theatre and then hippied up the whole damn shooting match.

Protesters? Oh, yes. You may count upon it.

Members of the Education Activist Network spent about half an hour sitting on the stage and talking nonsense. I gather they’re annoyed with Dawkins for his involvement with AC Grayling’s New College for the Humanities, about which they are disgusted, I tell you.

The gist seems to be a) it costs a lot and b) we can’t afford it therefore it is c) an affront to the laws of God and Man. According to the EAN, education is a “human right”, which I don’t think really follows, but even if it is, how do you quantify exactly how MUCH education is a human right? Is it basic levels of numeracy and literacy? Or is it the kind of suave service Grayling aims to provide?

I had to wonder about these protesters, these predominately young, groomed and foppish types as they flounced around the stage. The purpose seemed mainly to have good hair and pose dramatically, rather than effect any meaningful dialogue. I don’t imagine many involved will have donated all their spare money to educational charities, or devoted their spare time to mentoring and private tutoring. They probably like bursting into rooms and then not making sense.

Let’s dismantle the notion that expensive, private education is somehow bad. Assume that I, over a period of years, create an institute to teach guitar. It takes me a lot of time, money and effort, and is done with the aid of many people. In order to recoup my losses and in order to pay for the highest standards of tutelage, the costs are high. Does anyone have the right to complain? Nope. It’s my college and I can charge what I like. No-one has the right to free or cheap guitar tuition; it’s an exchange of money for a service. Even if education is a human right, is an exceptional education a human right? Grayling et al are trying to create extraordinarily high standards of service; costs will, correspondingly, be high.

Let’s make it even simpler. You go to Greggs (a bakery chain in the UK, not sure if it’s worldwide) and a cake is cheap. Got to Les Cakery de Pierre van de Gateaux, in Richtown, and a cake is expensive. But it will be a damn nice cake. Does anyone protest the fact that some cakes are too expensive for people to afford? Hell no. If a bunch of people decide to set up a private institution to offer a service, and the service is an elite one that cannot be sustained without high fees, how is it the right of poor people to demand the abolishment of same? At least it’s an institution devoted to the dissemination of knowledge, even if everyone can’t afford it. What the EAN are actually trying to do is reduce the number of educational establishments, on the grounds that they can’t afford them even though they have no right to expect to be able to afford them.

There was a Q&A at the end, but it seemed that the remaining protesters (many having been removed by police earlier) didn’t want to rush to the microphones, which you might have thought would be their purpose. Mainly they remained in their seats and heckled rather than taking the chance to directly converse with Dawkins on the subject.

Class act, guys.

For those of you who haven’t heard about this let me give you the thrust of the story. The UK Government is currently working on plans to have internet service providers block their customers’ access to pornographic material as a matter of course, the idea behind this being to protect children from “accidently” accessing mature websites. Now if the idea of going without internet porn makes your life seem barely worth living don’t worry as the Government include in the plan a way that you can still get your fix of Japanese anorexic vomit porn, all you need to do is phone up your ISP and ask them to grant you access. I am sure that won’t be too awkward.

Personally I have never been a big user of porn, however it is good to know that if I do have the urge to find out what two girls and a midget can do with a bucket of jelly and six foot of garden hose that the option is available to me without having to phone someone up and tell them about it first. Now obviously I am making light of this story but it does have serious implications. This is very much a case of the Government decided what people can and cannot view in the comfort of their own homes. Porn, except in specific cases, is not illegal and while I agree that there should be things in place to make it hard for children to access it should that really be the responsibility of the Government or should it rest on the shoulders of the individual parents?

Now there is obviously a long hard slippery slope argument that can be made here. Once the Government has blocked easy access to porn how long before they make it illegal to look at it at all. What other things might they decide should be blocked “for the sake of the children” once the ability to do so is in place? Who decides what constitutes porn anyway? After all one man’s porn is another man’s art.

I know this is a little off the usual topic of this blog but I think the heart of the story is very much League of Reason territory. This is censorship, this is telling people what they can and cannot look at, even when it is perfectly legal to do so, and it has implications far beyond what is being proposed. I would love to know your thoughts on this one. Am I overreacting here or am I right in viewing the Government as trying to bend us over and shaft us where it hurts?

PS. Th1sWasATriumph so should have written this post. My attempts to use innuendos pales in comparison to his mastery of the art.

I have lived through a decade of Ground Zero controversy. From the moment the dust settled, individuals and groups with political agendas descended on the wounded carcass of lower Manhattan, cutting out and dishing up great slabs of suffering to serve at the gluttonous feast of their ambitions.

“All of Ground Zero should be declared hallowed ground”, “The memorial in light should remain until the towers are rebuilt”, “it should be called the Freedom Tower”, “THIS tower design is a better memorial than that one”, “A design contest will show the true spirit of American freedom”, “The stairway to heaven can’t be moved, it would be disrespectful!”, “The beams that form a cross cannot be moved, God placed them there!”

It has gone on and on, year after year.

Politicians and activists stand in the shadow of the ruins, strike noble stances, bow their heads sorrowfully and then declare; “Vote for me! Support me!”

This is what angered me so much about Thunderf00t’s video. It was clearly yet another attempt to ride the emotional tide of Ground Zero.  The great Thunderf00t, long known as a scion of education, reason and logic on YouTube, had spoken out on the issue and had not addressed any of the real facts, had not applied his supposed keen, razor sharp intellect to the falsehoods and bigotry flying about; instead he had created a video that in my opinion, was total, absolute shit.  Like many others before him he had gone the base, common route of indulging himself in fallacy and hate at the expense of reason; at the expense of the people who call that neighborhood… “home”.

I won’t bother to repeat here any of the facts that destroy the many fallacious arguments against the Park 51 Center. But suffice it to say; there has not been a single “factual” argument put forward that has not turned out to be a lie – and in each case it was a lie that could be traced back to some Republican/neo-con right wing source.

I will address one argument that I keep hearing raised time and again.

“Why don’t they just place the Center somewhere else?”

This appeal to emotion, to supposed sensibility and rationality, is one of the most insidious arguments put forward. It totally ignores fact and reality, attempting to portray the opposing side as inconsiderate and unreasonable.

The Downtown Muslim community has existed since before the building of the World Trade Center. Since that time, it has grown. After 9/11, when businesses and families fled Downtown and moved elsewhere, the Muslim Community continued to grow. They are a part of Downtown. They live there, shop there, own businesses there, send their children to local schools. And they already have a mosque right there, a couple of blocks away, that has been there for years. It is now, however, too small for their community, insufficient for their needs in many ways, and needs to be replaced.

So I ask back to those who raise this question;

In a time when economic hardship is the norm, why should they NOT have their Center located where they live and work instead of at another location where the trip would cost them a few hundred dollars a month in transportation expenses not to mention an hour’s time round trip?

Why should they have to raise the additional funds to purchase a building at greater cost when they already have one?

Why should you, who have no connection to the area, with your offended sensibilities, based on your irrational emotional response, dictate how these people live their lives?
And why should the entire neighborhood, Muslim and non-Muslim, be denied the much-needed business and income that will result from the existence of the new community center?

September 11th has passed. On September 12th the politicians, the activists, the bloggers, the news sources put away their fiery rhetoric, set aside their somber expressions, wiped away their crocodile tears and for another ten months Ground Zero will be forgotten.  The tourists will still come in droves to view the site where one of the greatest tragedies in American history took place. But just blocks away, streets that were once teeming with pedestrians now contain only a ghost of that once busy traffic.  Businesses will continue to struggle. Some will survive. Others will not. Life in Downtown Manhattan will continue – Until next year, when some new controversy will be fabricated and the whole circus will begin again.

Someday, the Two Towers will stand again. But we must ask ourselves now;

“What do we want these Towers to mean?”

Do we wish them to be a symbol of the freedom and equality that we have always been told embody the American spirit?

Or do we wish to build an icon to the fear, bigotry and hatred that now dominate the American landscape?

This is TheTruePooka, writing to you from Hell’s Kitchen, NYC. And Remember; if you find these words upsetting; Pet the Cat.

“On September 11th, 2010, from 6pm – 9pm, we will burn the Koran on the property of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL in remembrance of the fallen victims of 9/11 and to stand against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil!”

As I write this the latest on this story seems to be that, after stating earlier that the event would be cancelled, Reverend Jones plans to “rethink” the idea after local Muslim leader Imam Muhammad Musri denied that any deal had been struck to move the proposed Park51 community centre away, sorry make that further away, from the Ground Zero site. Jones has stated that on Saturday, the day planned for the Koran burning, he will be travelling to New York to meet with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf about the proposed location of the centre. However it is unclear if the actual book burning part of his plan is back on or not.

Either way the reason I mention this is in order to draw attention to what I think is by far the best response to this proposed event that I have come across so far. International Read a Book Day. I love this idea, not just because I love reading anyway but because I feel it is exactly the sort of approach that should be taken against something stupid like Burn a Koran Day. It is a reasoned, measured reaction that clearly gets the point across, shows solidarity and respect for people who may believe differently than we do and promotes something constructive. What’s more is that the people behind this are Christians. Yup for once we see moderate Christians standing up against the more fundamental members of their religion. Here’s what Facebook page has to say on the matter:

“In July of this year, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida announced September 11 this year would be “Burn a Koran Day.” We believe that the burning of a Koran, or any other book, while it may be within the rights of free speech, is a tasteless and disturbing gesture that only communicates contempt and ignorance. Instead, we invite the international community to celebrate “Read a Book Day.” Burning books has never made a society better, but reading them has.”

So this September 11th I will be sitting down to read a book and remembering all those who died on that terrible day nine years ago. Will you join me?

Books, and their content, can challenge our political, religious, and moral sensibilities. Well written literature can change the ethical zeitgeist, inspire a revolution, and even start a new faith – 26 lead soldiers can indeed conquer the world. Because of this, books are often seen by current authorities as divisive and dangerous. If they cannot dispute or counter the ideas contained within, they will resort to destroying the method of propagation in order to prevent the spread of such thoughts. One of the earliest notable book-burning was carried out by the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang, who ordered all philosophy and history books from states other than Qin to be burned. Soon, dissenting scholars who refused to carry out the orders to destroy these important works were being buried alive. The main effect of this book-burning was the loss of the Hundred Schools of Thought which influenced Chinese life. After the persecution ended only the School of Scholars (Confucianism) and the School of Law retained a prominent position. Lost were the schools that focussed on empiricism, reason, and logic – potentially a great setback for the development of Chinese culture.

In 1478 the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, also known as the Spanish inquisition, was established. The aim of this inquisition was to hold trials for adherents of other faiths (Jews and Muslims) and attempt to convert them to Christianity. If they would not convert or agreed to conversion but were later caught taking part in religious rituals from their original faith, they were put to death. Eventually, the suspicion that Muslims were secretly practicing religious rituals led to the majority of them to be expelled from Spain. During the persecution, several religious books including the Koran were burned en masse. In this case, it was the competition of religious sensibilities which led to the attempted extermination of Muslim ideas. The German playwright Heinrich Heine wrote about the Spanish inquisition in the tragedy Almansor, in the mouth of a persecuted Muslim he puts the words “Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.” As burning books cannot completely eliminate an idea , authorities will eventually have to burn people to completely purge the threatening idea from society – and so it was during the inquisition of Spain. In a bit of black irony, Heine’s works were including amongst the Jewish, socialist, and dissident books burned by the Nazi’s in 1933. His quote from Almansor above is engraved on the ground at the site of the burning.

In the category of censorship in the name of moral outrage, nothing comes close to the bonfires of vanities which were especially common in Italy during the fifteenth century. In the most famous fire – lit by Savonarola in Florence – mirrors, statues, cosmetics, art, chess pieces, and lewd books were all burned to ashes. One book in particular was the Art of Love (Ars Amatoria) written by the Roman poet Ovid. The book contains advice on how to find women, seduce them, and then keep them from being stolen away. Savonarola, the theocratic ruler of Florence, decided that this work was too lascivious to be available to the public and so had Ovid’s book consigned to the flames. The bodies soon followed as acts of homosexuality, previously tolerated, became a crime punishable by execution. Many others were sent to the flames for their own acts of immorality. Savonarola was eventually burned to death himself after being excommunicated by the Pope. Ovid’s Art of Love must be particularly bad because further censorship occurred when US customs seized an English translation in the 1930s, almost two thousands years after it was originally written.

In modern times the 451°C threat appears less menacing. With the advent of mass printing and the spread of ebooks online eliminating ideas is much more difficult. However, book-burnings are still a powerful symbol in which various groups declare certain ideas are off-limits to society.  Today I learned that a Christian group, the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, is promoting September 11 as International Burn the Koran Day. Led by Fireman Terry Jones, the evangelical church plans to build a pyre of Korans and they hope their example will be copied around the world. Not much offends me, but I find book-burnings to be completely unacceptable no matter what book is being torched. Even more galling is the pastor’s comments that burning the Koran will give Muslims a chance to convert! This church is so bigoted that they see the Koran as a dangerous book that it needs to be destroyed before people have a chance to read it and are willing to use tactics reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition. They are the latest incarnation of a dangerous movement which seeks the destruction of our cultural and intellectual heritage, and as such they must be opposed. So this September 11, rather than burn a Koran I’m going to read one. Rather than attempting to eliminate certain ideas, I’m going to integrate them a little further into our collective society. Anyone interested in joining me?

Content owners who file copyright infringement notifications under the DMCA do so under penalty of perjury. When we receive a DMCA notification, we remove the posted video, send email to your registered address, and provide notice in your account. Sometimes individuals abuse the process, or are simply mistaken, because determining copyright ownership can be tricky. If you believe your content was misidentified as infringing or is a fair use, you may file a DMCA counter-notification.

“Woah! Slow the fork down! What does that mean?”

It means that when you try to get someone’s opinion removed, instead of constructing a mature response, said opinion will come back with force. There is no bullet to the head of popular internet content. It appears, it thrives, and if it suspiciously disappears, memefication occurs. Yes. Memefication.

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine

Many moons ago, a YouTube user named DannyMendlow posted a comical advertisement parody entitled “Religion!”. You can tell where this is going, can’t you? The video became hugely popular, making Pharyngula and other blogs if I recall correctly. I can’t remember exactly how long ago it was originally posted, but I’m willing to wager that it was quite some time as I’ve seen this video all over the place.

I’m sure most of you are familiar with Digg. It’s a website designed to direct people to popular internet content. By Digging something, you increase its ranking on Digg, increasing the likelihood that it will be brought to the attention of the Digg massive.

DannyMendlow’s video was Dugg (Digged?) to the extent that it reached the front page. Let me make this abundantly clear: that means the video in question was well liked by a large number of people, who felt that others should see it. By some magic shortly after its arrival on the front of Digg, the video was pulled by YouTube as being ‘inappropriate’. Stupidity abounds at the YouTube HQ (which I have on good authority is manned by a crack team of ducks) because the only thing inappropriate about the video is that it’s so depressingly true. Yesterday, DannyMendlow reposted the video for the first time, and in my opinion it deserves support. I urge you to head over and favourite/rate/comment the original. Oh, and why not Digg it too? Enjoy…

Unfortunately I have now revised my opinion, I think it is now correct to refer to atheist fundamentalism. It might not be strictly accurate, all the above applies, but I do think it is descriptive. I say this in light of a video I have just watched from Coughlan666. I’m not generally a Coughlan fan, his videos are not my cup of tea and I am not subbed to him. In fact I stumbled across his blogtv on one occasion and got booted out by him. So, credentials established, I’m not a Coughlan groupie.

In the video Coughlan reads out a number of messages he has received from atheists since he posted this video attacking Pat Condell, and quite frankly it’s disgusting. I’ll just quote a couple:

“Who the fuck is this junkie piece of shit, fuck off and die”
“You need help, you backstabbing piece of shit c**t”
“I’m from the UK, and one day I’ll find ya, and when I do I’ll slit your throat. Fuck off and die.”

Death threats? Backstabbing? These messages and threats show several things clearly. They show devotion towards youtube users, thunderf00t and Pat in this particular case. that looks very much like religious devotion to various godheads. They show a complete inability to empathise with another point of view. They show total disregard for another persons opinion and they show a complete inability to think rationally. They scream out lack of tolerance. Disagreement is fine, free speech is actively encouraged. But death threats because you don’t agree?

Incidentally, Pat has been on the receiving end of similar treatment since his video saying he was voting for UKIP. Indeed that was the reason Coughlan made his vid in the first place. Here’s Pat on the subject , so this isn’t all one way traffic. It seems that many commenters can’t deal with the fact that you might happen to disagree with them, but disagreement is not the subject here. Devotion to users is.

The devotion is not directed to the points those users raise, not to particular subjects or to particular videos, but rather to the users themselves. And the one thing that seems to unite these commenters is atheism. Atheism might be a lack of a position, but these people are united by that atheism. When/if fundamentalist behaviour emerges from that group I feel it is correct to call it atheist fundamentalism. The atheists making threats against the likes of Coughlan are guilty of the same crimes that they laud Thunderf00t and Pat Condell for fighting against.

There seems to be a notion amongst some that atheism implies rationality. We know that theism is irrational, but some commit a logical fallacy of presuming that the rejection of one irrational belief makes one a rational person. It does not, much as the holding of one irrational belief does not make one irrational.

I’ve never been a fan of the “atheist community”, a collection of individuals founded on a lack of belief. A much better notion would be the critical thinking community and indeed that is how I would refer to the League of Reason. If this episode is to teach us one thing I would argue it should be that the conclusions someone reaches, important though they may be, are only as valid as the process that the person went through in order to arrive at the position. Atheism might be the only rational position to hold, but you can hold the position for irrational reasons and it does not preclude you from being irrational and intolerant on all other issues. Atheism can, then, be irrational.

I must ask how one arrives at the conclusion that a death threat is an appropriate response towards someone who made a video, rude though it may have been, to disagree with a fellow video bloggers content? Which part of that can be considered reasonable behaviour? Do these people think themselves rational and reasonable? What do they hope to achieve, and how do they differ from fundamentalists of any other persuasion?

In my dealings with theists my ultimate goal is usually to free them from the stigma of religion, to free their minds from the controlling influence that is the doctrine of their own brand of faith. I have long been of the opinion that the best way to do this is to teach critical thinking. Rather than demonstrating the absurdity of the positions religion takes, I prefer to help the person come to that conclusion themself by getting them to address their own beliefs in an unbiased way. These events have only strengthened my conviction that this is the correct approach. The messages sent by atheists here shows clearly that atheism is by no means a guarantee of rationality and is evidently not a sign of tolerance. Atheism might be the rational position, but you do not have to be rational to be atheist. Teach rationality, teach critical thinking, teach tolerance.

I once read that the best advert for your own way of life is yourself. Live the way you would wish others to be. The backlash towards Coughlan for his video here has highlighted that a good number of atheists are not even close to critical thinkers, and has strengthened my view that a “conversion” to atheism should never be the goal when discussing religion with theists. A far more appropriate goal would be critical thinking, with atheism an emergent property.

Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

Note that this was posted in the context of the airport being closed before he was due to fly. It was not actually directed at the airport, but when found by an employee was reported to the police, who arrested him. He has been fined £1,000 and now has a criminal record. Ever the gentleman, Stephen Fry has offered to shout the fine, but the man’s life will almost certainly take an unnecessary dent* from this fiasco and I can’t help but wonder how the average British tax-payer feels, knowing how the justice budget is being spent.

I found the Judge’s words to be the most staggering part of the story:

A district judge ruled the Tweet was “of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live”.

Tell me, what isn’t menacing in the context of the times in which we live? Have we really made so little progress in our efforts to combat terrorism over the last decade? What good is an expensive ‘War on Terror’ abroad if we still live in terror at our computers?

More painful though, is the ironic reference to context. Since, in the context of the times in which we live, isn’t this OBVIOUSLY a joke?

Apparently not.

Click here to follow this news on Twitter.

*Update: It seems Paul was half-way through his accountancy qualification. The conviction will officially prevent him from graduating. That makes me a sad panda.

A Muslim woman has been fined for wearing a burka in a post office in Novara, Italy, after the mayor passed a law forbidding face-covering garb inside public buildings. Mayor Massimo Giordano could maybe be described as an Islamophobe, but as far as I’m concerned that’s like calling someone a murderophobe or a rapistophobe. It’s entirely rational to dislike or fear Islam, which makes it not a phobia but a very sensible intellectual stance.

Hands up who’s seen, in the UK (I can speak for no other country, being not well-travelled) signs in banks/shops/post offices etc forbidding the wearing of motorcycle helmets? Exactly; lots of ‘em. Seems sensible to me. You don’t want someone shotgunning a hole through the till and making off with the money whilst disguised. Even ignoring the implications that burkas hold regarding the rights of women in Islam, illegalising a clothing that makes identification near-impossible is an act of common sense. If the burka was outlawed in all public spaces I’d have pause for thought; I’d think it was a breach of personal rights if not for the fact that burka wearing is pretty much imposed either by a man or by indoctrination to the religion. 

And how have the Muslim couple in question reacted to this? Well, check this – when the woman (Amel Marmouri) was stopped by police, her husband (Ben Braim) wouldn’t let the burka be removed by male policemen. Presumably the sight of an unclothed face would have led to an instant and massive sexbrawl. 

Kind of proving my point that burkas are often imposed, Braim is quoted as saying “We knew about the law and I know that it’s not against my religion but now Amel will have to stay indoors. I can’t have other men looking at her.” 

Outstanding. He’d rather imprison his wife than allow her outside barefaced. That shows an admirable commitment to your faith, doesn’t it? It’s worth noting that Imam Izzedin Elzir, president of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said ” . . . we are against face veils or coverings in Italy because the law of recognition has to be observed.” So it’s not all bad . . . but does that mean that Muslim women in Italy are allowed out without a burka? Or does it mean they’re law-abidingly confined away from the gaze of other men? I hope, I really hope, that it’s the former.

As I anticipated would happen, Rabbitpirate beat me to laying the first League blogstone on the subject of Simon Singh and his sudden victory. Since I’m not a petty man/as good as Rabbitpirate, I’d love to see him do a longer musing on the subject without the dilution that my opinions would create. However I just wanted to highlight one thing.

Quoting from the BCA’s press release, “The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close. ”

Isn’t that beautiful? The legal equivalent of saying “I could smash your face in, I could . . . any time I wanted . . . only I’m not going to. Any time. But now I’m going home.” For “been advised there are strong grounds for appeal” read “quick, save face ANY WAY WE GODDAMN CAN.” And what’s the best way to save face? Lie. If there were truly strong grounds for appeal the BCA, an organisation that has happily made a decent, genuine, intelligent and (I’m fortunate to know this from personal experience) really lovely man suffer tremendously for years, would without hesitation appeal to continue. Of course they would. Singh said mean*, hurtful** and unfortunately absolutely true things about them so they responded with petty legality. If there was the slightest chance the case could be pursued, don’t you think the BCA would go for it? Just to hurt Simon? 

I love seeing people forced to back down after attempting to use laws to censor dissenting voices. We’ve all had our run-ins with DMCAs on Youtube, but Singh has become the poster boy for hope and reason against the odds. And as the BCA sidles grumbling into the shadows, we can only hope that libel laws everywhere face a swift dissolution.

Rabbitpirate? Over to you, sir.

* “You are all frauds”

** “Your mothers are ladies of questionable moral integrity”

While I had anticipated support and thanks from my fellow rationalists, I was surprised to see support from creationists too. It seems that FVH is a common ground for both sides: rationalists can use it as a resource for material to debunk (though, sadly, I have yet to see it used this way), and creationists have a source of entertainment.

So why do I spend my time and hard drive space on the opponents to rationality, freethinking, and science? The answer is simple: as long as FundieVideoHell exists, they cannot (or rather, shouldn’t) claim they are being censored by us. Well, at least they cannot claim all atheists are censoring them.

Now, I have, so far, done this entirely on my own resources. I enjoy finding out what is new and happening from the other side. But when I came across the brochure for the “2010 Creation Supercamp,” which is only a few hours drive away, I realized something. Something that deeply frightened me: I wanted to go to this conference. I want to film creationist conferences. But I also don’t want to be an e-begger like VenomFangX.

So I was wondering, should I start a PayPal so that I can take donations from those who are willing to support FundieVideoHell? And would you (the lucky readers) be able to spread the word about FVH? I think there may be creationists out there who would help support the spread of their message, both by word-of-mouth and monetarily.

This is not only great news for Simon but for those seeking to reform the draconian British libel laws in general. Because of the importance of the judges involved in this decision, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of Rolls and Sir Stephen Sedley, this ruling carries a lot of weight with it that could be used to help reform the current libel system, especially with regards to science and public health issues. But we still have a long way to go.

If you haven’t already get yourself over to the Libel Reform website and sign the petition to show your support. Even if you don’t live in the UK the British Libel laws still affect you as currently if anything you says can be accessed in the UK, which given the internet is pretty much a guarantee, then you can be sued under British libel laws. Scientists, and those of us who blog on science and public health issues, need to be able to present information that is in the public interest without fear of being sued by those who would rather the truth didn’t get out there. Right now the law is very much skewed in favour of those who would silence good science, but working together we can, and I have no doubt will, see this change in the very near future.

I’ll end with this great 1994 quote from Judge Easterbrook, chief judge of the US seventh circuit court of appeals, which is still spot on today. Easterbrook stated that those claiming they had been libelled:

“cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests.

“Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.”

I couldn’t agree more.

For those of you who don’t know, and I didn’t, Geert Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom, Holland’s fastest-growing political party that in just a few years has gone from having a single MP to the largest number of seats of any party in Holland. The party seeks to bring an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to what they perceive as the suborning of European values to Islamic ones. Whatever you think of his politics, and I am not sure I agree with everything he stands for, it is clear that he has struck a cord with the people of Holland. But now he is on trial, apparently as a result of a number of complaints made against him. And his crime:

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

Read that again. Yup he really is being charged with the crime of offending people. I for one didn’t realise that the right to not be offended actually existed as, had I known before, there are plenty of people I would have liked to level charges against. And for this terrible crime faces up to two years in prison. Seriously? But the craziness doesn’t end there. Part of the charge against him seems to revolve around his documentary film Fitna, a film that has already seen him barred entry to the UK by the Home Secretary. So what exactly makes this film so offensive that it would land a man in court?

Well the film, which if the link still works can be viewed on Youtube, features footage of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels as well as Muslims holding banners that say ‘God bless Hitler’. These things are indeed offensive and yet amazingly the Dutch courts seem to be viewing them as offensive to Muslims! The same goes for Wilders’ comments to the press about a recent spate of attacks on homosexual couples by Muslim youths from Morocco. There is offense to be taken here, but it should be targeted at the Moroccan boys carrying out the attacks and not at the guy bringing these attacks to the publics attention.

Which brings me to what I see as the most serious aspect of this whole affair. In court Wilders sort to defend his “offensive” comments by bringing in experts to show that every word he said was in fact true. The court has rejected 15 of the 18 witnesses he wished to call, making it near impossible for him to prove his case. As one of the prosecutors said:

“It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

Yup, apparently in this case the truth won’t set you free but it will get you up to two years in prison. If convicted this case could set a very worrying president. If the truth of the things you say is no longer considered a valid reason for saying them then that does not bode well for anyone. Everyone knows about the UK Libel laws that effectively allow people to silence the truth, but currently speaking the truth is not actually a crime. Cases such as this one could well change that.

Ps. Sorry for the rather rushed post, I haven’t proof read it as I was in a hurry. I hope it makes sense.

Arguments for:

The most obvious argument that springs to mind is one of security. Now I want to make it clear that I am not making a “all Muslims are terrorists” argument here and I do not in any way think that is the case. No, my argument is a simpler one than that. When you go to a supermarket such as Tesco they require that your face is visible. You can’t wear motorbike helmets, hoodies or Jedi robes. And yet an exception is made when it comes to the Muslim niqab. If there is a legitimate reason why facial coverings are not allowed in places like shops and banks then those reasons should apply to everyone, no matter the reasoning, religious or otherwise, behind the particular form of facial covering.

The wearing of niqabs and burkas clearly singles the wearer out as different and is a form of religious separation. Now while the members of the religion may see this as a good thing it does foster a “them and us” attitude on both sides. It also opens the way for religious discrimination, be it discrimination against those wearing the burkas or against women who refuse to do so or who do not belong to the Muslim religion.

It can be argued, and fairly legitimately I think, that burkas and the like discriminate against women directly for being women. The idea that it is some how the woman’s fault if men see a bit of leg and suddenly can’t control themselves and so rape her is only one example of the mind numbing “logic” behind the burka. The burka comes with all the baggage of a male dominated religion where women are seen as second class citizens and as the properties of the men in their lives. Being made to cover themselves lest they inflame the lust of a passing man and to show that they are subservient to their uncovered male counterparts is a clear and obvious form of sexual discrimination and oppression.

Arguments against:

It can, again I think legitimately, be argued that banning the burka is itself a form of religious discrimination. Why single out this one public display of religious belief? Are they planning on banning Sikhs from wearing their own distinct head gear? How about Christians who proudly flaunt crosses and “Jesus loves You” t-shirts? In France they banned Muslim headscarves and other “conspicuous” religious symbols from being worn at state schools. If there is a plan to ban religious clothing in this country should it not be equally all encompassing?

Some women like wearing them. Many Muslim women say that wearing a burka makes them feel closer to their God and gives them a sense of belonging that they do not have otherwise. Is it not equally a form of discrimination to tell these women that they can’t wear something that is, while not to many of our tastes, not directly offensive and in which they feel comfortable?

Are the reasons we have for wanting them banned truly justifiable or is it just an extension of the western world’s general discomfort regarding anything Muslim? I have no problem admitting that the fact that I personally find burkas and especially nigabs unattractive and somewhat sinister is in no way a good reason to have them banned. Just because many other people may share this feeling with me doesn’t make the reasoning behind it any more valid.

So there you go, let me know which side you come down and if you have any better arguments either for or against.

Of course no sane person would see Westergaard as the bad guy in this story or the attack on him as justified…would they? Enter Nancy Graham Holm and her article at The Guardian Online website.

The title of the piece tells you everything you need to know.

Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

Publishing Kurt Westergaard’s cartoon was an aggressive act born of Denmark’s reluctance to respect religious belief

Yup, according to Nancy someone trying to brutally murder Westergaard with an axe is entirely the cartoonists own fault for not showing adequate deference to religion. In short, he had it coming. But it would be foolish to place all the blame for such an act upon the victim himself, surely some of it must lay else where. On this point Nancy agrees.

Muslims failed to see Westergaard’s cartoon as satire. Instead, they saw in it a defamatory and humiliating message: Muslims are terrorists. Humiliation is a devastating feeling. But most people who are insulted will accept an apology. If an apology had been forthcoming from the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that probably would have been the end to it – but none came, and the humiliation was compounded.

Ah yes that’s better. Place the blame for the attack, as well as all the riots and embassy burnings that followed in the wake of the cartoons initial publication, on the Danish Prime Minister. But why should anyone, let alone the Prime Minister, have apologised? Now I will even agree that it is possible to argue that many of the cartoons were in poor taste, but be that as it may it is hard to claim, based upon the some what ironic reaction to them alone, that they were not accurate. The message was clear, from both sides of the aisles, if you challenge Islam then you can expect violent reactions from the extremists. But does this mean we should just keep quiet about it? Of course not. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that people don’t want to hear and if you say that Islam promotes violence and the claim is responded to with violence then, well, I kind of think you have proven your point. Unsurprisingly Nancy doesn’t see it that way.

Danes fail to perceive the fact that they have developed a society deeply suspicious of religion. This is the real issue between Denmark and Muslim extremists, not freedom of speech. The free society precept is merely an attempt to give the perpetrators the moral high ground when actually it is a smokescreen for a deeply rooted prejudice, not against Muslims, but against religion per se. Muslims are in love with their faith. And many Danes are suspicious of anyone who loves religion.

And why the hell shouldn’t they be? You only have to look back at the news over the last few months of 2009 to see the sort of damage being done around the world in the name of religion. Two immediate examples spring to mind. The Pope’s comments about condoms spreading AIDS during his visit to Africa and, more recently, the attempt in Uganda to implement the death penalty for homosexuals spurred on by fundamentalist Christians in America. Are these things also the result of a lack of respect for religion or are they what happens when religions, driven by ideology rather than evidence and reason, gain too much power?

I’d like to think I was misreading this article and thus over reacting to it. However, judging for the comments, it seems that I am not the only one who feels that Nancy’s take on the matter is, to put it mildly, skewed. She ends with perhaps the most, if not the only, truly accurate statement in the entire pieces. I can’t help but picture her grinning with delight as she wrote these words.

This time, Westergaard’s attacker was caught – but someone else is out there waiting for an opportunity to strike again.

Because to Nancy, it seems, if you speak out against religion and fail to show it respect, well, then you deserve everything that’s coming to you. I am sure I am not the only one that feels that people like Nancy are just as much part of the problem as the people they seek to unjustly defend.

Sadly, something awful, just… shameful and absurd has happened in Ireland today, and our Irish friends who wish to live in the year 2010 are now in a battle for their freedom of speech, which has been dealt a critical blow by censorship-loving religious tyrants, completely out of touch with the prerequisites for a fair society.

The following article, by Michael Nugent, is reposted from blasphemy.ie – an excellent blog documenting and opposing blasphemy laws. Bloggers are invited and positively encouraged to spread it far and wide. You can read it here, or click on the title to go straight to the original post.

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

As you no doubt know the libel laws in the UK are a joke. Not only are they around 150 times more expensive than else where in Europe but, unlike most laws, they also seem to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis. Combine this with the fact that the UK libel laws can be brought to bare against anyone anywhere in the world if the thing they are commenting on has so much as looked in the general direction of the UK and you have a pretty effective tool for people of questionable scruples to use for silencing those who, often quiet legitimately, speak out against them. No where are these issues clearer than with regards to skeptical hero Simon Singh and his on going battle against the forces of evil the British Chiropractic Association.

With these problems in mind the people behind Sense About Science have launched The Libel Reform Campaign. The idea behind this campaign is to, unsurprisingly, get the UK libel laws reformed to not only bring the cost down but to stop them being used as a weapon by people world wide whose arguments have trouble standing up to the light of day.

Now I know that some times things like this can seem as though they really don’t have anything to do with our daily lives. However if you are reading this then there is a good chance that, like the rest of us at the League of Reason, you have strong opinions and like to express them, you care about free speech and, possibly most importantly, place high a value on the truth. The UK libel laws in their current form threaten all of these things. The high price and misplaced burden of proof mean that people often self censor regarding issues that we, as the general public, need to know about. If an organisation, rather than demonstrating the safety and efficacy of their product, can simply threaten with libel and thus scare into silence those who would speak out against them then we all suffer. Dangerous and ineffective products make their way onto the market place while the voices of reason remain in hiding for fear of draconian laws and mammoth legal bills.

As a skeptic and someone who blogs sometimes about controversial issues, and is therefore putting myself, as all of you who blog do, in the position where I may fall victim to these laws, this is something that I worry about. Unlike Simon Singh I really don’t have the money to fight a libel case and as such am left with the choices of immediately backing down to any challenge or enacting a form of self censorship in everything I write. As someone who cares about free speech I don’t like that these are really my only options.

So by now I am sure you are asking yourself what you can do to help? Well you can start by signing this online petition and then dropping and email to your local MP, and don’t worry the website will even write the thing and find the correct MP for you. Isn’t that nice. Together we can make a difference and already the Lib Dems have said they will make libel reform a major issue for their party in the next general elections. But what we need is to get all the political parties involved and a firm commitment form them to do something about this. And remember this affects those of you living outside the UK as well as currently the UK libel laws can be brought to bare on you as well. So sign that petition now nag damn it.

For more information on the history of Simon Singh’s case and the problems with UK libel law then check out Crispian Jago’s excellent Ladybird Book of Chiropractic Treatment & English Libel Law.

But, surprise surprise, it appears that the Catholic Church can’t see the funny side and have condemned the billboard as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful“. Ok, so I kinda get that but I have to say that the main complaint they are making really doesn’t make any sense to me. Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, made this rather confusing comment:

“Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph,”

I…well I don’t really know what to say to that other than that Ms Freer obviously doesn’t get it. The billboard is clearly implying that Joseph is getting himself some immaculate ass after God had already been there and as such in no way suggests that Joseph was the father of Jesus and not the big guy. Also this idea that “Mary remains a virgin” confuses me. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had siblings and yet the Catholic Church seem to have this weird idea that Mary somehow remained a virgin for these pregnancies as well, or am I missing something here?

Either way this is yet another example of good Christians and their aversion to free speech. Nothing too shocking or original there, it just made me smile.