Destruction of an Atheist - Alexander Aan

Alexander Aan a young Indonesian civil servant and atheist is now a criminal against the Indonesian state, gaoled for "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility". Attacks on Aan (prior his arrest) by residents from the mainly Muslim province where he lived were proof of his causing unrest in the general population. The greater charges of religious blasphemy and attempting to convert others to atheism were dropped. 
In gaol beaten and tortured he reportedly rediscovered Islam and in his court statement expressed his regret and "prayed for God's mercy".1

Dharmasraya Regent Adi Gunawan at the time of the arrest is reported to have told Aan "there was place in this country for his beliefs [atheism]" Regent Gunawan in addition assured that he had not found any other atheists who were employees of the civil service in his region. However he came to volunteer this information its meaning is fairly clear, he was concern to look for more atheists to charge.2 If Aan was going to receive significant support from within his own country this type of veiled threat would have quashed any chance of its emergence. His case is particularly tragic in that context alone, abandoned and at the mercy of an intolerant system within your own homeland.

Aan's unfortunate circumstance is to be a citizen of Islamic Indonesia which shows no tolerance for atheists as his example demonstrates and though it may claim otherwise is intolerant of other religions.3

In an earlier post I charge religions with misanthropy. The example of Aan is of a young man asking reasonable questions across social media, attempting to interact and create a discourse. For his questioning he is beaten and his enquiring mind and freedom of choice and ideas is destroyed by a religion which has control over the state.

consequences (detail)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Aan

2. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/01/20/atheist-civil-servant-arrested-blasphemy.html

3. as a compilation sample

Blasphemy Laws, Atheism and Offending Religion

Australia's leading human rights organisation HREOC at the behest of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) decided along with a whole bunch of others that we needed more laws, and internationally binding ones, to protect religion from criticism by enshrining such law into the charter and covenants of the UN. It was yet another attempt by the OIC to implement blasphemy laws internationally through a UN resolution so as to make it an offence to offend religion specifically to combat, what they term as being, "Islamaphobia". The first time was in 1999 and the latest push beginning in 2007 was fortunately again unsuccessful in 2011 but another attempt is being made.

The primary aim for the proposed resolution was to specifically enact through jointly agreed international law the prohibition of defamation of religion, limiting comment on religion to that being of a positive nature only. To negatively critique or offend religion, primarily Islam, was to be deemed an offence, internationally. It was correctly defeated but they'd gotten closer on this second occasion. It is troubling that organisations such as HREOC cannot perceive the actual threat to human rights the implementing of such laws would be. Some of the major problems are that it would equate attributes held by an individual, such as race,  physicality or gender with organisations or concepts and ideas such as that of a religion. Ideas and therefore religions cannot be defamed through debate, criticism, through not "believing" them, through not accepting them and/or choosing to follow another religion. Neither is it the case that race can be assigned to a religion. Many followers of a particular religion may be of one particular dominant race (many are not) but religions are inherently multiracial. So how is that so many consider it or entertain the idea that it is racist to critique religion, in particular Islam? Race and physicality, including gender are protected attributes in sections of law designed to protect an individual from attack and persecution on this level. It is not permitted to discriminate based upon a protected attribute. Essentially the OIC and human rights bodies like HREOC are saying religion should be a protected attribute. In modelling the law along the lines of Defamation we have a way to cease any criticism of religion through an individual's right to access that law and claim the offence as being an attack on their person and religion as a protected attribute.

Baleful Worship - Submission (detail)

Taking this further to its logical conclusion if we allow for a world where there exists the prohibition of defamation of religion one can outlaw any and all unendorsed religion, commentary of any kind on religion other than by experts in scripture, other beliefs, and of course this makes atheism completely illegal. Atheism and atheists can by their existence be viewed offensive to the religious.

As what is considered non-defamatory commentary by one person, country, religion can subjectively be determined to be offensively defamatory by another person, country, religion how such laws might operate on an international or local scale other than in dictatorial or tyrannical terms makes one wonder about its proponent's ultimate aims and thinking. Clearly the State (international community?) would need to dictate the definition of what might be deemed permitted or offensive in law and by extension what religion/s were permitted or offensive in law. The result would be that the State (international community) would need to enact as law the legally recognised religion/s of the land (or planet) otherwise people might accidentally offend by not belonging to the endorsed religion/s. Further to this by not belonging to an endorsed religion or by being atheist one will have offended not only religion at this point but will have also offended the State and will need to answer not only for having blasphemed religion but having committed sedition for being anti-the-state by being irreligious. Not such an inconceivable result.

In Defamation Law an aggrieved party only needs to state they are aggrieved to have been defamed. Religious vilification laws have worked similarly. The religious perceived a threat and felt aggrieved and so are defamed by an act, a comment or reference made about their religion or religious convictions. Framed to mirror Defamation law the UN proposition to enact defamation of religion laws stinks not only of the most sinister form of censorship but by extension in addition the proposed abolishing of an individual's right to freedom of thought, ideas and expression. In the Australian State of Victoria, we already have an introduction of such limitations in the form of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, introduced by the Bracks Labor government in 2001

The Victorian Act was used in the now notorious Catch the Fire Ministry case (this link to Saltshakers blog has an excellent brief synopsis of the case and the ultimate outcome for the parties). The outcome, following a successful appeal by the defendants and instruction to have the case reheard, was arrived at during a fresh Mediation Hearing, with both parties agreeing that robust debate on religion was permissible.  This is just a mediated agreement between two parties though. It means nothing in terms of the potential for the further use of this deeply flawed law. This law has gouged a deep trench through freedoms of all Victorians and attempts are being made to deepen and make this trench wider and permanent by using it as a model to pursue changes in the UN.

The Catch the Fire case took 5 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend and presumably prosecute. The rational for which is overtly clear, protect religion from all forms of criticism and in particular the religion of Islam.

The right to pursue a religion must never entail that your religion or your conviction for it are exempted from examination, discussion and criticism by others. It is heartening the UN committee concluded

"48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.115"
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - General Comment No 34

The OIC will however continue to push their particular agenda to prevent criticism of Islam at the UN on an annual basis.

Bite your tongue and trade in your freedom

Freedom II

Three months ago in Jerusalem, Pediatrician Dr Channa Maayan "bit her tongue" when told a male colleague would have to accept for her an award for her publication and work advancing knowledge on hereditary diseases common to Jews. The acting Israeli Health Minister decreed the event would be conducted under strict ultra orthodox conditions. Women and men in the audience, male and female guests were segregated, no women were allowed on stage. 

For a secular democracy such an occurrence lead by a member of parliament is a disaster. The New York Times article goes on to state many have not kept quiet (Dr Maayan would have been unprepared all she could have done is leave) and the backlash internally within Israel is building momentum but will it be able to resist what is a strong and increasingly belligerent religious orthodoxy? Recently in January 2012 at a conference on “Innovations in Gynecology/Obstetrics and Halacha [Jewish law]” all women were banned from speaking and the audience segregated on gender. In addition there are "rules for playing Kosher Music" and a "black list of non-Kosher music" controlled by a religious committee.

These very public examples of ultra orthodox interference in Israeli public and political life demonstrate Israel is a secular democracy under stress from internal religious fundamentalism.

Concessions have been made by successive Israeli governments to either, at worst, simply win votes from this growing community sector or, at best, to demonstrate an altruistic tolerance. Which is not an exclusive Israeli mistake as even in Williamsburg, Brooklyn Hasidic leaders complaining women who ride bikes represent a "safety and religious hazard" were appeased. If mostly as an attempt to be inclusive and tolerant it seems it, appeasement and concession  isn't a success particularly as the examples above demonstrate it requires that  the human rights of others are detrimentally affected. In Israel not only is this ultra-orthodox section of the community becoming more intolerant of its internal neighbors it is doing so whilst ignoring the external equally intolerant religious forces attempting to annihilate them and their fellow countrymen and women. As a community within Israel they are purportedly an overrepresented drain on the social welfare system. Though the women generally do work, amongst males there is high unemployment as they are permitted by their community and their state to focus upon study of the Torah rather than gainful employment, joining the army, learning other skills or pursuing education other than for advancing their religion and knowledge of it. The only productivity of note from the community it seems is it's high birth rate, which, if nothing else changes will only increase the stress on the already stretched social sector a worrisome fact for the future of Israel. 

It begs the question what is wrong with religions where it is the case that for it to be practiced human dignity, freedom and advancement, must be subsumed and suffer reversals? Separation of religion and state is the cornerstone of successful secular democracy. Without it we would be required to weigh all matters in the context of all religious edicts/laws/conventions.

Orthodox Judaism and Islam particularly have problems operating within a secular democratic context, one that separates the Church and State. Each it seems desire or demand they have access to their own religious courts. Each particularly are at pains to control female believers (and those who simply cannot escape) by strictly regulating their conduct within the community confines and outside it. Female believers are 'confined'; in dress, education, work, social connections, marriage, sexual activity and procreation functions, behavior and social position all aspects are controlled and monitored with zeal. It is a zeal supported by the religious texts which focus upon the female as a sexual possession, a commodity as a wife, booty in war or acquisition to trade family reputation or wealth upon(1). Whether we reside by fortune in a secular democracy or not this is profoundly illegitimate to be continued and considered acceptable 'cultural' or religious practice. It is a denial of an individual's right to free-expression, free-association and self-determination. These are human rights abuses so we do not bite our tongues, as these abuses should never be tolerated within any secular democracy.

If freedom is the first casualty of religious rule then soon to follow is dignity, then imagination and finally concept of mind in the Platonic sense. Human nature embraces spirituality in our thoughts, concepts and metaphors (imagination) and we use reason with which to find structure and meaning within our physical world and attempt to understand the unknown. This is what religious law rejects. 

Crazy religious zealots bent on the implementation of religious law have little regard for human advancement and are destroyers of human dignity, just ask the 8 year old Israeli girl harassed and spat upon by Ultra Orthodox male Jews because they found her child's attire religiously offensive. Other women had reported similar treatment for a few years now but the child's report produced the overdue community outcry.

So, perhaps the paragraph above should begin …"If female freedom is the first casualty of religious rule…". 

As the referenced articles demonstrate Ultra Orthodox Jews ban women from public participation, denounce them publicly for religious transgression, and further to this enforce segregation within and without the synagogue. It is the imposition of Halacha or Halakha, Jewish law, upon a society built around secular democratic principles.  Similarly Islam is intent upon its own religious laws taking precedence with a push to introduce Sharia Law into UK family courts. Equitable pluralist secular rule of law, where all rights regardless of gender are weighed, is viewed as inferior if not blasphemous. Males have greater worth than females is what this religious message very loudly declares. 

Remaining silent for fear of backlash or causing offence isn't an option, biting your tongue to demonstrate tolerance of another way when it impinges upon your own rights and freedoms isn't an option. 

Women and men who enjoy freedom and human dignity with equal justice must be outspoken in defense of it, as they are free to do so. 

Notes:

1. Torah (Old Testament) Deuteronomy: 20.10-18; 21.10-13; 25.5-10; 31.17-18…

    Koran: The Merciful 55.46-58, 44.54-56; The Cow 2.223, 2.228; The Believers 23.1-3; The Confederate Tribes

33.49-51

Article Link Sources:

www.theglobeandmail.com

www.nytimes.com

www.bbc.co.uk

http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum

http://news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com