Attempting the Destruction of the Secular Muse

"Attempting the Destruction of the Secular Muse" is the large painting shown on the left as displayed in Vakras and Raymond's Humanist Transhumanist Exhibition at the now defunct Guildford Lane Gallery in Melbourne, 2009

The subject matter of the large painting on the left was claimed by gallery owner Robert Cripps to be "racist". On this basis Cripps determined the entire exhibition racist. But it was this work in particular that had him agitated to loudly proclaim his determination of racism. So much so that Disclaimers of Liability were posted by him through out the exhibit. The painting depicts a secular "muse" in a land assailed by and caught up in a devastating destruction wrought by religious violence. In the case of this work the religion assailing the "secular muse" is Islam. Verses quoted from the Koran support and underpin the argument that this religion seeks to justify and exhort followers into committing violent acts in its name. Quotes from the Bible were used to show how that religion's text exhorts violent acts in its name. To emphasise the point, other works in the same exhibition were similarly critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism for their use of doctrine to support destructive violence to achieve religious conformity and override freedom of individuality and equality of human rights. The symbolism was lost on this Gallery manager who's reaction remained vitriolic and aggressive no matter how reasoned the arguments proffered to explain what should have been unnecessary. It isn't racist to criticise Islam.

In explaining his work Vakras states:  

"The premise behind many of my works in this exhibition was the condemnation of religion-incited violence, and religion-incited racism. My works specifically condemn the 4 'montheisms': Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, whose religious doctrines demand that their followers commit murder as an act of piety on behalf of their respective faiths." 

So is it hypocritical then that this newspaper article was posted on the FaceBook page of Robert Cripps' new venture Ruby's Music Room?

Full article: Mali and me | The Australian

From this article: 

"ethnic Tuareg rebels in the north of the country ...hijacked by radical Islamists with links to al-Qa'ida.. [means that] within months hotels and bars will close, livelihoods will be taken away, and the application of a strict form of sharia law in northern Mali will almost silence the music."

To put it bluntly: Islamic Sharia law is antithetic to and destructive of cultural pursuits such as music, and will persecute those who perform the art form. Mali's musicians had to hastily flee Mali to escape persecution if not certain death.

Oh the irony.
To begin, the word music, is the Greek μουσική, which itself is derived from the μούσες: muses.

What is lost on this gallery director is that the very verses from the Koran, which he said it was racist to quote, are law, each and every one of them. In addition, these laws are augmented with the sayings and deeds of Mohammed. These deeds were recorded from 150-200 years after Mohammed died and are the "Hadith".

The Hadith - which were not quoted in the exhibition - are frightening. A Hadith on music proclaims:

"From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful...Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection."

(Abu Dawud Book 036, Hadith Number 4909)

And in Mali pious observers of Islam set out to destroy people and culture following the law of Islam, what is written in the Koran and in the Hadith. In this instance Islam is to be condemned?

How is this different to what Vakras wrote criticising Koranic-based law, Sharia? Why is one racist and the other human rights approved?

Such hypocrisy deserves exposure. 

This blog post is brought to you by the "Sued": Lee-Anne Raymond and Demetrios Vakras

International Women's Day in Russia 2013

"The curators of the exhibition explained that any mention of Pussy Riot is dangerous today."

victoria-lomaskos-pussy-riot-drawings-censored-from-feminist-exhibition

Interesting for a few reasons. Art censorship thrives, art that is political is rejected, art that is challenging of society is dangerous, in other words art must not exceed certain boundaries in holding a mirror up to convention because convention can be ugly and shamed by its own visage. And finally worth noting is how the Curator and Assistant Curator operated in unison to discredit the artist here. Liars and cowards will stick together no matter the context.

Read and learn more about Victoria Lomaskos' work here http://chtodelat.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/victoria-lomasko

Victoria Lomasko, with works from her and Anton Nikolaev’s series Tagansky Justice, at the exhibition of Kandinsky Prize nominees, 2010. Photo by Vlad Chizhenkov

Petition calling for Defamation Law Reform in Australia

think, speak, see, hear no evil

This petition that I am a co-author to aims to highlight the problems with and required remedies needed for the reform of defamation law in Australia. 

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-hon-mark-dreyfus-qc-mp-amend-the-australian-defamation-act-2005

My co-author and I draw on our real experiences. We think the debacle we have endured should not be endured by others but know it will continue to happen over and over as long as truth merely limits punishment for having defamed. Truth needs to be central whereas as it now stands truth can only form part of the justification to defame. In our petition we argue that if truth is demonstrated there can be no defamation. Truth is not capable of defaming. Due to how it is currently framed defamation law can be labelled a censorship law. Because it limits, if not severely impedes, the ability to receive and impart information. 

The following characteristics of defamation law reveal it is the intention to censor: 

1. to confirm truth of what was imparted admits guilt, that defamation has occurred;
2. that truth is only a defence which may or may not limit damages a defendant will be liable for;
3. truth is characterised as harmful and only available as justification; 
4. that a claimant need only state they are aggrieved to be defamed by what was imparted, truth;
5. that fear of expensive litigation inspires self-censorship if not a complete chilling of speech;
6. that defamation law is so expensive this deliberately limits its access to wealthy litigants;
7. that wealthy litigants with an interest to conceal truth will use the cost of litigation to deter defendants with lesser financial means;
8. that the law due to its expense and further financial punishments act as a standing deterrent and threat for plaintiffs to unfairly influence (coerce) legitimate defendants into backing down;

I could go on...

How is it that the law is framed in such a manner that it so limits the freedom to receive and impart information for fear one may be sued and delivered into financial ruin? As it is close to doing to us.

Freedom to impart information comes with responsibility but our laws should not be framed so as to shoot the messenger for imparting truth. This is Australia not medieval Britain. Australian freedoms and rights to receive and impart information are at stake here. This law looks backwards to outdated concepts of Lèse-majesté. Retaining such antiquated conventions only drives us further backwards in our thinking and behaviour. It is a diabolical manifestation of the cultural cringe in action. 
Time to step up and away from the UK. 

Free art ?



Number 1 according to ArtReview
Photograph: Uwe Zucchi/dpa/Corbis

FREE art doesn't exist despite that art curators like Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev (left) will chortle with her cronies about how it is the accepted expectation. And, as it appears, all artists no matter how well known, established and collected by institutions they may become they are still seen as the most inconvenient aspect of putting on an art show because horror of horrors they too expect to be paid for their efforts/work/ideas/expertise. 

 

These fashionable elite who laughalong with her about how the participating artists (to paraphrase) don't need to be paid because their work is being used and featured in the show, are no more than art and idea thieves aimed at benefiting their own aggrandisement and commercial targets, mere promoters of their exclusive and stylish events.

 

They believe, and will have us all agree, that artists are grateful to have been chosen and will be happy for the thin air of acknowledgement alone. Acknowledgement is a given, it is illegal not to do so and it essentially costs nothing. What a boon for the artist, congratulations Carolyn et al.

See what you think, the video goes for a couple of minutes, funny and insightful stuff by W.A.G.E 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A7OrU6qZkOs?rel=0

 

The problem for artists, from the dizzying heights of the world of Art Museum's to the lowly self-funded exhibitor is it is the over-whelming expectation that artists thrive on the concept of their poverty - this is the corollary of the silly idea that all they need is recognition. Well, no that is incorrect. Art is not a charity. Art costs money to produce, in time and materials and it also costs in terms of idea. The thought that goes into the production of innovative skilled art, that changes or challenges our thinking, costs the artists and benefits the culture into which it emerges.

 

It is an extraordinary experience to receive adequate recompense, for most artists. For most this will remain a dream, never a true reality, but to actively reinforce as accepted practice the non-compensation of artists for their time, efforts, ideas and work, because these "masters" (who know better) think that we artists (servants) will be happy with recognition alone, is deliberately self-deluding, deceitful, cheap and unsustainable. 

 

But then perhaps this is because it is not about Art (skill, ideas, drama, innovation, human endeavor and excellence) at all? 

Society pays gladly for ephemeral experience and products possessing the life span of flavoured chewing gum but balks at the real cost of art. Artists need to be paid as is the expectation of any other professional. Most artists cannot eek out any living based upon what they earn from their work, to try to do so would mean living below the poverty line. Very few artists come from privilege and connection so they have to try to make it alone. It usually means some brilliant art and artists are never recognised for what they bring to the world - and for the most part it seems with the expectation that it is created for free use. How very altruistic of the artist, so that the public can have free visual experiences or cheap entertainment whilst the organisers of events and the politicians and eminent persons funding the institutions receive the recognition, kudos and commercial gain.

 

This is not a new refrain but one now with an up to date reference point for protest - see link above. Thanks to W.A.G.E. for shining a light on the pretty crap attitudes and expectations of our world top 100 arts/cultural elite.

 

The subject/s who inspired W.A.G.E are according to ArtReview the top 100 most influential power

elite of the art world. 

 

http://www.complex.com/art-design/2012/10/artreview-releases-power-100-list-for-2012

World Hijab Day founder asks The Sisterhood to support gender discrimination

Addenda - 3 Feb 2013
Meanwhile in now liberated Mali - "Inside, the floor is littered with documents, including a ring-binder with details of women flogged for not wearing the veil. Family members were made to put a thumbprint to show they acknowledged the punishment and would supervise the accused in future." The Guardian 

"I figured the only way to end discrimination if we ask our fellow sisters to experience hijab themselves”

World Hijab day founderNazma KhanIn fact what Khan is asking is for all women to participate in an event that promotes arguments that legitimise the sexual discrimination of women by Islam. It is a call to demonstrate for "tolerance" unlike any other and it smacks of stark contradiction. What is discrimination if we support that woman should be separated and concealed due to their gender? What is tolerance if we must mimic and embrace such conduct in order to show tolerance of what is arguably intolerance of and by gender? The World Hijab Day website claims "Better Awareness. Greater Understanding. Peaceful world." It is "fun and challenging" to ask someone who doesn't wear a hijab to jump on board for the good of tolerance and world peace. I do not think world peace rides on one aspect of the Muslim dress code for women but the world would be a better place if religions like Islam were better aware of and understood the meaning of women's equality and human rights generally.There is no "World Nun's Habit Day" or "World Tibetan Monk Attire Day" or "World long-sleeves Orthodox Jew Day" no "Men Wear a Burqua for the Day"…day! Any similar calls from other religious groups and or the unlikely call for men to wear "veiled" garments would be just as inappropriate as our subject. World Hijab Day (as with any of these other suggestions) flies in the face of reason and the facts. Why? Because these garments have a very specific meaning and symbolism. It is "just about modesty" as a wearer assures. And, so what of women who do not wear it? Are they therefore immodest and how far do we go to establish this desirable status of modesty? A Christian Nun takes a vow of celibacy, is effectively married to God, and wears a Habit to establish this fact before the world. She becomes a handmaiden to God and renounces sex. In contrast a Muslim woman's veil represents her status sexually and that she is sexual property unavailable to anyone other than the man to whom she is married or intended to marry. The practical and symbolic purpose of the veil is to conceal and send a message. Islam demands that female followers conceal themselves in public and in some countries this must be performed completely as with the Burqua. A woman may as well wear a placard warning that she is a woman and is the sexual property of a man. The veil ensures her status as sexual property is advertised. A participant of World Hijab Day Jess Rhodes (she is non-Muslim) explains in her view the Hijab is a "choice" and that she will "wear it from time to time…I'm saying to the world, my beauty is for my family and my partner. Any woman can wear this."Rhodes should understand this is not fun and games dress ups to be followed at a whim or by choice. A practicing Muslim women cannot view the Burqua as something to throw on or decline to wear when and where she may decide. Her particular Islamic upbringing and community decide whether she wears the Hijab or Burqua. Rhodes gets one aspect correct in her statement, the attire is to conceal her "beauty", as she puts it. From whom does she mean though and why would she need to do so? 

Islam too accepts the "veil", the "hijab", the "burqua", are to conceal a womans "beauty". This beauty is to be concealed not from other women nor other people generally, the concealment is of her sexuality specifically from the observation of men. There is the by-product character endorsement of the woman for wearing the correct veil through her community's approval. She is good because she demonstrates she is "modest". The opinion of one's community of an individual is important to some and it determines one's good standing within it. So by complying with the requirement for public concealment, due to her sex, by upholding her religious community's standards she will enhance her status by conforming to what is the standard for a female in Islam. How this translates into a form of choice and act of free will for Muslim women is obscure. 

Muslim women in 2010 protesting against calls to ban the Burqua with a slightly skewed additional message - The placard on the left reads "You Burn 'Quran'…You Burn in Hell! United in Islam we Stand!!!" - Very colourful and on message. (my caption)
Pictures: Amos Aikman Source: The Australian

The World Hijab Day organiser Nazma Khan asks that we normalise the wearing of the hijab, its intended purpose, and its symbolism. Whatever our faith or lack of faith she asks all women to wear it in protest against intolerance. She fails to see her own contradiction. It is intolerance that requires any woman must wear additional concealing garments because she is female and must keep her "beauty" hidden for the eyes of her male partner and family alone. What ever the style of "veiling" of a women, from the hijab to the burqua, it means that women are the sexual property of a man and not to wear it demonstrates "immodesty". With this logic it is no leap of faith to conclude Islam prefers all women comply with its codes of dress and conduct for women. 

If Helen Szoke, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner had her way we would not speak of such things at all. Because raising the issue "threatened the safety of Muslim women". Well that's that then, we mustn't discuss it, acknowledge it, critique it or we are risking the lives of Muslim women. She does allow that everyone is entitled their "opinion"…I think she means ideas…but that they just must not voice it. Szoke determines opposition to veiling of women to be opinion. It is a fact that women are required in Islamic communities to wear a form of "veil" that they have little choice in the matter and not to do so separates them from the community and labels them immodest. It is not my opinion that this is the opposite of tolerance and freedom of choice. As a commissioner of equal opportunity and human rights Szoke makes a good apologist of discrimination against women.
Islam does not view women as equal, individual, and with the freedom to go about their lives independently. Even at a protest rally demanding respect and tolerance for the way Islam handles matters regarding women and how they should dress in public this is demonstrated. 

Muslim men enthusiastically support / supervise Muslim women protesting against calls to ban the Burqua in 2010 - (my caption) 

Pictures: Amos Aikman Source: The Australian

Source of protest images - http://www.news.com.au/national-old/muslim-women-protest-against-push-to-ban-burka-in-australia/story-e6frfkvr-1225926494355

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

The Inherent Misanthropy of Religion

To be clear, I am anti religion.

eternity

They exist counter-productively and counter intuitively to freedom of thought, expression and innovation.

As an atheist critiquing religion I do so from time to time from the perspective of a woman finding that I do have issue with the problem religion/s seem to have with, well, women. However that may be the case my focus on religion is of the harm done in human terms and not that just of women. It is unfortunate there is a strong focus by religions particularly Judaeo-Christian, Muslim and Hindu for example upon not just controlling human behaviour but in particular female sexuality. Religions like these are particularly interested to place people into hierarchies, men are first, women are at least secondary in many ways and rarely equal no matter what religious relativists may now want to claim.

A religion is its scripture; its teachings derive from its doctrine and for want of a better word its liturgy is communicated to the believers through human channels such as priests, brahman, imam, prophet.  For religion the concept of equality of the genders or social orders within a society is defined according to scripture and those definitions are essentially no-where close to how we may define equality now. Religion has an order and hierarchical structure for a reason. It helps to control, coerce and intends through any means it can to limit our questioning of its edicts. One way to limit criticism is through law. Racial vilification and Defamation law masked as Human Rights law but really is an attempt to introduce repressive Blasphemy Law is seeking legal grounding here in Australia and internationally to remove the right to criticise religion.

As an atheist I reject that there exists a god, spirit, prophet, brahman or otherwise by which we are instructed or judged and from whom we receive knowledge of creation and rules of living so that we may conduct our lives in dutiful worship and imitation so as to transcend existence, be accepted to Heaven, or otherwise go to Hell when we die.

There is a term that has been around for a while that I've only just recently encountered through a friend who reads lots of tech blogs. Standing for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt the term is known as F.U.D. There is an interesting wiki on it here if like me you were unfamiliar with it. It is a propaganda and advertising tool. Create fear, uncertainty and doubt and people will listen intently for the solution because you have captured their attention through FUD and in order to avoid the disasters predicted or asserted they are more compliant and eager to listen to and adopt any proposed solution.

Prior to being defined in this manner, naturally utilised not only for religious purposes, F.U.D. formed as the successful propaganda tool of choice to attract and control believers. It is a simple and robust formula through which can be sown seeds of discourse and disorder as well as fear based adherence by followers and their rejection of other's faiths. With it you can destabilise relationships with "non-believers" as well as compel compliance through superstition and fear of believers. There are non-believers and hypocrites(1) in Islam which also teaches we are all born Muslim and are only taught to reject it.(2) Hindus observe and follow the concept of ritual cleansing throughout all aspects of life in order they may be reincarnated into better circumstances in the next life and ultimately to attain nirvana breaking the endless cycle of rebirth.(3) Christians and Jews must believe in the one and only Lord God [trinity = father, son, holy spirit is rejected by Judaism], fear him and follow his ways alone to be assured of a place in Heaven or basically be destroyed.(4) Jews believe God to have awarded them as his true believers a reserved place in life and death and has chosen them to survive oblivion beyond the great flood.(5)

In critiquing religious scripture, religious ideas and concepts I do so because much of what is preached to or by followers has fundamental flaws in logic, reason, morality, fairness and is the antithesis of what is right, good and honest. Each and every religion has such flaws, all determine that man is born flawed and must repent, suffer for sins not even perpetrated, be tempted to evil and tested in order to gain fulfilment and/or recognition by God. I am naturally interested to point out also where religious doctrine, parable or not, determine women are not equal and place them at a level in that religion's hierarchy, in most cases, lower than, in service to, beneath, or sent to torment men. (tormentors as temptresses or corrupter: just what is that about?)

Generally religions actively suppress normal human behaviour. For teasing out and addressing always is the problem, as religions will have us believe, of guiding/controlling human sexuality and in particular female sexuality. It requires special attention in most major religions and interconnected religio-cultures. Disturbingly, particularly in Judaeo-Christian and Islamic realms genital circumcision is part of the practice and expression of that faith by the faithful as evidence of purity sexually and morally of the individual with the circumcised genitals. An Imam in Australia, Afroz Ali categorically states that in Islam it is a woman's right to be genitally mutilated, though as mostly children are mutilated in this way (without their consent) prior to having any rights over their own bodies such arguments, which imply choice, have to be rejected.

transplant

The World Heath Organisation and I disagree with Afroz Ali. (FGM) That this is not obviously of concern more widely baffles the logical and critical mind. All circumcision is utterly unnecessary medically and as a procedure committed primarily against pre-pubescent children it is an abusively brutal and irrationally invasive practice. I have in the past been baffled by feminist theology in particular of the kind that would have us entertain nonsensical re-evaluations of the Christian God as a Woman or in this more recent example genderless in an ultimately irrelevant and spurious argument that is unsupportable in scripture. Worse, considering evidence of an increasing use of FGM by Islam, is a Muslim feminist theology arguing a progressive reinterpretation of the Koran and Hadith by failing to acknowledge the presence of passages such as this one:
"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband."(6)

The problem such feminist theologians have is by attempting to manipulate or conveniently ignore these aspects of the religions they defend in order to elevate the role women have in them, is that by remaining believers they simply endorse if not reinforce attitudes held by their own faith that women are inferior to men and in the grand scheme of things the cause of problems and issues for them.(7-a,b,c,) By omitting or manipulating scripture they create a furphy argument that misses the point. Questioning is a good thing but they go nowhere if they merely promulgate the idea that the word of God, Allah, Jehovah has simply been misunderstood by men and/or exploited by overarching patriarchal societies or systems.

For Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Hindus the female is cursed monthly by God with her menstrual cycle. It doesn't matter necessarily what religious rational is behind these attitudes, what matters is that these religion's hold the view the female as impure during these times, potentially infected with evil and having committed such an infraction making it necessary that God punish the female form of his creation (by inflicting menses upon her). In the Hadith it is a condemnation of the female gender due to her biology and merely another proof of a negative characteristic which she must endure and accept as evidence of her inferiority when compared with men.(8)

To be judged and remembered good or bad according to one's own true deeds and actions in life is paramount to human dignity and if we do so we honour ourselves, the living, and the dead. To be judge good or bad according to the doctrines ascribed by a faith that will assign genders to different levels in a human social order, dictate social interactions according to superstitions about one's immortal soul, or to protect against its moral disintegration through sexual misconduct (which may be as simple as looking at someone of the other gender), and order a believer's physical mutilation to control passion, evil and disease* should ring the intellectual alarm bells of any thinking woman or man.

*because human genitalia is born so imperfect that God's creation must surgically mutilated their own genitalia and that of their off-spring to become more perfect. What a perfect God would have wanted of his perfect creation?

Foot notes
(1) [The Hypocrites, Koran: 63:1-4] 
(2) [The Hadith - Sahih Bukhari, Vol:6, 060 #298]
(3) [The Garuda Purana, ch:9]
(4) [Deuteronomy 6:13-15]
(5) [II Chronicles, OT ch:6.]

(6) [Abu Dawud Book 036, Hadith Number 5251. ]

(7) a [Ecclesiasticus 25.24 "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."] b [ Women  4.34 Dawood translation of the Koran"Men have authority over women because Allah has made one superior to the other...Good women are obedient...As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme."] c [The Garuda Purana - translation by Ernest Wood and S.V. Subrahmanyam, 1911, CHAPTER XV. 7-10. After menstruation the women should be avoided for four days. Their face should not be seen during that time, lest sin should arise in the body."]
(8) [hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari/menstrual-periods/]

References
Female Genital Mutilation
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Feminist Theologian View Bible [New Testament] example
http://creation.com/biblical-view-women
The Holy Bible (Old and New Testament)

Orthodox Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_sexuality#Orthodox

Koran and Hadith
Koran - N. J. Dawood, published as a Penguin Classic, ISBN 0 14044.052 6
Hadith - http://www.hadithcollection.com/
Sharia Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Hindusim
Hindu Myths - Wendy Doniger, Penguin Classics, ISBN
Scriptures - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_scriptures

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.

The "New" Atheists are BAD okay!

In an article in the Herald Sun Newspaper, in Melbourne, Australia on 17 December 2012 self proclaimed atheist Rita Panahi complains that atheism as a "movement" is being over run by zealots.
(The online version of the newspaper article doesn't allow non-subscribers access. However, you can read the full article published earlier on 16 December 2012 here.) [Though no author is attributed it is the same article]

Panahi makes so many nonsensical claims in this article that can I hardly accept she is an atheist let alone one capable of "critical thinking". She describes atheism as a "system of belief", because she does not quite grasp that atheism is not a belief system, but a rejection of any belief system. It is as if she is saying that science should allow belief and reject empiricism. I am in fact unsure why Panahi thinks she is an atheist at all and it is almost as if she is confusing her politics with her position as, what appears to me to be, that of a tentative or confused quasi agnostic-atheist.

She describes Atheism as being formerly "a quiet celebration of reason". How quaint. She describes several contemporary robust critics of religion, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as, "aggressive"with the "aim to drive religion out of public life", for their consistent subjection of religious belief to logical argument and their rejection for the necessity of religion to form any part of our educational, political and public life. Yes? And, what is the problem you have with this? I'd ask Panahi. These aims are completely consistent with atheist theory, old or new. With a church, mosque, temple or place of worship of some sort on the street corners, hills and thoroughfares of our towns and cities religion obviously has a presence, if not an overbearing one, in our societies. Where it strictly does not belong is in our schools, government or official media; after-all, if religion belongs in any of these arenas, then which religion is it? and what becomes of those not of the chosen religion? And, yet our politicians declare their religious convictions as a means for gaining voter approval amongst other reasons and open our parliament with "The Lord's Prayer", some of our official and popular media place emphasis on religion holding a position of only good and exempt from examination or criticism, and religious groups press for a presence of their particular faith in the official curriculum. Its all harmless isn't it?

Atheists have the odd conference or two to allow for discussions of contemporary thinking and provide a forum for discourse and this is seen as controversial if not down right inflammatory towards religious groups. In the image below Muslim protestors turned up to the 2012 Atheist Convention in Melbourne. "Atheism is the cancer, Islam is the answer" reads one placard another declares "ISLAM The only monotheistic Religion" another references "Hell Fire". Amused atheist delegates began to chant in response "Where are the women? Where are the women?" Highlighting the distinct absence of females in this group and of course the poor position this religion holds on gender equality issues. To contrast if a bunch of atheists were to do a Pussy Riot protest in front of a mosque, synagogue, church or temple in Australia they'd risk being labelled racist, and inciters of hate against religion. Particularly if they did so in front of a mosque. I wonder if chanting might be all they'd receive in response to their protest should one occur.

Main Placard reads - "Atheism is the Cancer Islam is the Answer" 

Panahi by her argument would have us accept there need be no quiet reflection for the religions of the world whilst requiring a respectful silence in response from atheists. Panahi should realise is that she is complaining that atheists are no longer obscure but that they should remain respectfully uncritical of religions and avoid committing any offence to them by resisting testing the faithful with valid critical analysis and questioning. This is a call to censorship and the protective exemption of a particular section of society from critical analysis. It is a position which whether or not she realises favours current disturbing moves to implement blasphemy laws (via the UN). Under such laws simply declaring you are atheist can be considered offensive to a religious person or group because your atheism is a denial of their faith which holds the existence of a higher being sacred. A sacred being responsible for the presence of chosen peoples on planet earth. To allow criticism robust or not is apparently disrespectful of the "prophets of any religion".

In fact the call is for no cartoons, no jokes, no movies, no logic, no disbelief. To criticise Islam is to be guilty of Islamophobia and a crime against humanity according to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan.

Panahi has one point. The quiet atheist is invisible. In societies where to be openly atheist is to be labelled an "anti-Christ", a "blasphemer", a "heretic", or an "apostate" so it makes sense be "quiet" in your so claimed "celebration of reason"as it can mean self-preservation over persecution. In some Muslim jurisdictions we know apostasy is a crime punishable by death. Indeed Islam does not recognise atheism as the absence of belief but as another form of apostasy because for Islam one is born into their faith, as one is born with their skin or eye colour. Christianity believes atheism is a sin. Being atheist has not been and still may not be popular or safe. It has been challenging for people past and present to be openly atheist within their communities. As a young atheist from the late 1970s - 1990s I felt the flexibility to explore religion if I wished to do so but atheism was still shunned if not feared as something utterly sinister. Young friends asked me in horror "...aren't you afraid of the Devil?" As if I'd already been somehow possessed by the nastiest of fallen deities. If I'd been born elsewhere I may not have been so lucky in my youthful explorations and coming out an atheist.

Religions are and can be no more exempted from analysis and criticism than any other group or area of society. The argument that criticism of religion is harmful is a dangerous one because it is an unacceptable limitation on free speech, thought and expression.  

Why are we now seeing, hearing, reading more atheist views, ideas and literature? A number of possibilities come to mind. Not just through the horror of the attack on the USA. Islamic terror was alive and well before September the 11th 2001 though a defining point in history on a number of levels it arguably is. It became a last straw for well known critics such as the, in later life and post his death, much maligned Hitchens. He bluntly informed particularly the socialist left and those with leftist political bona fides of necessary home truths, you've been duped and you continue to declare your support for the intolerance you claim you fight against. He saw the hypocrisy and pointed it out without fear or favour to friend or foe. Tough love was required. The zealots, I'd argue in agreement with Hitchens, reside in the left, in denial and blinkered by their fantasy that religion is not to blame but the terrorist distorters of religion. That is similar to the argument of gun lobbyists who trot out the guns don't kill people kill argument following the latest mass murder spree. More guns it is argued is the answer. More religion is the same argument of the religious. Problem for both form of zealot is they've already demonstrated the redundancy of such a push because more religion or more guns has created the problem in the first place. Do the religious have the right to harm others in the name of their religion? Does the gun crazy US citizen have a right to hold onto his semi-automatic firearms in a country so awash with guns any person, good, evil or mad can obtain and use a weapon to kill to make their point.

As I see it these are the main conditions conducive to the existence of more atheists in our midst:
- The existence and gradual strengthening of the secular state - still way too infiltrated by religious symbolism and observance as discussed above.
- The rise of education and an educated middle class
- The rise of democracy contributing to prosperity allowing for better education, time for cultural pursuits and the exploration in and freedom of the arts.
- The rise of human rights advocacy and its application in democratic society's laws and legislation world wide. (of the type not hijacked by quazi-religious agenda)
- Recognition of the equality and human rights of women
- The WWW and the Internet where unimpeded by government control.

What can and will threaten this self-aware state of mind held by free thinking individuals is the push by human rights organisations, and their successful infiltration by religiously motivated political organisations such as the OIC (The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) to pursue internationally binding blasphemy laws to enforce upon all, which would make atheism illegal. Making it a criminal offence to offend religion is an enormously backward step for all humanity. Panahi and friends do need to consider carefully what it is they are proposing when they ask atheists to quietly pursue a gentler(?) kinder(?) atheism in a manner that will not hurt the feelings of the religious. Or, what? Should be the next question by atheists from now on. "Or, what?" To be atheist may soon be enough to be deemed "offensive". What helps threaten our freedoms and rights and helps to instil and normalise the concept of a religious world at all cost are addled quasi-atheist commentators such as Panahi, and an anti-atheist media such as The Herald Sun. Both obviously find the person who constitutes more of a threat to be the one with an absence of belief rather than the one with a blind adherence to a faith.