…and this is a 
Condell's latest
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 2, 2008 8:50 AM, by PZ Myers
You may have heard that YouTube blocked Pat Condell's latest video — here's an alternate source for that video.
I have to disagree with part of what Condell says in it, though. He is arguing against the promotion of "tolerance and diversity," saying it has gone too far. I don't think so. I think tolerance and diversity are great, I want a society with an interesting mix of weirdos and straights and strange cultural backgrounds, and I want no one to be afraid to express themselves, or worse, to be actively suppressed. What has gotten out of hand is the demand for outright respect, not just tolerance, and the de facto view that certain views, such as that religion is good and just and wonderful for you, must be held by everyone, or you are a bad person.
Condell is right that shari'a is ridiculous…but so are the ten commandments. The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society.
Tolerance is good. Intolerance is what Condell is experiencing when god-lovin' dogmatists try to silence him. We should all have the right to point and laugh — we can laugh at Christians and Muslims, and if their faith is really that strong, they should be able to bear it; they can laugh at atheists, too, and I'm confident that we can cope, as long as they don't censor instead of laugh. And I fear that they'd rather silence us.
And, by the way, legislating shari'a into power is not tolerance, nor is opposing it intolerance. Ancient bigotries and ignorance should not be granted any kind of legal authority.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Blake | October 2, 2008 9:02 AM
Why not link to the FLV file directly so that youtube users here can all upload the file themselves in defiance of this outrage as I and ~130 other people have so far done (search condell and sort by date in youtube, it's really amazing to see). http://rapidshare.com/files/150089804/Pat_Condell_-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain.flv.html
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | October 2, 2008 9:02 AM
The link didn't work for me.
But, I subscribe to Pat Condell's Godless Comedy (audio) on iTunes.
They have that episode. (9/30/08)
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 9:04 AM
I agree PZ, him blaming tolerance and diversity is missing the point. It's tolerance and diversity that are going to stop segregation; the real problem here.
Posted by: Rog | October 2, 2008 9:05 AM
I think that this is at least partly what is behind Condell's video being dumped from You Tube - The Kuwait Human rights commision has called on YouTube to remove all videos profaning Muhammed as it is, and I quote, "the worst form of human rights violation in the world." !! I've just blogged about this here;
http://rogalert.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-youtube-buckled-to-islam.html
I can't believe the deludeness of these people !!
rog
Posted by: Nick | October 2, 2008 9:05 AM
Interesting distinction between toleration and respect, I had never thought of that before.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:06 AM
//What has gotten out of hand is the demand for outright respect, not just tolerance, and the de facto view that certain views, such as that religion is good and just and wonderful for you, must be held by everyone, or you are a bad person.//
Thank dog for that post PZ ! Im like,yesssssss,finally someone more important than me says it too !
//I have to disagree with part of what Condell says in it, though. He is arguing against the promotion of "tolerance and diversity," saying it has gone too far//
I think this is to be seen in the context of the particular circumstances in the UK,what with local Sharia courts and all.(Heya Nick G,here we go again lol)
Of course tolerance and diversity are good things,its just that that only seems to apply for people that have grown up in the social context of the enlightenment,a lot of Muslims would not agree and would prefer to introduce Western society to the joys of 7th century Islamic law,and I think thats what Pat Condell's point is.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 9:11 AM
[minirant]As I've noted here in the past, one thing that ticks me off are these references to "them" - Muslims, Saudis, etc. - and "their" treatment of women or gay people. As though oppressed people weren't themselves political actors. It's why I keep posting links to human rights organizations in (or working with those in) Muslim countries, hoping that the people who claim to oppose oppression will put their outrage to more productive use. Unfortunately, I don't think my efforts been particularly successful.[/minirant]
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 2, 2008 9:11 AM
clinteas,
Polls show a clear majority of UK Muslims prefer to live under UK law not sharia - a promising way to change that is rants of Condell's type. Indeed, I suspect that's exactly what he wants.
Posted by: Blake | October 2, 2008 9:17 AM
Really? That's enough to make you content? A mere majority of Muslims don't want it so everything's A-OK? Well 40% DO WANT IT, and I happen to be of the opinion that should probably be sufficient to scare the shit out of you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 9:17 AM
Ah, and I see Nick Gotts has done it in this case here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/preparing_for_the_jubileeor_tr.php#comment-1135914
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:21 AM
//Indeed, I suspect that's exactly what he wants.//
Why on Earth would he want that?
//Polls show a clear majority of UK Muslims prefer to live under UK law not sharia //
Well,thats kind of my point !! That if you are a Muslim female in the UK you have an expectation of being treated like any other first world female,and not end up being objected to 7th century Sharia law bullshit,in the name of religious tolerance !
Posted by: Julian | October 2, 2008 9:22 AM
The parliament actually allowed Sharia courts to be set up in the UK? I heard there was talk about it, but I never figured they'd actually do it; the English common law system is one of the best judicial traditions in the world. The U.S. has always assimilated other groups wonderfully without having to allow immigrants to make their own courts; Britain's assimilation problems don't come from its legal system. I'm no expert, obviously, but from what I've read on the subject the difficulties mostly come from a generally exclusive political system (how many MP's of Caribbean descent have there been?), and the nativism bred by a culture founded on national identity.
Posted by: Alfonso Armenta | October 2, 2008 9:27 AM
Without seeing that video I can't say much, but wouldn't it be the case that we are being too tolerant with intolerance?
Youtube goes and removes a video because some intolerant loonies find it offensive and we all just accept it just like that.
Random house decides against publishing a book because it offends some other loonies (actually, the same loonies) and I hear voices saying that it is unreasonable to offend the loonies.
We are being too tolerant with intolerance. To the point of being immoral for we are letting the loonies eat our lunch.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 9:32 AM
Yep, we are tolerating the intolerant; which kind of defeats the whole purpose.Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 9:38 AM
There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 2, 2008 9:42 AM
Re the UK sharia decision, I still have this question: is it still (technically, at least*) opt-in, and specifically for family law (divorce, especially)? Just wondering. I note that it's now legally 'binding' in the sense that the UK courts/police system have to enforce the decisions... But is it assumed if you're Moslem you're subject to this court, or do you still get to say which system you wish your dispute to be processed within? I can't seem to find a conclusive answer easily, here. Seems to me more likely it'd be the former (it's been that way sans judicial enforcement for years, by the way... there were always informal and private tribunals available), but it doesn't seem real clear anymore.
(*No naivete is to be assumed from the question: yes, I know only too well a woman, especially, under heavy pressure from family and community might well not feel she has much choice... I'm just wondering what the technical status is, there. Question is, more to the point: if it's still actually a minority of Moslems who want it, do the rest of them now legally *have* to be subject to it?)
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 2, 2008 9:44 AM
D'oh. Former should be latter. As in: previously, it was opt-in, technically at least.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 9:46 AM
I think Nick's point, like mine, is that there are many people from Muslim backgrounds who oppose this, and that those who are sincere about being against oppression (rather than against people from Muslim countries) would do well to work in concert with them, rather than ignoring them politically or suggesting that everyone in their countries - including, by implication themselves - is mentally ill.
Posted by: Sastra | October 2, 2008 9:47 AM
There's a lot of ambiguity in popular tropes like "we must respect other people's beliefs" and "people should be allowed to believe what they want." Well, yes -- but it depends on how they're interpreted. Some folks seem to think they translate into the idea that it's wrong to criticize, mock, or insult someone else's ideas, because anything that makes someone feel bad is a personal attack. You're not letting them "believe what they want."
As if it's only a short step from rational argument to throwing people in prisons and gulags. As if rational argument will always lead to argument by force. That's only true if you're trying to argue for something that by its very nature can't be supported -- like, say, religion.
I think tolerance and respect entail the opposite -- seeing the other person as being like yourself, and therefore persuadable. Respect is the necessary ground for debate and dissent. Using the word as a substitute for criticism is a misuse of the concept. It's like saying we should respect America, so don't complain about anything the government does.
Like others, I'm having trouble accessing the video -- but I just spent about an hour listening to other Pat Condell videos, and so I'm pretty sure he's not arguing against genuine tolerance and diversity -- but the phony imitation of the same which seeks to eliminate open disagreement on the common ground of universal human rights and individualism. Instead, in the name of 'diversity,' people are locked into their group identities, and defined by their limitations.
Condell often complains that the official Muslim spokesgroups DON'T speak for all Muslims. Pretending that they do is insulting to the Islamic moderates and liberals.
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 9:51 AM
Well, you can choose to use a sharia court as a binding arbitration service in a civil dispute, which is probably not quite what you think when you hear this. I'm divided on the matter - people can choose arbitration of whatever form they like, and I can't see a good way to restrict that. However, I can see serious problems with the "choice" aspect of it - just how can we be sure that such choices are truly free?
However, this problem is not, in any way, unique to sharia and the Muslim community - it applies to all forms of binding arbitration.
Posted by: Deepsix | October 2, 2008 9:53 AM
Here is a working link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c95_1222914658
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:56 AM
SC,
this :
//rather than ignoring them politically or suggesting that everyone in their countries - including, by implication themselves - is mentally ill.//
is not what I said or implied,and I wish you wouldnt suggest it.I know you refer to my occasional rant here in the past,but its not my opinion that all Muslims are mentally ill,thats just not fair,I am quite capable of a differentiated view on things.
As to thread topic,I agree with PZ on this :
//And, by the way, legislating shari'a into power is not tolerance, nor is opposing it intolerance. Ancient bigotries and ignorance should not be granted any kind of legal authority.//
Thats pretty much my view on the issue.
Posted by: Deepsix | October 2, 2008 9:56 AM
Also, video petition supporting Pat: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d3_1222900840
I assume this video is also on youtube, but I can't connect to it here at work.
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 9:57 AM
No, it is most definitely not. For arbitration to be binding, both parties must agree to it prior to entering arbitration.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 10:00 AM
clinteas,
I wasn't referring to you at all! I was referring to Condell's remark in the video. I thought we were discussing Nick's comment @ #8.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 10:04 AM
The Condell video is here:
http://www.patcondell.net/index.html
Posted by: Ramases | October 2, 2008 10:07 AM
Well I've given my opinion before and I'll give it again.
Condell is the worst kind of intolerant, bigoted, red neck loud mouthed, xenophobic, anti-immigrant clown, and I am surprised that so many people in what I hope to think of as a rational intelligent atheist movement see him as one of our own.
Tolerance and diversity gone too far? Does Condell understand the difference between respecting someone's beliefs and respecting their RIGHT to hold them? Does he understand the difference between criticising an irrational religion and branding a group of people in a simplistic manner based on the utterances of the most extreme? Does he understand the difference between ration discussion and hate speech, or have any idea how much his simplistic ranting support the ravings of the extreme anti-immigrant right?
Perhaps we should call this one "Pat Condell's War on Freedom".
I could elaborate, but I am actually very busy at the moment.
But this site should give people some pause for thought - the extreme anti-immigrant right love Condell.
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is.html
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 2, 2008 10:08 AM
Thanks, Dunc. Kinda assumed that, but it was pretty hard to tell from a quick look-around.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 10:09 AM
SC,
ok sorry LOL,things are starting to get a bit hazy here and i had best retire...:-)
Learned my lesson for the day already,from Patricia of course,1 Samuel 18,27,the thing with the foreskins,now thats priceless !
Setting the alarm to wake up in time for the VP debate.....
NiNi
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 10:13 AM
clinteas - No worries. 'night! (So strange to say at 10 AM.:))
Posted by: Brian | October 2, 2008 10:19 AM
I agree. When governments take tolerance too far, it ceases to be tolerance, and turns into appeasement. Appeasement is what should not be tolerated. There's nothing wrong with letting Muslims practice their religion, speaking in the public square, etc. etc. But, when a muslim cleric demands that in order not to offend Muslims, all women in a country conform to sharia law even if they are not muslim, he is not asking for tolerance, he is asking for appeasement.
There is no guaranteed freedom from things that offend you. And while you may have freedom of speech, you are not guaranteed an audience or respect.
Posted by: maureen | October 2, 2008 10:25 AM
The law in England & Wales - don't know about Scotland, Nick G may - has always allowed the parties to a civil dispute to agree to be bound by the decision of an arbitrator. This is where the Beth Din (rabbinical court) comes in and has functioned smoothly for many decades, dealing with such things as business disputes and family property, child maintenance, etc. No legislation was required to set it up and the same is true of Shari'a courts which operate, so far, in a very few cases.
Of course there is there is real concern that the "agreement" especially of the weaker of the parties may not be true agreement but the result of pressure either from family or from clerics.
The root of the problem, where there is one, is ignorance and the solution as ever is education. Muslim women, for instance, should be in a position to know where they might get a better deal or more protection from the secular courts.
More worrying to me right now is the fact that very young women, some new to the country and speaking no English, are pushed into marriages at the local mosque which are religiously valid but do count for the protections of the civil law. Each mosque has the option to register so that marriages conducted there are also formally recorded - just like most of the churches do.
As I say, this option is open to every mosque but the imams and mosque committees - almost always entirely male - seem strangely reluctant to give their women that protection. I'd be happier if we tackled that one first before we get over-excited by a handful of decisions in a Shari'a court which cannot in any case over-ride the civil let alone the criminal law.
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 10:27 AM
Yeah, I understand that - most of what you find on a quick look around is a bunch of idiots wildly misinterpreting things so they can get their culture war on.
Posted by: John Bebbington | October 2, 2008 10:28 AM
Much as I enjoy Pat's work I think that, on this occasion, he has got his facts wrong. Under UK common law we can do whatever we want provided there is no law against it. There is no law against dispute arbitration under Sharia law and therefore those who wish to be governed by it may be so. However, it is wrong to say, as Pat does, that Sharia Courts "have the full backing of the law" by which he means UK law.
If a dissatisfied party were to seek to have a Sharia determination amended or nullified by the English courts I imagine the decision would be that the courts have no say in the matter and that, as far as English law is concerned, the agreement is non-binding under English law. However, if the parties had agreed within the Sharia proceedings to be bound by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 then the English courts would have jurisdiction but, of course, in the conduct of the proceedings, the Sharia court would have had to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A failure to do so would make any Sharia determination unenforceable within English law.
English law, as with Sharia law, acts to a great extent with the consent of the parties. Even in a personal injury cases if the injured party refuses to give evidence there is not much that can be done to force him to do so and therefore the prosecution falls. If there are disputes within or between Muslim families which involve injury then there is not much English law can do against the perpetrators if the victims refuse to press charges.
In getting overheated about Sharia courts it should be pointed out to Pat that when it comes to female emancipation with respect to property rights Sharia is not so very far behind English law. It is only a little over 120 years since married women were allowed to own their own property under English law even to the extent that any property they took into a marriage became that of their husband (http://tinyurl.com/brm4v). Furthermore, it is only a decade or so since divorced women became entitled to a substantial part of the husband's wealth acquired during the marriage.
What is certainly an immediate problem with Sharia is that it is invisible to English society and this is wrong. Pat makes the good point that, undoubtedly, many Muslim women will be bullied into the Sharia system and, there, the rights they would have under English law will be overridden. For this reason alone, I shall be signing the petition.
No country can survive under two separate systems of law. In so far as that was suggested by him the Archbishop of Canterbury was wrong. The law is always changing and it maybe that there are some good things about the Sharia compensatory system which we could adopt usefully into English law - I don't know as I haven't studied it - but what is certain is that no good can come of two separate systems of law. Sharia should be banned.
Posted by: Doubting Foo | October 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Letterbox Ladies...hehe...that would sound cute with a British accent. Out of the mouths of babes...
Wow, so the UK is really changing, eh?
Posted by: AJS | October 2, 2008 10:34 AM
I've signed.
Frankly, I cannot believe that anyone would even consider the idea of Shariah courts in the UK. It's not for nothing that ours is known as the mother of all parliaments. Our laws are made over the years by a process of reasoned debate involving real people, not based on some 1400-year-old text supposedly handed down to a paedophile (Muhammad is known for bumming a nine-year-old) which, if it were not for the fact that some religion considers it holy, would be held to constitute hate speech.
(And I've mentioned the stupid twat who is trying to sue Tesco on my own blog. Unfortunately, he lives in my home city.)
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 10:39 AM
This conflicts with your earlier statement:
An arbitration decision does not and cannot override UK civil or criminal law.
Posted by: UK Pat fan | October 2, 2008 10:41 AM
As a long-term Pat fan, I'm quite concerned that this video is the one he's been censored for, because he's fallen into the trap of shouting about Sharia, rather than talking about the whole issue of religious courts for mediation.
Jewish Beth'din courts in the UK have been able to give legally-binding mediation since time immemorial, in exactly the same way as the Sharia courts are operating. And they must be stopped, too.
But the only way to do that is to ensure every trace of Christianity is taken out of the official legal system, and that's going to take a lot of work.
Yes, Sharia is the most frightening form of these kangaroo courts, and it's their rise which has caused people to protest. But singling out Islam on something which is a religion-wide problem opens him up to accusations of racism, which is the last thing we need.
I don't believe Pat is racist. I think he's just very concerned about the inexorable rise in the UK of the most psychopathic of the Abrahamic gods, and his videos on Christianity, Judaism and even Scientology confirm his contempt for religion, not brown people.
But anyone who just watches the banned one isn't going to see that.
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 10:44 AM
Sastra@#19:
Cogent and articulate as usual. Where the hell is her OM, PZ?
Posted by: trimtab | October 2, 2008 10:45 AM
I'm of the opinion that Condell is actually advocating intolerance towards intolerance.
Kind of like advocating intolerance towards war. About the only way you can tolerate that kind of intolerance is by dying. Not good. So, the only possible solution is to become intolerant of war, me thinks.
Same thing regarding freedom, equality, and tolerance itself. Intolerance against these values must not be tolerated, or else, in time, you lose. And it doesn't take long.
Posted by: SC | October 2, 2008 10:51 AM
Um, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
:)
Posted by: Reality Czech | October 2, 2008 10:56 AM
How many Muslim women would be able to refuse the Shari'a verdict? Remember that there are honor killings in Britain, and opting for kaffir law may bring accusations of apostasy. Many European bloggers are worried about being prosecuted for "racism" if they criticize Islam. The cartoonist who goes by Gregorius Neckshott has been silenced.Posted by: John Bebbington | October 2, 2008 10:58 AM
Dune wrote: "An arbitration decision does not and cannot override UK civil or criminal law."
Arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1966 is part of English Civil Law. It has nothing to do with criminal law. In so far as the Act is adopted by Sharia Courts then its decisions would be binding on the parties.
Sharia Courts cannot override the criminal law. The problem arises when victims of crime refuse to give testimony under English law but are willing to participate under Sharia Law.
Posted by: foolfodder | October 2, 2008 11:00 AM
Some things that I put in another thread, that are more appropriate here:
I'm pretty sure that Pat Condell is not a racist. e.g. A word to Islamofascists at about 4:20. Or Am I a racist? or Unholy scripture.
Personally, I don't think that independent arbitration rules should be scrapped. But I think that it would be good to change the law so that independent arbitration cannot discriminate based on things like gender or race. (Which probably gets messy in the details with things like child custody)
Posted by: Louis | October 2, 2008 11:00 AM
I want to thank John Bebbington #34 for his accurate and informative post. Lest it get lost in the shouting, I think that this means that John has Won at Teh IntarNetz and therefore this thread is now over. ;-)
Louis
P.S. To the "Pat is a racist" crowd. I'm hypersensitive about racism, it's one of those things that really energises me. I am virulently anti-racist. I don't get a racist vibe from Pat nor, more importantly, do I get racist overtones/undertones from his actual words.
HOWEVER, that said, the rhetoric of the BNP etc, who have traditionally hidden their racist agenda behind a veil of "religious criticism" (not very well actually) is not enormously different to some of Pat's comments. Let's get this clear: in Pat's case I think it is more likely (based on his avowed expressions of anti-racism and pro-tolerance/diversity) a case of poor choice of phraseology/people seeing racists where none exist. In the case of the BNP it's demonstrably a cover for their racist agenda (as has been discovered on many occasions).
Pat, in this instance, has muddled something. Sharia arbitration courts should be allowed IF (and only IF) other religions get such privileges (like Judaism and the Beth Din). The question isn't "should there be Sharia arbitration courts?", the question is "should there be specially privileged arbitration courts for ANY religion?". One out, all out!
Challenging religious privilege, whatever religion gets it, is a noble goal, one I know Pat supports. Challenging one religion's privilege whilst supporting the privilege of another because it "has less darkies in it" is (c)overt racism, and I think we can be very clear that Pat is NOT doing that.
In sum:sure Pat's got a few wires crossed, but I severely doubt that they are the racist wires.
Posted by: Steve Courtright | October 2, 2008 11:02 AM
General comment about the word tolerance: tolerance is not enough - one tolerates a toothache, but eventually the problem must be solved. The goal is at least acceptance.
Posted by: Gene | October 2, 2008 11:08 AM
Clearly there is a huge difference between tolerance and respect. Just look at any dictionary. Respect often uses synonyms like "honor, high regard, admiration," etc., whereas tolerance uses synonyms like "permissiveness, allowable deviation from a standard, to put up with, ability to cope," etc.
Relgious tolerance is what is really required, which means we have to put up with the crazies holding whatever nonsense they want in their minds and saying what they want to say. There is NO need for respect of the ideas/beliefs.
The old saying of "everything in moderation" can be extended to be "everything in moderation, including moderation itself" which points out the potential (if not necessity) for contradiction when using absolutes.
This same type of contradiction applies to tolerance. We put up with as much as we can of the crazies. But at some point, enough is enough. It's the dialectic: when quantity turns into quality.
To endlessly tolerate fundagelicals of all faiths who are themselves almost completely intolerant, we end up allowing them to destroy tolerance generally. So there has to be a limit even to tolerance in order for it to be generally maintained.
Bottom line: NO respect for religious ideas, tolerate (put up with) as much of their nonsense as you can (to be civil) and fight back as hard as you can when they try to foist their craziness upon us as public policy instead of just keeping their crap to themselves.
Posted by: ihedenius | October 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Here is the petition Condell wants signed.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/
You must be british and the deadline is october 4.
Posted by: Dale Husband | October 2, 2008 11:11 AM
Ramases says:
And yet you reduce yourself to Condell's level with such biased namecalling? Thanks. When Islamic extremists have succeeded in taking away all your freedoms, don't blame Condell. He tried to warn you. Unless you are willing to suppress the extremists, they will try to suppress you! It is useless to "tolerate" or "respect" them, because I can assure you that they do not tolerate or respect you!
Destroy them BEFORE they destroy you. That's all Condell was saying and what should have been obvious to all. Peace.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 2, 2008 11:12 AM
Fair enough. See also, above, 'no naivete is to be assumed'. Note also that, even in families that aren't so much into murder, some pretty heavy guilt and serious social ugliness could also be expected to occur. For lots of women, the reality is going to be: take the lesser settlement the sharia court hands out just to preserve a little peace within the larger family, not be called a bad Moslem, so on.
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 11:12 AM
1. They already do.
2. It's not just about religious arbitration. Parties to a civil dispute have the right to agree to arbitration. There are all sorts of arbitration services, both secular and religious. What some people appear to be arguing for is that one particular type of arbitration service should not be allowed, on religious grounds.
As it stands, you can choose whatever form of arbitration you like - secular, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Discordian, whatever. Or you can refuse arbitration and settle the matter through the civil courts. What the opponents of "sharia courts" are arguing here is that one of those options, the Muslim one, should be disallowed, purely because they don't like it.
Would it kill people to have the first effing clue of what they're talking about?
Posted by: ihedenius | October 2, 2008 11:13 AM
For the video, search googlevideo "Pat Condell Welcome to Saudi Britain" for the app. 150 reuploads. lol.
Posted by: The Other Woot | October 2, 2008 11:14 AM
Ramases said, "Well I've given my opinion before and I'll give it again."
Which, I'm afraid, does make any less wrong than you were before.
They have "rednecks" in England?
But this site should give people some pause for thought - the extreme anti-immigrant right love Condell.
You might want to traffic less in logical fallacies. On a radio show, I once heard a KKK member reach total agreement in an argument with a Black Separatist. I'm sure they went out and got an apartment together the next day. (cue Odd Couple theme)
Posted by: Diagoras | October 2, 2008 11:18 AM
Good job misrepresenting what Condell said Myers. When saying that tolerance and diversity have gone to far he was not arguing against tolerance and diversity in general, rather, he was just arguing against the establishment of UK Sharia courts, which came about under the pretext of tolerance and diversity.
Posted by: Jaded Skeptic | October 2, 2008 11:19 AM
I have come to enjoy Condell's work. I have gone back and forth, as sometimes his rhetoric hits the mark and the ridiculousness of cowtowing to religion, and then later he gets into a level of vitriolics that is too far for me, though it usually occurs when a concession is made to religion. But what has made me feel better about him is the one statement where he made the point of emphasizing that not ALL muslims are bad. That is a problem with some who give criticism. Some try to tar all people, atheist, Christans, Muslims, etc., as being homogenous and at fault. But Condell was willing to concede the main trouble is with ideas and extremist. But when he tries and knock over tolerance and diversity, I have to disagree. Diversity is good. Tolerance is as well. Now, aboslute tolerance is horrible. And the way that the British governemnt has been approaching tolerance and diversity is balmy. Not all balmy, but this sharia business, not briging search dogs into muslim homes for fear of offense...balmy.
Posted by: Jams | October 2, 2008 11:19 AM
When speaking of tolerance, I think it's important to differentiate between actions and identities. We can't ethically choose to be intolerant of a class of individuals. However, we are obligated to not tolerate wrong actions.
Of course Muslims should be tolerated as people, and of course, the actions of Muslims, when wrong, should not be tolerated.
The problem is when the reasonableness of an action is measured by the identity of the actor rather than the action itself.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | October 2, 2008 11:23 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Crosius | October 2, 2008 11:29 AM
I took Pat's use of the terms tolerance and diversity to be references to the government's Orwellian re-definistion of these terms.
I don't think he was seriously suggesting the tolerance and diversity were bad things, but that "tolerance & diversity" as they are being re-defined by the government are bad things, when that re-definition involves suppression of criticism and endorsement of dangerously old-fashioned and non-egalitarian legal positions.
Posted by: Dale Husband | October 2, 2008 11:30 AM
To get an idea of the sort of abuse Condell gets for speaking his mind, look here:
http://www.patcondell.net/page4/page4.html
And here's what Condell really says about himself:
http://www.patcondell.net/page9/page9.html
He sounds very much like PZ Myers to me!
Posted by: AJS | October 2, 2008 11:51 AM
Dunc, the point is that religious courts of any stripe should be banned. That means no shariah courts, no Beth Din courts, no Christian courts, no Wiccan courts, no Pastafarian courts even. Arbitration, if it's used as an alternative to the courts, must be kept strictly secular.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 11:55 AM
READ THIS
Pat's video was pulled on a technicality. He called for a direct action, and was asking people to sign a petition, which was a political instrument outside the youtube framework and there is a rule against that.
If you are a Pat Condell watcher, you know that particular video was pretty mild for him, it wasn't censored for content, it was censored on a technicality.
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 2, 2008 11:56 AM
>>> The U.S. has always assimilated other groups wonderfully without having to allow immigrants to make their own courts
There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm>>>
Well it seems to me that the Navajo people are not immigrants, if you look at the history of treaties they might be seen as separate nations i.e. the Navajo nation
I will not even address the tolerant aspect of the comment as regards to the "First Nations" let history stand for itself.
If islamic courts are in fact and practice arbitration courts how are they different than "court TV" which I assume is just an "entertainment" form of binding arbitration. What people agree to do they agree to do what can you do about it if what they do is not against the law. Even if it is against the law what can you do before the fact or without witness testimony?
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008 11:59 AM
If it's voluntary arbitration, agreed to by both parties, I don't see why. If Party A and Party B decide to ask Party C to resolve a dispute for them, what business is it of anybody else's why they chose that particular Party C? And how on Earth would you enforce such an edict?
Individuals have the right to settle civil disputes in any way they like, provided it's legal.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 2, 2008 12:10 PM
Here's the correct link:
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/10/02/condell%E2%80%99s-attack-on-shariah-law-in-the-uk-blocked-by-youtube/
['twas the wrong type of apostrophe]
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 2, 2008 12:16 PM
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008
If it's voluntary arbitration, agreed to by both parties, I don't see why. If Party A and Party B decide to ask Party C to resolve a dispute for them, what business is it of anybody else's why they chose that particular Party C? And how on Earth would you enforce such an edict?
Individuals have the right to settle civil disputes in any way they like, provided it's legal.
Ideally, you are correct. But it does not fit in reality. How many women that would enter into British Sharia court would be coerced into it by their family and community?
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 12:16 PM
Scooter@#61:
Ahhh, so this renders this post as an Emily Latella moment, huh?
Posted by: BrainFromArous | October 2, 2008 12:28 PM
"The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society."
A valid general point, PZ, but not true here.
It's simply not the case that these Muslims exploited an already-extant veneration of the Church or hesitation to criticize or challenge sectarian dogma.
The habits of laughing at the C of E, viewing it as a quaint historical relic or disregarding it entirely were well-established in Britain before this present trouble with Muslims.
The problems on display in the UK stem specifically from the belief that Brits must bend over backwards to show "sensitivity" towards minorities - in this case, Islam - and that criticism of it is tantamount to racism.
You and other here are correct to distinguish "tolerance" from things such as genuine respect, but the real engine of this madness is so-called Multiculturalism with its toxic mix of pandering condescension (which IS racist) and borderline-suicidal cultural masochism.
Posted by: SEF | October 2, 2008 12:38 PM
Not unreservedly it isn't.For example, not many people would agree that a mass murderer should be tolerated in killing anyone he wishes to kill - ie because his opinion that he should be allowed to get away with it is as valid as that of anyone saying he shouldn't be. Most people take the view that there are some actions which should not be tolerated - ie that those determined to commit them should be physically prevented or mentally dissuaded by rational argument etc. A criminal shouldn't be able to avoid the judicial process by claiming his delicate feelings are hurt by merely being accused of the crime he committed or even having it mentioned as a bad thing in other people's opinions.
Yet the religious often guard their ignorance and dishonesty so jealously that they aren't willing to risk any of their number (especially their children) even hearing opposing arguments and evidence which might persuade them out of the religion and into the reality-based view of things. Some things are wrong/bad and should not be tolerated and most should not be "tolerated" in that distorted way of not even being allowed to point out exactly how and why they are wrong/bad.
Posted by: bitbutter | October 2, 2008 12:48 PM
"The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society."
I don't think that's it. Otherwise YT they would be bending over backwards to avoid hurting the feelings of _any and all_ religious people, and that's not the case (see the wafer desecration vids).
Maybe the reason that Islam is so often treated with kid gloves (including here) is that its currently the religion who's adherents are most likely to riot, damage property, and to do violence.
Posted by: gravitybear | October 2, 2008 12:54 PM
SC: There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm
A little different situation. The Navajo, and other tribes within the US, are not immigrant groups, they are sovereign nations. Many have their own criminal courts, not just civil courts, also.
Posted by: Louis | October 2, 2008 12:55 PM
Dunc, in #51.
Erm, read back before going off half cocked. I DO know what I'm talking about. I (for example) mentioned that I knew there were religious arbitration courts already (islamic or not).
Would it kill people to effing read for basic comprehension and follow a post IN CONTEXT once in a while?
BrainFromArous in #67 gets one of the issues behind what Pat (and others) have commented on. And Scooter in #61 also gets to win at Teh Intarnetz. Read John Bebbington in #34 again, Dunc, read my agreement with it, and next time, be a little less quick to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension by declaring other people don't know stuff they've already referenced. Thanks.
Louis
Posted by: info_dump | October 2, 2008 1:01 PM
I never really cared for Pat Condell's rants. Although I usually agree with him, he's not exactly saying anything I didn't already know. They're all kind of the same too.
I guess I just don't get the appeal; is he supposed to be particularly witty? Who is he anyway, besides a guy with a webcam?
Everyone here seems to love him, so I'm sure this won't be a popular sentiment. But hopefully that means someone can tell me why they think he's so awesome.
Posted by: JStein | October 2, 2008 1:03 PM
PZ, I think that you are missing the point here, which is that Pat isn't talking about American tolerance, but rather British tolerance, which consists of inviting these Muslims in and assimilating them.
The problem with the assimilation is that it has gone so far to cater to people who live in a primitive mindset. These are not the kind of people we should be encouraging.