Pharyngula

Posted by: Nichodeemous | November 6, 2009 1:10 PM

Ineptitude. Embarrassing behavior. Poor excuses. Fishy sounding stories that are vague or contradictory.

Yup, sounds like religion to me.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 6, 2009 1:11 PM

There's parts missing and lies told in this story for sure.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 6, 2009 1:16 PM

Their first mistake was not vetting just who their speakers are and what they stand for. If Sunsara Taylor was never invited, there would not have been an issue.

Once they knew who they had, they should have went on with her scheduled speech and could have had a talk afterward about the topics that were brought up during Sunsara's speech. It could have been a chance for those opposed to her politics to explain why.

Instead, this group mishandled everything at every step. This was not an example of the democratic process. This people not doing their jobs correctly and trying to back away from the consequences.

Posted by: Cogito | November 6, 2009 1:17 PM

It may well be that the EHS acted stupidly, inconsistently, rudely, and perhaps even called for undue force. But it certainly sounds like Taylor acted stupidly, rudely, and ILLEGALLY. She and her cohorts evidently entered private property after being explicitly told not to. It's not particularly surprising or shocking that there was police action in response.

There is more than enough blame for both sides here, from the evidence we've seen so far.

Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2009 1:17 PM

I'll also add that over the course of the previous thread, representatives from the Ethical Society changed their stories a couple of times. One claimed there was no vote to uninvite Sunsara Taylor, while another noted the vote was 7-2 for uninvitation. One tried to claim that the Ethical Society arranged for the alternate Sunday venue for her presentation, when it was really only one member who agreed with Sunsara who offered said venue.

While I agree that not everyone has been forthcoming with an all-encompassing, complete narrative, at least the people in Sunsara's corner haven't been contradicting each other.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 6, 2009 1:21 PM

The EHSC most certainly didn't take the high road here. It appears that they were as unaware of Taylor's communist views as the AAI was of Maher's views on medicine. The AAI, however, took the high road and danced with the one they brung. I think the AAI and the EHSC are good contrasting examples of how to correctly and incorrectly handle a somewhat similar situation. The AAI didn't try to censor Maher; in fact, they would've liked him to speak more so that attendees could chalenge his views.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 6, 2009 1:23 PM

Taylor is a Maoist Communist. She's known for being a Maoist Communist. When I read the earlier post and saw the name Sunsara Taylor the words Maoist Communist came immediately to my mind. If the EHSC speaker selection committee knew of Taylor and how to contact her, they should have known that she is a Maoist Communist. So what exactly did they think she was going to talk about?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 6, 2009 1:25 PM

Evan Kane, you do realize that Sunsara was invited. She did not force herself upon them.

Also, how Sunsara conducts her blog has nothing to to with this. If what she has to say was so distasteful, the audience could point that out after the presentation.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 6, 2009 1:27 PM

That could just mean they're better at enforcing--shall we say?--message discipline than the Ethical Society.

That could also mean that the representatives of the Ethical Society are lying out their asses, like bullies caught in the act.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 1:29 PM

Evan Kane #7

That is the sound of the point flying right over your head.

As to your point #1... WTF, dude? Where in the entire post does PZ say a damn thing about her right to trespass, OR use the word "constitution" at all. Read the post again, please. At no point does PZ advocate Sunsara intruding on the private property. In fact, if not for the clearly aggressive behavior of law enforcement as shown in the picture from the original post, as well as the eye-witness accounts, I'm sure PZ would agree that calmly escorting her and her group off the premises would have been more than acceptable behavior. He simply does not buy the account of "aggressive behavior" by Susnsara's cameraman and thus far there is no evidence to support the claim beyond the EHSC statement.

As to your second point, did you even read the criticism PZ explained at all? Sunsara Taylor is not just some random unknown that the EHSC had never heard of. Her viewpoints and ideologies are well known... and it is her very notoriety stemming from these viewpoints that make her such a draw in the first place. The EHSC knew what they were getting when they invited her, and then made two terrible judgement calls that seem to contradict the very spirit of a "humanist society"... first they became "concern trolls", as a group... then they insisted upon censorship of her material as a prerequisite for inclusion. How can you not see the problem with an Ethical Humanist Society following these tactics? It's an affront to the movement, frankly.

This has nothing to do with anyone's "rights"... it has more to do with what's right.

Posted by: Sunsara Taylor | November 6, 2009 1:35 PM

Sunsara Taylor on the “Ethical” Humanist Society of Chicago, or...
Why I Was Dis-Invited, Why I Did Not Just Shut Up And Go Away, and Why It Still Matters

The woman who coordinated my speaking engagements in Chicago has written an account of what transpired leading up to and on the day of my cancelled talk, November 1st, 2009. This includes a robust eye-witness defense of my videographer who was brutalized and arrested. Please read her statement here: [http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/11/true-story-of-sunsara-taylor-and.html] as well as the statement from a lawyer who was present here [http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/11/statement-from-attorney-martha-conrad.html] and join in demanding the charges be dropped!

My invitation to speak at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago traces back to a talk that I gave on a panel at Columbia College last year entitled, “A Communist, A Buddhist and a Priest Sit Down to Discuss... Morality to Change the World: With or Without God(s)?” [which you can listen to here and here].

The diversity of views among the panelists, along with robust challenges and deep questions from the audience, made this an exhilarating evening. I spoke openly of being a communist. Drawing from Bob Avakian's book, Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World, I brought alive how his further development of communism places great importance on the need for the methods and means of all who struggle for liberation to be rooted in, and consistent with, our ends. In other words, if we want a world where the needs of humanity are valued above individual gain, where women are fully liberated, where all peoples and a diversity of cultures are respected and valued, and where critical thinking, the unfettered search for the truth, and individuality are fostered – then we must begin to live this morality now and we must struggle to bring that world into being. Others spoke from their own perspectives. Hundreds of students and others stayed long after the scheduled end, standing in the back and squeezing in on the floor in front.

That night, a member of the EHSC Program Committee approached me and let me know that he intended to approach other members of his Committee and invite me to speak.

Anyone who googles “Sunsara Taylor” can see quite easily that when I speak of morality I speak as a communist. I expose the immorality of a global system based on profit, a system that has patriarchy and the oppression of women woven into its very fabric, a system that thrives off of wars of aggression and legalized torture.

In one of the easiest talks of mine to find online, an exchange with Chris Hedges entitled, “Atheism, God and Morality in a Time of Imperialism and Rising Fundamentalism,” I began with the story of Placide Simone, a Haitian woman who – like millions around the globe – was struck hard by the recent global food crises. I quoted news coverage, “'Take one,' she said, cradling a listless baby and motioning toward four rail-thin toddlers, none of whom had eaten that day. 'You pick. Just feed them.'” I made the connections between this real world nightmare and the “need” people feel for the illusory comfort that religion provides in the almost unimaginably unbearable condition of vast swaths of humanity under imperialist globalization. I further argued that religion, the weight of tradition and superstition (including the notion of “sin”), only adds to this suffering.

I speak publicly on these and other matters not, as some now claim, out of a desire to “be in the spotlight.” I do this because I understand that even people who today often close their eyes to truths that seem too difficult, too big, too disturbing to confront, can be won to open their eyes, to think, and to act. To find that part of them that, together with others and the irrefutable evidence of both what is wrong and of the possibility of change, can be part of making those changes to this world and to ourselves in the process.

All of this is informed by my worldview as a communist. At the same time, because this communist worldview is rooted in confronting the world as it actually is and as it actually can be, there is tremendous room for others, coming from their own worldviews but similarly committed to the betterment of humanity, to be enriched through an engagement with these views on morality.

From all this, it is clear that the EHSC knew I was a communist from the very beginning. But, as the date of my long-scheduled talk approached, some began a drive to cancel my talk exactly because of these views.

In his objections to allowing my approved talk to go forward, Anil Kashyap, the co-chair of the Program Committee of EHSC on October 13th wrote, “we specifically stipulated that it [her talk] was NOT supposed to focus on the revolutionary communism.” The actual focus of my talk, as it was clearly described and submitted to the EHSC, was to look at the profound changes that have been brought about by imperialist globalization and the moral crises this has contributed to, to look at the resurgence of virulent, fundamentalist religions in this context and to explore how this can be countered with a secular morality. Of course this was informed by my perspective as a communist.

In further arguing to cancel my talk, Anil Kashyap, who is also a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, wrote, “A talk that claims morality is inconsistent with a global economy is nonsense. The first order fact that cannot be ignored is that the greatest anti-poverty program in history is the growth in China over the last 30 years. That was only possible because of globalism. That transformation has lots of problems, but more starving and desperate people have been lifted up faster than ever in human history.”

This notion, that the last thirty years of capitalist restoration in China has been the “greatest anti-poverty program in history” is one I would have gladly disputed in an open exchange. I probably would have pointed out that between the years 1949 and 1976, under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung, life expectancy in China rose from 32 to 65 years, medical care was brought to the vast country-side, women were brought into education, the workforce, and public life, and for the first time in the history of China the food problem was solved. I would probably have pointed out that since capitalism was restored in 1976, 200 million peasants have become displaced and now cast about through the country, vulnerable to the grossest forms of sweatshop exploitation and that by some estimates as many as 20 million women have been driven into the sex industry for mere survival. Kashyap might have challenged me and I would have responded. In my view, this would have been great – giving people the chance to compare and contrast and form their own views.

Rather than air his very different and strongly-held views on these issues, Kashyap and others argued for the cancellation of my speech. This is in keeping with, and contributes to, a broader chill on discourse that challenges the status quo and it is in keeping with a particularly virulent resurgence of anti-communist McCarthyism.

A member of Obama's team was recently pilloried for having once quoted Mao Tse-Tung, Glenn Beck regularly rants about so-called “communists” and “socialists” that are packed into the administration, and Obama himself is targeted as a “socialist” for considering any form of healthcare reform.

To be clear, I am no supporter of President Obama and Obama himself is no socialist or communist. But I am a communist and this has everything to do with why my talk was canceled.

To the degree that this cancellation was driven by the fear of any association with an actual communist at a time when such associations are being used to discredit people and drive them from their jobs, this is neither ethical nor practical. One does not stop anti-communism and repression by capitulating to it. Such behavior only fuels the hysteria, encourages those on the witch-hunt, and intimidates others. To the degree that those who suppressed my talk did so out of fear that my challenge to the morality of capitalism might have resonated at a time when so many are experiencing such a profound crises of confidence in capitalism, this is also indefensible. This cuts against stated principles of the EHSC as well as basic ethical standards.

Today, people everywhere are groaning under the weight and the horrors associated with the current world order. The female half of humanity is routinely beaten, raped, disrespected and demeaned in a thousand ways and from every side. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of thousands of lives have been stolen by U.S. wars just in recent years, with no end in sight. Hundreds of millions of children are caught up in life-draining labor, with no chance of a childhood and no prospects for a future of anything more than continued suffering. Here within the U.S., millions are forced out of their homes by foreclosure, an epidemic of police murder and brutality stalks the lives of Black and Latino youth, and the government routinely spies on its citizens emails, phone calls and public spaces. All of these, and countless other unnecessary nightmares, are part of the great moral dilemma of our times.

Yet, out of fear of conflict, out of fear of sacrifice, out of fear of standing out and having to struggle for one's principles and ethics, these and other crimes continue, even though millions disagree.

It is the phenomenon described so saliently in a poem by Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

All too often these days, people voice their disagreement with these wrongs... but then they go about their lives. They acquiesce. They tell themselves that they couldn't have won anyhow – but we can never really know that. Such “wise council” might have told the same thing to the Freedom Riders of the Civil Rights Movement, the soldiers who refused to fight in Vietnam, or the women who won the right to abortion.

Today, progressive and radical thinkers across the country are routinely dis-invited, their speech is routinely suppressed, they are pressured to self-censor, the are fired or denied tenure, and the discourse of this society is routinely kept within “safe” limits that do not challenge a bloody status quo.

To go along with this, and to contribute to this, is to do great harm. Indeed, the ideas that are allowed to circulate in society and the ideas that are suppressed, have everything to do with whether the crimes of this world will be allowed to continue or whether these will be called out, resisted and stopped.

I ask that each of you reading this now add your voice against this act of suppression. Spread this letter. Send statements to the addresses below. Help open up a platform to these all-too-infrequently heard ideas by inviting me to speak. Write and call the EHSC and the Skokie police department to demand that charges be dropped against my videographer.

Contact the EHSC at: office@ethicalhuman.org and 847.677.3334.

Send copies of your letters, and make contributions to the legal defense by contacting: sunsaratour@yahoo.com

To all in the Chicago area, join me this Sunday at the Best Church Of God: http://www.bestchurchofgod.org/.god/

And, because you really have been lied to about communism, join me in catching Raymond Lotta at U of Chicago on Wed, November 11th, 7 pm Kent Hall Room 107. “Everything You've Been Told About Communism Is Wrong! Capitalism Is a Failure. Revolution Is the Solution.”
Labels: anti-communism, censorship, ehsc, sunsara taylor
posted by Sunsara Taylor at 10:21 AM

Posted by: fest1218 | November 6, 2009 1:35 PM

What is it w/ you atheist lot and women named Taylor: first it was atheist Jay-Z and Taylor Swift, then it was atheistic Wolf-Creatures and Taylor Mitchell, and now it's this poor lass Sunsara Taylor? Give it a rest already, guys.

Posted by: Orac | November 6, 2009 1:36 PM

The AAI, however, took the high road and danced with the one they brung. I think the AAI and the EHSC are good contrasting examples of how to correctly and incorrectly handle a somewhat similar situation. The AAI didn't try to censor Maher; in fact, they would've liked him to speak more so that attendees could chalenge his views.

You're kidding, right? The AAI tried very hard to ignore the controversy and sweep it under the rug, and very likely would have succeeded if it hadn't been for a handful of gadflies that kept the issue alive.

Posted by: Peter G. | November 6, 2009 1:38 PM

I have some difficulty understanding how the right of free speech includes the right to compel other people to listen. Whether or not it was entirely ethical to withdraw a speaking invitation it was illegal trespassing to stay when you are asked to leave or told not to come. That being said, the most foolish action taken, presumably by the Humanist Society, was shutting down the videographer. Censorship to what purpose? That was dumb. In fact they should have had their own videographer recording the same thing. Now the whole thing is reduced to a childish "he said,she said" situation that makes everyone involved look foolish.

Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2009 1:40 PM

If Sunsara is being so truthful were is the video of the "victim" being abused by the police? Why does Sunsara have photos and video of everything else but not that?

Even your people include in their accounts a statement that the cameraman was handcuffed and maced. Nobody here has claimed anything more than that. Is your defense so thin that you're attacking people who are just repeating the little information the Chicago EHS has put out themselves? Paragons of Ethical Humanism, truly.

Posted by: Yoritomo | November 6, 2009 1:40 PM

Maybe this reveals more about me than about the Chikago meeting, but I'm surprised by how many people seem to readily accept that police officers would use inappropriate amounts of force on the EHSC president's command. Why should they? Just because police officers like being bullies? Conversely, if the amount of force used by the police was appropriate, that would go a long way towards establishing the truth of the EHSC's claims concerning the meeting.

Whether the EHSC was right when they decided to cancel the invitation is, of course, another matter entirely.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 6, 2009 1:43 PM

That sounds interesting. I'd disagree that a Maoist philosophy is a sound foundation for a secular philosophy, but I wouldn't mind hearing that talk myself. I have no idea what the EHSC found objectionable in that description, either.

This could have been a springboard to a post speech discussion into what kind of secular society is truly ethical and desirable.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 6, 2009 1:44 PM

@Orac

Yes, you're right that they wanted it to just go away and that wasn't the way to go. So perhaps my example wasn't the best, but I still think that disinviting him the way the EHSC did to Taylor would have been a much bigger gaffe.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 1:46 PM

Lest anyone think I'm defending just one side here...

I personally think it was a bad idea for Sunsara to show up on the premises... I think it set a poor example and could have and should have been handled much better... but I'm not going to dwell on that aspect because that's hardly the core of PZ's post.

The point is that the EHSC made a very loud statement about themselves in asking Taylor to censor her speech as a pre-requisite to being allowed to speak.

If Taylor's talk was titled "Morality Without God" and yet it was really about communism, then that is misleading. Anyone who has shown up for a bait-and-switch talk knows how frustrating they can be. The EHSC took the right step in preventing a bait-and-switch talk, just as any other real-world institution would do with bait-and-switch content.

Right... because certainly the audience themselves could never have been trusted to decide on their own if they were being "bait and switched" and decide for themselves if they wish to hear what she has to say.

That's a bogus argument, cm... this was not a "captive audience".

Posted by: Martha Conrad | November 6, 2009 1:50 PM

Statement from Attorney Martha Conrad Regarding November 1st at the EHSC
I am a lawyer licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois for the last 23 years.

I was present at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago [EHSC] on November 1st. I personally witnessed the entire incident leading to the arrest and can lay out the salient facts of what occurred at EHSC that day.

That morning, I entered the building behind Ms. Taylor and others about ten minutes before the 10:30 am program was to start. No one at any time told Ms. Taylor, the videographer or anyone else that they could not enter the event, which was advertised as being “free and open to the public.”

I was close to Ms. Taylor and the videographer the whole time. Ms. Taylor entered the auditorium and sat down. A man, who I later learned was the director of EHSC, came over to talk to Ms. Taylor and told the videographer who was videotaping the interaction to turn off the video camera. He did so. At no time, did the director or anyone else ask Ms. Taylor or the videographer to leave. After talking briefly to the director, and before the official EHS program was to start, Ms. Taylor stood next to her chair and began making a short statement challenging the decision by the EHS to “disinvite” her. At no time during her statement was she told to stop. After approximately two minutes, the police came into the auditorium and Ms. Taylor stated, “I’m going to be leaving now.” At that time the videographer appeared to be recording Ms. Taylor’s statement with a cell phone. I then saw a uniformed police officer and a man in a baseball hat grab the videographer by each arm. I didn’t hear either give any instruction or warning. They proceeded to roughly pull on his arms as they took him out of the room. (Later, the man in the baseball hat identified himself to me as a police officer who had been hired to be there.)

I followed them to the hallway, and saw officers repeatedly batter him. I turned away for a moment, and when I looked back the videographer was down on the floor. The police pulled him down the hallway and out of my sight. I pushed past some other people in the hallway and entered the foyer. I saw 4-5 officers piled on top of the videographer as he lay face down on the floor. I loudly announced I was a lawyer, and called out to them that the man had done nothing illegal. I demanded that they stop battering him.

There were so many officers on top of him that it was difficult to see him. But I did see the officers bash his head against the floor at least twice. They twisted his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. A couple of minutes later, after the officers had taken the videographer outside and were putting him in the police car, I observed that one side of his face and neck was scratched up. One of his eyes was violently red and tears were pouring out of that eye and down his cheek.

At no time was the videographer aggressive toward the police officers. At no time did he resist arrest.

A sergeant on the scene approached me and claimed, gestering to EHSC and the EHSC people in front of it, “These people here are doing this. It is not us.”

I went to the Skokie police station, where the videographer was taken. When I arrived I saw an ambulance there. I identified myself as a lawyer, announced my concern for the videographer’s medical condition, and demanded to see him. I was not allowed to do so. The same sergeant who I had seen at EHSC came out and spoke to me in the waiting room. He told me he had called the ambulance due to the videographer’s injuries. The videographer declined going to the hospital in the ambulance and flushed his own eyes of a chemical spray they had used on him.

The videographer is charged with criminal trespass to property, resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. These are very serious charges and totally unwarranted. Later that afternoon, the videographer was released after a collection was taken up to pay his bond. Immediately upon his release, he went to Skokie Hospital where doctors treated his multiple injuries to his head, chest and wrists. His case is set for November 18th, and I ask that you join in demanding that these unfounded charges be immediately dropped!
Labels: arrest, ehsc, lawyer, police brutality, videographer
posted by Sunsara Taylor at 9:54 AM

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 6, 2009 1:51 PM

If I was in Chicago I would have liked to listen to Taylor's talk. There would be parts of it I'd probably agree with, even though I have little regard for Maoism. The EHSC leadership did themselves and their members a great disservice by rescinding Taylor's invitation.

To add injury to insult, the EHSC called the cops who apparently were needed to rough up a member of Taylor's entourage. This is the part that makes no sense to me, regardless of which story one hears.

Posted by: Proud Member of Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago | November 6, 2009 1:52 PM

PZ, here’s the ultimate and painful irony – you and EHSC are allies.

Our agenda – call it what you will — skepticism, humanism, atheism – will never be realized unless we create and maintain *physical* alternatives to religious institutions —secular communities that welcome families, children, and old people and try to meet a variety of human emotional and practical needs. That is what we try to do.

But because you experience *your atheism* as under siege, whenever anyone, anywhere appears to attack what appears to be atheism, you lend your considerable popularity and authority to a smear campaign.

You run a “virtual” community. We try to run an “actual” one. The latter, I submit, is a lot harder and messier than the former. You might try it some time.

Posted by: Newfie | November 6, 2009 1:55 PM

I'm in agreement with others that both parties acted poorly, and the information from both sides seems sketchy, but I have to ask a question. PZ, if you were invited to give a talk on Biology, Evolution and Development, but you insisted on including Atheism in your discussion (not that I think you would), would the host be out of line for changing their minds?

Posted by: Evan Kane | November 6, 2009 2:00 PM

Okay, thanks everyone. I get it now. Sunsara is all truthful and a complete victim of EHSC. She can say whatever, wherever and that is cool. The EHSC is made up of a horrible group of stupid people.

It’s an organization that is so evil that 10% of it's weekly collections go directly to charities. It’s a group of vile people who regularly volunteer at soup kitchens and shelters, and attend protests on environmental and political issues. They even have the nauseating practice of having their kids pack bag lunches for the hungry on a regular basis.

Thank you for correcting my stupidity, now I understand!

How wonderful it must be to live in your Robespierreian world! A world where your own infallible perceptiveness gives you unrestricted sanction to pass judgment on others and personally castigate those you have grievances with. I blushingly admit I am jealous!

Signing off.

Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2009 2:02 PM

@48

If that is meant as an excuse for the actions that allegedly took place, we'd prefer if you ally with the theists instead. Thanks anyway. We don't need a Goon Squad, we prefer to argue ideas instead of get into fist fights.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 6, 2009 2:04 PM

We can do without the violin concerto, Evan Kane, especially when you're playing it so badly.

Posted by: Amit Joshi | November 6, 2009 2:05 PM

What the everloving fuck?

Since when is the argument "I've never heard of her so clearly the point that she is well known is not valid" a cogent, reasonable argument?

Heh. I know, pretty damn egotistical, eh? But I only mean that it's hard for me, personally, to just accept that everyone on the EHSC board just ought to have know who Taylor is. Why is it hard for me to accept that? Well, because I'd never heard of her!

That's all I'm saying, although I can see it comes across as pretty clueless :). Or maybe you did understand what I meant, and think that's clueless! In which case, there it is...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 2:05 PM

PZ, if you were invited to give a talk on Biology, Evolution and Development, but you insisted on including Atheism in your discussion (not that I think you would), would the host be out of line for changing their minds?

If an invitation were made to PZ that explicitly outlined the subjects that the organizers wished to cover, as you imply above, I would guess that PZ would agree to keep the subject matter within those disciplines as an understanding of the requirements upon which the invitation was made.

That, of course, is a far stretch from that happened in this case... would you agree?

Posted by: Peter G. | November 6, 2009 2:05 PM

@44 " A sergeant on the scene approached me and claimed, gestering to EHSC and the EHSC people in front of it, “These people here are doing this. It is not us." Cause, you know, that's the way the system works. The police only abuse and falsely arrest innocent people when requested to by someone else.

Posted by: zer0 | November 6, 2009 2:07 PM

I feel the Society was well within their rights to cancel her opportunity to speak at their private function. She was well outside her rights to show up with a ton of people uninvited and enter when asked not to. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what she intended to talk about, and how staunch a supporter of free expression you are, she acted poorly here.

All of you foaming at the mouth over this sound like little school children screaming "It's a free country, nahnee nahnee booboo." The society had the freedom to be free from her that day, just like we have the right to be from religion. Her freedom of expression doesn't tread on that. She owes the Society an apology in my opinion. They made it clear why they canceled her opportunity and apologized when they sent her cancellation, that should've been the end of it.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 6, 2009 2:08 PM

I'd never heard of the woman, so I'm certainly not going along with the claim that EHSC should've known what they were getting.

I never heard of Sunsara Taylor either (or the EHSC for that matter), but it took me a whole 30 seconds to find out she writes for "Revolution: Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA".

Taylor may have been provocative by showing up, but the EHSC comes off as spineless and incompetent.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 6, 2009 2:09 PM

@Orac, @Rev.BDC, @PZ,

OK, after thinking it over, I was wrong and you guys are right. Giving an award is a much huger deal than hosting a Sunday talk.

Posted by: IaMoL | November 6, 2009 2:12 PM

Kudos for Evan Kane and his brilliant use of emotional refutation. I love the precocious way he used Robespierreian world - not bad for a sixth grader. And the flounce out was as effete as any flounce out I've ever read. Just think of the potential this kid has once he's mastered a few basic critical thinking skills.

Bra vo. *golf clap*
(yawn)

Posted by: cm | November 6, 2009 2:14 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp #63, yes. Committees are fallible things. Possibly 1-2 people in the group advocated for her, were given a basic sketch of what she might be speaking on, and then gave a provisional invitation pending the requested statement of content. When they got further intel on what the talk would be, they balked.

I'd agree, though, it would be better to drop the provisional aspect of invitations. Ideally, invitations should be binding, but after due diligence. In this regard, the EHSC can be faulted, but it is not such a terrible ethical failing, more like a poor choice of speaker acceptance policy.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | November 6, 2009 2:16 PM

I'm torn on this one...

I agree that the EHSC should have let her speak...what a boring place to be if your ideas are never challenged. But if it was their opinion that her talk was off topic then they're well within their rights to withdraw the invitation, especially since (if they're being truthful in their letter to you) the invitation was provisional and her talk had not yet been confirmed.

But also it seems like Taylor is just being a drama queen about the whole thing (not trying to be sexist, just not aware of a gender-neutral term for drama queen...besides, I call my husband a drama queen all the time lol /disclaimer). It just seems so blown out of proportion...but I guess the publicity is good for her, I didn't know who she was before reading about her here and on Friendly Atheist.

I feel like the only real mistakes in this situation were made by the police or the videographer if he did in fact cooperate with the police. If the police were never called, or if the videographer had just exited quietly, would we even be talking about this?

Posted by: Bob L | November 6, 2009 2:17 PM

Proud Member of Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago@ "PZ, here’s the ultimate and painful irony – you and EHSC are allies.

Our agenda – call it what you will — skepticism, humanism, atheism – will never be realized unless we create and maintain *physical* alternatives to religious institutions —secular communities that welcome families, children, and old people and try to meet a variety of human emotional and practical needs. That is what we try to do."

So is Taylor right; is your group's idea of the humanist society of future is Chicago Business school free-market capitalism?

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 2:18 PM

That makes for a lame speaking series; if inoffensive pablum that reinforces what they already believe is all they want, then they should just go to church.

Um... PZ? Have you been to EHSC's website? They pretty much are a church. They're basically Unitarians, but with a different name.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with PZ's harsh criticism of EHSC, but the lack of criticism of Sunsara surprises me... One thing that is not in dispute is that, after being asked not to speak on Sunday, she showed up to a Sunday church meeting uninvited and with an entourage of 20 angry people. Was that really necessary?

And what to make of her absolute refusal to compromise? We know she was allowed to speak on Saturday, because we have the video. Now, I'm not commenting on the wisdom of EHSC's cancellation either way here... but if EHSC's basic message was, "Look, your talk is not the kind of bland pablum we like to serve up at our Sunday service... maybe you can do a workshop on Saturday instead?", do you really think that this rhetoric about a "speech in exile" and this Sunday protest (let's call a spade a spade, a protest is what it was) really represent a proportional response??? Please..

Criticism is deserved all around here. EHSC botched things up a bit, in response Sunsara played up the "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" card to the Nth degree, and then EHSC got scared and called the cops, who then, depending on whose story you believe, exercised undue force. Nobody comes off smelling sweet in this story.

The one thing that comes across to me as completely unambiguous here, and is consistent with every sides's story: You do NOT want to fuck around with Sunsara.

Posted by: BAllanJ | November 6, 2009 2:19 PM

I guess I would like to see what footage the videographer shot before being tackled. Who has that now, Taylor or the cops?

It may show someone asking them to leave. It may not show any indication other than the camera hitting the floor. That would be a nice thing to see.

About the cops following the EHSC's orders... I think if the EHSC told the cops she was a communist, they would only be too willing to trample over any rights she has... because, she's ...well... communist (OH NO!)

There is one way that Taylor has certainly been up front. There is a way she could have given the speech she wanted in the venue she wanted. All she had to do was say OK to their request for a change... change the talk to a 5 minute talk like they wanted, then planted a question from the audience that she could have followed with the rest of the talk she wanted to give. She didn't do that, because she's more up front than that. That would have been more legal, and less ethical. I guess she thought she was dealing with an ethical society (lower case here used intentionally)

Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2009 2:20 PM

But also it seems like Taylor is just being a drama queen about the whole thing (not trying to be sexist, just not aware of a gender-neutral term for drama queen...besides, I call my husband a drama queen all the time lol /disclaimer).

Is it really that hard to say one is being dramatic in order to garner unwarranted attention? Do we need 1-2 word labels for every action under the sun?

Just had to note that, as people always say "I don't know another expression to use".

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 6, 2009 2:20 PM

here we go

Posted by: Nick Olsen | November 6, 2009 2:23 PM

This may be the first time I disagree with you, a least a little bit.

I should preface this by saying that I agree that she should have been able to speak regardless of her position on communism.

But first of all, the vagueness of the EHSC's account may be justifiable. When addressing a controversial situation like this, the EHSC may be well advised not to give step by step detailed accounts simply because that may come back to bite them in the ass if this ever went to court. They simply said that the cameraman acted aggressively. What that means, who knows? But I definitely don't think they would do well to release an official EHSC description of the events without being somewhat vague because then, with a little manoeuvring, a lawyer can screw them over regardless of the legitimacy of the EHSC's position. If they forget something, leave something out, or inaccurately describe something, it can be held against them when being looked upon under a microscope in front of a judge.

Secondly, you list the contrary accounts as if its strong evidence against the EHSC. Many people were there and it is not surprising that some, (at least only two that you've listed so far) may have had a different experience than others. This is not a revelation. A large group of people all see the same thing, and, go figure, there are differences in their accounts. Amazingly, you gloss over the fact that the two accounts you've given were from biased sources.

The EHSC was wrong for not allowing Sunsara Taylor to speak. But whether or not their actions (or those of the cops) were justified after the decision was made is a different story. I don't think you've made a very good case that the EHSC was not justified.

I personally find it hard to believe that Sunsara Taylor peacefully walked in, began speaking and the EHSC released the cops from their leashes like a pack of dogs while little ol' innocent damsel Sunsara watched in horror.

If we take Sunsara Taylor's account of it at face value and forget that their is another side to this story, then we would have no conclusion but that the EHSC, for some reason or no reason at all, had a vendetta against Sunsara Taylor. Do you honestly think that this is the case or that it is even realistic to think this? I don't.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 6, 2009 2:25 PM

In the computer age, claiming ignorace just gets harder and harder.

In the computer age, with spell checkers readily available, getting away with bad spelling just gets harder and harder.

Posted by: kopd | November 6, 2009 2:25 PM

Obvious lesson here (in case anybody wants to try to make some lemonade out of this):
If there are topics you don't want to discuss in your venue, Google somebody before inviting them to speak about anything. Unless you actually know them, of course... perhaps even then.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 2:26 PM

The society was obviously wrong, but if Ms. Taylor had just accepted the cancellation and written a scathing report about the society's hypocrisy, rather than trying to bully her way into a speaking role, we could all comfortably talk about how she was wronged and how the society is a bunch of dicks

Bingo. People are calling EHSC bullies, but what I get from this story -- including from the accounts by Sunsara's entourage -- is that the EHSC leadership come off more as bungling and afraid, while Sunsara comes off as the bully.

If you believe the Sunsara-side account, the cops were also bullies. If you believe the EHSC account, maybe not so much. But the one group that doesn't come across to me as a bully is the EHSC leadership. They just fucked up and then panicked, that's all.

Posted by: Susan | November 6, 2009 2:29 PM

I'm surprised by how many people seem to readily accept that police officers would use inappropriate amounts of force on the EHSC president's command.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 2:33 PM

One thing that confuses me is that Sunsara's supporters keep asserting that EHSC was "spreading lies" in advance of the incident on Sunday... but I can see no evidence of any EHSC statements at all! I only see Sunsara's increasingly vitriolic blog posts.

9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago to further their evil agenda! Show me the LONG FORM of the Certificate of Ethical Behavior! Please...

Posted by: stogoe | November 6, 2009 2:34 PM

She and her cohorts evidently entered private property after being explicitly told not to.

That's something that is not at all evident in the evidence we have.

Seems to me that the camera-operator wrestling occurred without anyone politely telling them to leave first.

Posted by: cm | November 6, 2009 2:37 PM

Celtic_Evolution #85 and Rev. BigDumbChimp #86,

Nice work! (really funny in a subtle way...and yes, I read the original thread).

Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | November 6, 2009 2:38 PM

Smash the black anti-Party gangsters of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago! Their counter-revolutionary activities must be crushed!

Posted by: Newfie | November 6, 2009 2:39 PM

my turn to munch some popcorn

Posted by: Peter G. | November 6, 2009 2:41 PM

@96 Then shouldn't Ms. Taylor be publicly grateful that the EHSC did not require these paid duty officers (if such they were)to execute the videographer and herself. If their required to do whatever is asked of them wouldn't that make sense? Snarkiness aside, paid duty officers are subject to exactly the same rules as any public duty time.

Posted by: Heidi | November 6, 2009 2:43 PM

1. We don't know what in her speech the society objected to. To assume it was her Communist politics is, I think, assuming a lot.

2. Even if they did discriminate against her for her politics, isn't that the right of a private group to do so?

3. Even if they were wrong to discriminate, don't you think Taylor deserves any of the responsibility for failing to respect private property, for obstinately insisting on delivering her speech and disrupting another planned event (how rude for whatever speaker was actually planned!), bringing a video camera and a throng of supporters to help her strongarm her way into speaking and then resisting after a police officer asked her to leave?

She sounds like an incredibly rude woman to me, and I would not ask her to speak at any of my events if I were in such a position.

Posted by: Dan L. | November 6, 2009 2:46 PM

@PMEHSC/#48:

You run a “virtual” community. We try to run an “actual” one. The latter, I submit, is a lot harder and messier than the former. You might try it some time.

Not really sure what you're driving at...but you seem to be making excuses. Should we take that as an admission of wrong-doing?

Besides, I didn't see PZ object anywhere on the basis of atheism -- he objected on the basis of ethics (specifically the ethics of inviting someone to speak) and on censorship.

So between EHSC and Taylor, we seem to have the following misunderstandings:
-Was Taylor provisionally invited, or was she formally invited and the invitation reneged?
-Were Taylor & Co. ever officially told not to attend or to leave the premises?
-Were the premises property OF the EHSC? Or was it rented under the terms stated -- that the premises would be open to the public?
-Did the videographer resist arrest or strike a police officer?
-Did Taylor take the stage during the event without being invited? Or did she, as in her own version, simply stand next to her seat several minutes before the event and announce that she would be making her original speech off-site?

Despite the many posters who seem to think Taylor shouldn't have showed up at all, I think she was well within her rights to attend an event open to the public and speak (perhaps somewhat loudly) on the premises before the event ever started. Furthermore, this did give EHSC a chance to make up for disinviting her (whether the onus was on them to do so isn't clear until some of the above questions get cleared up) by allowing her to make an announcement or otherwise speak during the event.

In other words, just because she was not invited to speak, I don't think that implies she was not invited to attend. In which case, she simply attended and tried to talk to individuals before the event started. I fail to see anything untoward about that.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 6, 2009 2:47 PM

Well we have Both sides of the story right here on this thread, from the EHSC to Ms Taylor herself, as well as two eyewitnesses to the events. Ms Taylor's version of events is consistent and corroborated by the two eyewitnesses.
the idea that Ms Taylor was asked to leave simply doesn't fit with the known facts, including the lack of action by the police towards her.

Some people however are straining as hard as they can in order to justify the treatment meted out to her and her colleague who was documenting the events. I find this very sad, that not only an organisation calling itself ethical would stoop so low as to act in this way, then come here and lie about it but also that people on this site would willingly go along with this obvious subterfuge.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 2:51 PM

But the one group that doesn't come across to me as a bully is the EHSC leadership. They just fucked up and then panicked, that's all.

Agree... sort of. They fucked up and panicked... but I'm not going to leave it at "that's all"... they way in which they handled things was an affront the the very principals of freethought that the humanist movement is supposed to be built on, IMHO... and that's not a minor thing, when judging the actions of an organization.

Yes, but it may not have been for EHC committee, they may have seen it as a clear black and white issue like that when they voted on it.

Still no excuse for a needless censorship requirement. I'll make the point again... this isn't really about rights... it's about what's right.

However, Taylor is not owed a platform by the EHS. She should not have shown up once the invitation was withdrawn. But Taylor likes attention and is not a fan of free speech. Her "World Can't Wait" organization bans speakers who are critical of he the Revolutionary Communist Party. Both WCW and RevCom disrupt speakers and meetings with which they do not agree. Taylor is no angel.

EHS made the mistake of getting involved with an experienced political agitator and did not know how to deal with her.

Fair points... but it's really not so much Sunsara's actions or behavior that concerns me...

Look... I don't necessarily agree with many of Sunsara Taylor's viewpoints and ideologies... and I frankly wouldn't be surprised if she did act a bit boorish and belligerent... but that's still a poor excuse for the behavior of the EHSC in this case, and frankly the behavior of that organization, which is supposed to represent some of the same basic principals on which I stand, concerns me more. That's the reason I make the points I'm making here.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 6, 2009 2:55 PM

All I knew about her before today was that she had very strong opinions against the Bush administration and their war, and that she was good at riling Bill O'Reilly. Her bio also doesn't mention communism:

SUNSARA TAYLOR is a revolutionary voice of a new generation. She is a writer for Revolution newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of World Can't Wait. She was written about in The New York Times, and has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, CNN's Showbiz Tonight, Fox's Hannity & Colmes, Fox & Friends, Alan Colmes Radio Show. Taylor has traveled to the front lines and the heart of the controversy around abortion—from the funeral of recently murder abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, leading protests in support of abortion outside Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame and disrupting Rick Warren’s sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church . In her 2008-2009 speaking tour, Taylor has spoken and debated at campuses nationally on Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World by Bob Avakian, including the Center for the Study of Religion at UCLA, Georgia State University, Columbia College and New York University. Taylor was also a speaker at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention in Los Angeles.

Granted, she's an anti-American-imperialist, which one would often associate with "Godless Communism" (which is apparently exactly what she is), but I don't see where Communism really enters the discussion, unless her answer to the question "How do we counter that with a secular morality of our own?" was just going to be a flat "Communism." (Which would have made for a very short talk with a very long Q&A)

It doesn't negate any of the arguments PZ nor anyone else here has made; it just seems an odd mischaracterization of the perspectives of both Ms. Taylor and those who sought to remove her from the meeting.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 2:56 PM

2. Even if they did discriminate against her for her politics, isn't that the right of a private group to do so?

Sigh. Why are people still insisting this has anything to do with rights? Of course it's within their rights. It's also directly opposed to their supposed freethought platform, and is therefor due the criticism PZ offers.

Posted by: wombat | November 6, 2009 2:57 PM

-Were the premises property OF the EHSC? Or was it rented under the terms stated -- that the premises would be open to the public?

It should be noted that an event that is advertised as free and open to the public does not negate the private property rights of the owners. They still have rights, within some limits, to refuse entry should they choose. I believe the EHSC owns the building in which they reside.

In other words, just because she was not invited to speak, I don't think that implies she was not invited to attend. In which case, she simply attended and tried to talk to individuals before the event started. I fail to see anything untoward about that.

This has been my central question as well and we have yet to receive a clear answer from either side. Ms. Taylor's actions were most likely rude but it's not clear if they were criminal or not.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 2:58 PM

So, how many of those "I'm an atheist but" people who keep pretending that "new atheists" are a lockstep flock of sheep in total worship of their "leaders" will be honest enough to admit that they were wrong after reading this thread and seeing the disagreement over this issue?

Notice the utter lack of the "oh, PZ said it, therefore I will automatically agree with it" attitude that we keep getting baselessly accused of. There are plenty who don't agree and are willing to say so.

My take on it is that PZ is only right about one thing here - the treatment of the cameraman was wrong. He was being treated with violence out of proportion to his behaviour. His only "aggravation" was not leaving. Beating him up was not necessary when all the police had a right to do was remove him, and while it's true that he was resisting that order, he was doing so peacefully and not trying to harm them, merely standing his ground. Simply picking him up and moving him without slamming his head into the ground was plenty sufficient. The police reacted with typical police over-reaction to being disobeyed. "He disobeyed! That's all we need to cause him harm!". No. It's not all you need, dammit. Peaceful non-compliance warrants non-violent measures to force compliance (like dragging the person away), but not violent ones (like putting your hand on their head and smashing it into things, which is the same as hitting someone in the skull with a club).

That's it. With everything else, I am in disagreement with PZ, a person I usually agree with on most other things. When they provisionally invited her, they said "We'd like to invite you to speak on topic X - if you wish to, can you show us what your talk would be first?" When she did so, the talk was not on topic X at all and instead was about totally unrelated topic Y, so they said, "never mind - the subject matter we were interested in was X, not Y. Thanks but no thanks.".

That's where it SHOULD have ended.

She was NOT invited as she claims. She was provisionally invited, IF she would speak on the topic they were seeking a speaker for. She did not wish to speak on that topic and insteead wanted to speak on another, so the provisional invite was dropped. It was never a real full invite.

Being told not to bother with the talk because it is totally off-topic is NOT the same thing as what you are portraying it as, PZ - you're portraying it as being a disagreement over her position on the topic, as if she was being rejected because they didn't agree with her on the topic, when that's not the case. She was much more akin to the typical internet troll who only has one thing he wants to talk about so he tries to force that one thing into other discussions on other topics.

For an example of someone being on-topic but not agreed with, consider Christopher Hitchens' 2008 talk at the FFRF convention (which I know you were at, PZ because I saw you there walking about between sessions). Most of the audience, myself included, didn't agree with his stances on Bush's war in Iraq, but he did speak of the topic in a way that was actually ON topic for the conference since he was talking about his (strange, unsupported, contrary to evidence) belief that the action in Iraq was increasing secularism and decreasing Islamic theism. Granted, he was wrong and most of the people at the conference said so, but unlike what Ms Taylor was planning on doing, at least what he said was on topic. And because it was on-topic despite being controversial, he was welcomed and allowed to speak. Ms Taylor's talk, on the other hand, wasn't even on topic.

Posted by: Dan506 | November 6, 2009 2:59 PM

[quote]The society can hardly be blamed. If you we're asked to speak at a conference on biology, but insisted your talk be about atheism, would you expect to be welcomed?
[/quote][quote]
Look at the description of her planned talk above. She was asked to speak about "Morality without gods", and that's precisely what her talk is about. What she did, though, was not give a pat answer that the society perhaps expected: she doesn't blame immorality in the world simply on religion, but was going to talk about the factors that contribute to many social ills, and how a secular philosophy could address them.

She was not going off on some wild tangent unrelated to the issue at hand.[/quote]

To be honest, while I largely agree with her views, did you read her post? Even her description had very, very little to do with the relationship (or lack thereof) between morality and religion, but instead simply used it as a spring board to launch into her political agenda.

Posted by: Heidi | November 6, 2009 3:02 PM

@James Sweet "You do NOT fuck with Sunsara Taylor."

Why? She didn't do anything anyone else couldn't have done. She didn't "school" the ethical society. She was acting like a spoiled brat. Any idiot could have performed in the same poor manner. She didn't prove anything by showing up except that she has no respect for anyone else. In fact, I'm pretty sure she's lost a lot of respect, judging by the comments I see on here.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 3:03 PM

When they provisionally invited her, they said "We'd like to invite you to speak on topic X - if you wish to, can you show us what your talk would be first?" When she did so, the talk was not on topic X at all and instead was about totally unrelated topic Y, so they said, "never mind - the subject matter we were interested in was X, not Y. Thanks but no thanks.".

The evidence we have at the moment does not support this statement, Steven... as PZ points out at #35.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 6, 2009 3:04 PM

OK--read the thread more thoroughly, and I see that the question of the video has already arisen, but I don't think has been answered adequately. It's just weird that nothing about it has been posted by those who have it (although maybe for legal reasons)...it would seem that unless the camera was broken in the melee that there would be video evidence of what happened up until the point that the videographer was grabbed. Without this evidence, it is hard to judge what really happened.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 3:04 PM

Correcting myself here. I said:

consider Christopher Hitchens' 2008 talk at the FFRF convention

Posted by: Hairhead | November 6, 2009 3:07 PM

The creepiest part about the whole exercise was the violent assault on the videographer. That was the most egregious assault on free speech, as the destruction/confiscation of a record of the event allows both sides to lie without taking any responsibility for their actions.

Since you can now purchase "pen" video recorders which take both colour video and sound for less than $100 I seriously recommend that any people walking into a potential confrontation, especially if that confrontation is assumed to be strictly verbal, be wearing one or two of these things.

As a plus, these recorders actually work as a pen, too.

And I do have to make a final point to the poster above who commented that a person arriving at a public meeting with twenty supporters should scare the shit out of people.

What the hell? Have you ever been to a hotly-contested nomination meeting for a political office? Why would you (or the Ethical Society) be afraid of *speech*? (And it's clear they were afraid of speech, to the point of directing violence to someone who was making a record of their speech.)

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 3:08 PM

@Heidi:

You do NOT fuck with Sunsara Taylor.

Why? She didn't do anything anyone else couldn't have done. She didn't "school" the ethical society. She was acting like a spoiled brat. Any idiot could have performed in the same poor manner. She didn't prove anything by showing up except that she has no respect for anyone else. In fact, I'm pretty sure she's lost a lot of respect, judging by the comments I see on here.

I think we're mostly in agreement here. I guess the difference is, while you merely dismiss her as acting like a spoiled brat, I find the idea of a spoiled brat with a twenty-person entourage and an ax to grind showing up at an event I was attending to be scary as hell. :D

Posted by: David Estlund | November 6, 2009 3:09 PM

Dan506, Her description was largely framed around a question which would have the talk would have centered on answering. "Launching" into her political agenda was simply describing what she sees as aspects of the problems that this secular morality would have to solve. I don't see why that means her talk would be about anything less than morality without gods.

Posted by: taranaki | November 6, 2009 3:10 PM

I think PZ is being unduly harsh with the EHSC. It does not take much imagination to get a good picture of what people who belong to the group are like. They try so very hard not to offend anyone, to be kind, to show what good ETHICAL people they are. And they do it all without god. They are better xians than xians.

They got in over their heads. They tried to get out of it by being good, kind and inoffensive. And they simply made things worse. They are not equipped to deal with someone like Sunsara Taylor. Cut them some slack. They will be discussing this incident for years, trying to learn from it - see how they can become better people, kinder and even less offensive.

It may be worth it to head out to Skokie (the suburb of Chicago that Steve Goodman called "number last") to get some chuckles as they discuss their angst and pain.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | November 6, 2009 3:11 PM

Please! Everyone calm down! The disunity, the upset, ooooh the humanity.

Whatever will Bilbo think of us now?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 3:12 PM

I think that's part of the "framing" issue here (hah!) People are thinking of EHSC like a brave unflinching atheist freethought organization. They're not. They're Unitarians. When you start thinking of it that way, Sunsara comes off as the scary one.

I won't argue with that, James, nor with much of the rest of your post... but that's exactly what bothers me. They are supposed to be an organization that represents the larger "Ethical Humanist Society" culture... that they are more like Unitarians in practice, or even claim to be, doesn't piss me off any less. You are an Ethical Humanist Society by name... fucking act like it!

Posted by: wombat | November 6, 2009 3:13 PM

I would be really sympathetic to the people in the church right at that moment, even though I normally have trouble mustering must sympathy for these same folks. That would suck.

She showed up to a speech being given by Rick Warren in January at a church in Texas and made a scene. Which of course forces me to have some sympathy for Warren. This in turn makes me ill. I'm not sure how making your friends and at least partial allies sympathetic to your most abject enemies is politically smart.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 3:17 PM

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | November 6, 2009 3:11 PM

Please! Everyone calm down! The disunity, the upset, ooooh the humanity.

Whatever will Bilbo think of us now?

Posted by: stogoe | November 6, 2009 3:17 PM

Yoritomo@36:

I'm surprised by how many people seem to readily accept that police officers would use inappropriate amounts of force on the EHSC president's command. Why should they? Just because police officers like being bullies?

Posted by: EB | November 6, 2009 3:17 PM

Ok, I finally understand where PZ's coming from here...and he's right. This is an organization which invited her and apparently places great emphasis on "freedom of speech". It is political suicide to rescind her invitation and not expect a backlash.

That being said, as incompetent as this group seems, I've totally been in a situation where volunteers make stupid organizational mistakes, so I doubt they were being malicious---just incompetent.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 6, 2009 3:19 PM

By rights, I didn't mean constitutionally given rights. I mean moral rights.

Can you point me to the document that has these rights listed. I'm curious.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 6, 2009 3:21 PM

Did the EHSC know of Ms Talyor's previous disruptions at the Rick Warren event in January? -wombat #39

Maoists are complete nutbars generally (and this holds doubly true for Bob Avakian's cult). -protocol #87

This notion, that the last thirty years of capitalist restoration in China has been the “greatest anti-poverty program in history” is one I would have gladly disputed in an open exchange. I probably would have pointed out that between the years 1949 and 1976, under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung, life expectancy in China rose from 32 to 65 years, medical care was brought to the vast country-side, women were brought into education, the workforce, and public life, and for the first time in the history of China the food problem was solved. I would probably have pointed out that since capitalism was restored in 1976, 200 million peasants have become displaced and now cast about through the country, vulnerable to the grossest forms of sweatshop exploitation and that by some estimates as many as 20 million women have been driven into the sex industry for mere survival. -Sunsara Taylor #26

Posted by: cm | November 6, 2009 3:23 PM

Nerd of Redhead,

CM, you have a wasted post. Try Google instead of the NYTimes, which is mostly irrelevant to the USA outside of the east coast.

Others may disagree with you just a tad on that one.

And since Ms Taylor is in Chicago, why not the Chicago Tribune? Talk about irrelevancies...

OK, here you are:

Christopher Hitchens: 115
Richard Dawkins: 47
Lyndon LaRouche: 41
Jeremiah Wright: 261
Sunsara Taylor: 1

That 1, from May of this year, in a larger story about a protest near Notre Dame, goes:

Sunsara Taylor, a New York City resident and a member of the abortion-rights group Abortion on Demand, said outside the school's gates that "there was a voice missing" in the controversy over Obama's visit. "If women don't have a right to decide if they have a child, women aren't free," she said. "We need to expand abortion access and abortion rights and lift the stigma. Fetuses are not babies and women are not incubators."

Posted by: cm | November 6, 2009 3:27 PM

Heidi #128. Yes, exactly.

This is how people too often achieve a Warholian form of notoriety in this country now: by "acting out". I'm tired of it.

One should "fuck with" such people, certainly.

Posted by: wombat | November 6, 2009 3:28 PM

You're not really a believer in Free Speech unless you are willing to support the right of someone to speak whom you think vile. Ethics are about walking the walk as well as talking the talk. I also think Maoists are nuts, but it looks to me like the Ethical Society wanted only that speech they already agreed with, and that is intellectually cowardly.

Believers in free speech are not required to provide an open platform for all speech in any location at any time. That you might call anarchic speech. Free speech, at least in terms of American history and experience, is the prohibition of the government from restricting speech. The decision of the EHSC has several facets to it, but none of them have to do with free speech.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 6, 2009 3:31 PM

Another wasted post CM. Information is available. I just pointed out your inability to show the proper information the first time around. And nobody has refuted my claim that typing Ms Taylor's name into Google, the Giant Web Search Engine, or lesser versions at Yahoo or MSN, doesn't pull up the information required to make an informed decision prior to a invitation being issued. If no one bothered to look, that is laziness.

Posted by: SirBedevere | November 6, 2009 3:36 PM

OK, so all parties behaved badly in this mess. But doesn't the behavior of the EHSC -- from the invite/disinvite to the poor handling of the event itself to the series of contradicting statements in the aftermath -- have the unmistakable stink of "committee-decision-making"? (That's an explanation, not an excuse.)

(Incidentally, people have questioned if a committee of 9 in an organization like this could have had insufficient knowledge about their invitee's reputation *and* would have invited her anyway. I know from sad experience that the answer is "yes" on both counts.)

Posted by: Tulse | November 6, 2009 3:38 PM

I did not know of Ms. Taylor before this incident, but since then my impression is that she is, in a sense, a professional agitator. As such, I doubt that she is genuinely upset by her treatment, as it gives her a chance to vent more outrage and get more publicity. (When I was in the teaching assistants union in university, we had plenty of Trotskyites who were like this -- they far preferred direct confrontation and martyrdom to discussion.)

Posted by: uncle frogy | November 6, 2009 3:42 PM

the thing I am amazed about which makes it seem that the EHSC as there name stated does not seem to understand what I would have thought was likely to be true namely

Chicago police tends to or is likely to equal Goon Squad.
especially when they are told that a known enemy of America will be attempting to disrupt a meeting.

So now EHSC are forced to try to recover from the mismanagement of whole affair by distortion.
so what else is knew?

Posted by: Heidi | November 6, 2009 3:46 PM

@Celtic_Evolution #167

You and I disagree on a major point of contention: I do not think the society acted unethically. In fact, that seems to be the thought of roughly half the people responding.

However, to your own admission, it looks like EVERYONE agrees that she behaved in an unethical manner. Which, in my opinion, justifies the society's uninviting her in the first place - she is not an ethical person and therefore could not talk about the subject at hand. She knows nothing of "morality without god" or she wouldn't have acted in such a manner.

Posted by: taranaki | November 6, 2009 3:50 PM

Uncle Froggy #172 - Don't blame the CPD for this one. It happened in the suburbs - Skokie specifically.

Posted by: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar | November 6, 2009 3:52 PM

@ taranaki #105

You've hit on the key point.

The Facts As I See Them:

1) Sunsara Taylor is a Very Silly Person parroting anachronistic clap-trap. She is a professional political agitator dedicated to a pernicious sect of communism. Her actions were thus quite predictable.
2) That a Maoist would complain about being 'suppressed' by a group of Unitarian do-gooders reeks of IRONY.
3) The EHSC proved to be a bunch of amateurs.
4) Beyond PZ's point that the EHSC was incredibly stupid in its handling of the event. However, this should not absolve the Very Silly People of their Haydenesque theatrics.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 6, 2009 3:54 PM

Heidi, her behavior was rude and unprofessional, but I don't see how you justify calling it (and her) unethical. In fact, I'd say that from her perspective she was performing an act of protest out of a moral imperative. Further, it's a great leap from accusing someone of performing an unethical act to accusing them of being an unethical person.

Posted by: Per-Erik Svensson | November 6, 2009 4:00 PM

Tell me again how the ethics of Sunsara's behavior have anything to do with my criticisms of the EHSC's ethical shortcomings in this case?

What you're saying implies that two kids behaving equally ill should get treated differently. Bash one, ignore the other. Maybe because you expect more from one kid than the other??

Posted by: wombat | November 6, 2009 4:04 PM

There's nothing wrong with being intemperate, unpleasant, rude, controversial or just a general asshole. As long as you do so in your own forum or one voluntarily provided to you. That was not enough for Ms Taylor. But as I said before, she doesn't respect private property rights in the first place so her intrusion shouldn't be a surprise. Again, there are some important details that I don't think have been fully addressed, but I'm guessing this will not be a good thing for her speaking calendar in the future. She will have her opportunities but they will probably be relegated to her ideological comrades which will only further enforce her notions suppression.

Both sides of this nasty little affair will unfortunately return to the comfort of their echo chambers.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 4:06 PM

I ain't no communist (not even a socialist). I am, however, an atheist; and this is not unrelated to the sense of anger and frustration that I feel when I hear people use the terms "communist" or "socialist", which after all are laughably broad and vague and don't really describe any one thing at all, as some sort of lazy, bigoted locution which really means "reprehensible, self-evidently (stupid, incoherent, evil, dangerous etc.) git, no need to think any further or take this person seriously at all."

This is a fair point in general, however, if you read more about Sunsara's politics, you may find (as I do) that they are "reprehensible" and "self-evidently incoherent". Or maybe you won't. But the point is, Sunsara is not your garden-variety friendly "Europe-rules-America-drools" socialist... she's a hardcore Maoist, with some opinions that even many open-minded atheists might find shocking.

Which doesn't mean I don't support her right to speak! Hell, maybe we'll learn something. And people who saw her at AAI have said that she was, if nothing else, "highly interesting." However, it does mean I'm more sympathetic to the EHSC leadership's decision that maybe she's not the best speaker to be presenting a Sunday sermon in front of a bunch of elderly faux-Unitarians...

Posted by: Tulse | November 6, 2009 4:09 PM

people use the terms "communist" or "socialist", which after all are laughably broad and vague and don't really describe any one thing at all

In general, I agree, but in this case it has been made very clear several times here that Ms. Taylor is a self-described Maoist and follower of Bob Avakian. I think that gives a reasonably specific picture in terms of her views.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 4:10 PM

While I think it irrelevant how Ms Taylor handles comments on her blog, isn't it inconsistent, and hypocritical, to censor comments and then insist that in a different venue, such censorship is immoral? Such a selfish attitude is consistent with other activists who are equally inconsiderate.

Others have already pointed out that Sunsara subscribes to the revolutionary-Maoist gameplan of screaming "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" whenever not in control, but exercising the most brutal oppression possible when in control. There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy here -- she's very consistent in her insane political opinions.

Posted by: Robert Strong | November 6, 2009 4:11 PM

To all of those that argue that Taylor is not well known as the excuse for the EHSC's cancellation of her talk I see that as approximately the same as when someone hires someone to take care of people without first doing a background check... it happens but it happens rarely and only to those that are extremely incompetent. It is entirely possible that this is what happened but as I see it then the committee members of the EHSC are incompetent and deserved to be looked upon in a bad light as most people do when someone hires someone to take care of people that has a history of abusing people. I mean damn, they do have google in Chicago and I find it highly unlikely that they don't first check up on the people that are going to speak at their events.

What stands out more to me personally is that there is supposedly a member of the EHSC committee that is very much so a capitalist and was very against Taylor talking. I personally suspect that this member is stridently against Taylor's worldview and didn't want to provide a platform for it to be mentioned much less discussed.

Posted by: DavidCOG | November 6, 2009 4:12 PM

1. EHSC invite the lovely-sounding Sunsara Taylor to give a talk
2. EHSC discover she's a - HORROR! - pinko socialist commie (probably loves faggots, as well)
3. they rescind invitation because they don't want that ungodly commie propaganda polluting their clean, capitalist thoughts
4. realise it's spiralled out of control when their hired thugs get rough and then start spinning the story to limit damage

Did I miss anything?

> We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.

Wut? Did they think she'd arrive with a bag of assault rifles and grenades? Or do they have trouble distinguishing between one woman with some compelling ideas and a gang of Neo Nazis with baseball bats?

If I were a member of the EHSC, I'd be resigning or calling for a purge of the idiots who instigated this clusterfuck.

"EHSC: free thought for all... unless we don't agree with it!"

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 4:16 PM

In other words, yes, it might be true that Taylor was rude, unduly demonstrative, impolite, whatever. She may have indeed "acted badly", whatever that means. It seems pretty silly, though, to whine about that without also acknowledging the fact that to a large extent that is the fucking point.

So, earlier in the post I am quoting, you compared it to atheists intentionally "acting badly" and going outside orthodoxy to make a point.

This is somewhat true, but look at what atheists do to accomplish this: We have a Blasphemy Day. PZ stabs a cracker and puts a picture on his blog. Oooo, scary.

What PZ did not do was show up uninvited (or worse yet, disinvited!) at a Catholic church with twenty Pharyngulites, a camerman, and a lawyer in tow, and proceed to take the pulpit and announce that he was stabbing a cracker. Any Catholic who was offended by PZ's cracker-stabbing need only close their browser, or not even visit Pharyngula in the first place.

So while I agree in general about agitating in favor of a cause, it seems to me that Sunsara's reactions were completely out of proportion, and directed at a questionable target.

Posted by: Robert Strong | November 6, 2009 4:18 PM

I can't help but wonder if those of you that consider Taylor's opinions to be insane see the EHSC as incompetent for even getting into this situation in the first place? If they truly are insane then why the f did the EHSC invite her in the first place? It takes just a few minutes to discover Taylor's opinions with a google search yet the EHSC started discussions and more with Taylor to speak at their event.

Posted by: Tulse | November 6, 2009 4:21 PM

Wut? Did they think she'd arrive with a bag of assault rifles and grenades?

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy."

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Posted by: taranaki | November 6, 2009 4:24 PM

For those who cannot be bothered with the facts - go to this page -
http://www.ethicalhuman.org/location.html

The Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago meets in Skokie, Il. Not in the city of Chicago. The CPD was not involved.

Posted by: kopd | November 6, 2009 4:29 PM

... gameplan of screaming "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" whenever not in control, but exercising the most brutal oppression possible when in control.

I've heard of that one before. Can't put my finger on it...

Posted by: wombat | November 6, 2009 4:31 PM

Hairhead, I don't really disagree with you on any of those points although we will probably not be able to reach any kind of consensus on the necessity of force given that there are mutually contradictory statements from the individuals in attendance. I believe the Society engaged the officers because Ms Taylor a) has a history of being disruptive at events to which she wasn't invited to speak and b) because of the statement of her intentions given the day before the event. Was it ethical to rescind the invitation to speak? I would say in the sense that it prevented an interesting and lively discussion of her viewpoints, yes. However, in the annuals of poor ethical behavior, I find it difficult to generate a tremendous amount of outrage over it. And I find Ms Taylor's ethical lapse, namely enforcing herself on an event who's organizers had specifically barred her from, to be a significantly greater offense.

Posted by: joe-bleau.myopenid.com | November 6, 2009 4:32 PM

Any Catholic who was offended by PZ's cracker-stabbing need only close their browser, or not even visit Pharyngula in the first place.

I think that you are seriously underestimating the extent to which some Catholics feel their faith. Just because the social balance of power has (for now, and from now on, hopefully) made it possible that we heretics can blaspheme with (relative) impunity in the U.S. these days doesn't mean that the mindset that led to the Crusades and the Salem witch trials has gone extinct. For that matter, fundie muslims don't stone adulterers to death because of a wounded sense of propriety.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 4:34 PM

Inviting an insane revolutionary political agitator with a history of disruptive protests to speak in front of a bunch of elderly faux-Unitarians? Clearly incompetent.

While I may agree with this pragmatically, in principal I think the platform of any ethical humanist organization should be to allow her views to be heard by any audience that wishes to hear them (assuming they do not intentionally incite violence, etc...) and then be challenged or ridiculed accordingly.

Posted by: itzac | November 6, 2009 4:37 PM

Now I haven't read all the comments, but I have read a considerable number of them, including Sunsara's, and here's my take.

EHSC invited her to speak, then canceled for really crappy reasons. It really was an asshole move on their part. But most people would have simply posted on their blog about what assholes EHSC are and moved on.

Sunsara, however, chose to trespass and demand to be heard. She chose to fight, which doesn't surprise me at all given what she posted above. In truth I respect her a great deal for it.

It sounds like she brought a small posse with her. It's not surprising that the organizers or police officers felt threatened, and situations like this tend to escalate very quickly. Her cameraman got hurt.

Bottom line: she picked a fight, someone got hurt, and at least 7 of the Program Council members of EHSC are assholes. No one here really has any claim to the high ground.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 4:40 PM

When you stoop to this level of argument, you've pretty much lost the argument. the only insanity I see on display is the ridiculous reaction to anyone who subscribes to a communist ideology.

Um... I'm not allowed to think any political opinions are insane?

I'm not speaking of communism in general here, and I am most definitely not speaking of socialism. When I say "insane" I am referring specifically to Maoist ideas of revolutionary dictatorship. Also, I was not just referring to her politics when I said that; I was referring to her bizarre reaction to EHSC cancelling her talk. Maybe that was a shitty thing to do, but her reaction was out of all proportion. I'm calling "insane" on that one.

So you can disagree with me, but don't act like I'm having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Communist" here. You can call yourself a communist and I won't call you insane -- unless later I find out stuff that leads me to believe you are, in fact, insane.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 4:49 PM

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution Author Profile Page | November 6, 2009 2:12 PM

Celtic_Evolution #51: No. It's trotting right out again. I have read Pharyngula for a long time, as well as lots of other Scienceblogs.com sites, have read most of the New Atheist books, Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer, and enjoy this sort of content and as it happens I have not heard of Sunsara Taylor...until a few days ago.

Which once again inspires me to point out that your knowledge (or lack thereof) of this woman has fuck-all to do with the fact that within the ranks of a freethought organization like the EHSC, she should be, and I'm quite sure is, fairly well known.

You're both wrong. Just because they're a freethought organization does not automatically mean it's their duty to know who every single person who's ever been an outspoken freethinker is, so on that count you are wrong, Celtic_Evolution. Which is a shame because the rest of your argument is correct. Once they decided to consider inviting her, then at THAT point it's they have a duty to find out who she is. But it isn't the case, as you put it, that merely being a freethought organization all by itself means they *should* already know who she is.

By all means, EHSC made some big blunders here if they didn't realize she was an outspoken communist, didn't do their research, and were ignorant of this very simple basic fact about her before pesudo-inviting her. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that the reason they dis-invited her is not because they disagree with her but because her speech as written was going to try to change the topic from what they asked her to speak about. Ms Taylor seemed to be approaching this as someone who has a favorite topic, and tries to find a way to twist everything into being about that favorite topic whether it really is or not.

But even if you don't agree with their reasons for dis-inviting her, and think they were wrong for having done so, her behaviour in response to the dis-invitation reflects very badly on HER. "You dis-invited me but I'm going to crash your party anyway" is not adult behaviour.

Posted by: Hairhead | November 6, 2009 4:54 PM

Sunsara isn't blameless. She is a provocateur. I don't think she intended, however, for her videographer to get beaten up, maced, and charged. But boy oh boy, is she going to make a media circus of it!

Posted by: MItch Miller | November 6, 2009 4:57 PM

Lol, I have a tough time believing that any of the people involved in this have anything to say about global problems when they can't even handle a mundane task like having somebody give a talk without involving the police and lawyers.

Posted by: Hairhead | November 6, 2009 4:58 PM

Kudos, Joe-bleau, you said what I wanted to say, but better.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 5:08 PM

@joe-bleau:

In the face of this, I can't think of anything more sane and rational (from her perspective) then to push the point,

Emphasis mine.

Okay, but my answer to that is, "So what?" Not to be an absolutist here, but not all perspectives are created equal. I see the point you are getting at, but it sounds a little bit to me like the Creation Museum's "different starting points and assumptions" line of argumentation. Just because Sunsara's worldview tells her this is the correct course of action doesn't mean she gets a pass.

I'm sure that, from their perspective, the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are the most sane and rational things they can come up with to push their point, but...

Posted by: Utakata | November 6, 2009 5:18 PM

I like the excuse of private property being used by the EHSC and it's proponents as the justification of their clamp down. It reads like this is coming from a group of gun-toting rednecks/tea-baggers than anything humanist and/or democratic...

...you know IMHO private property does not and should not give anyone or any group the right to censor and suppress a person views no matter how nutty those views are. I guess this is where I depart with many "libertarians," who feel property should limit free speech.

As for the EHSC, they let the cat out of the box by inviting this Sunsara Taylor in the first place. They unaminously all voted for her to come. 'Cause all this drama would have never have if they quietly didn't. Instead, getting cold feet, then rescinding their commitment by another vote. I guess all 9 members where asleep at the wheel at the time. Sorry, I have to agree with PZ... they really screwed up on this one.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 6, 2009 5:21 PM

cm #27: I'd never heard of the woman, so I'm certainly not going along with the claim that EHSC should've known what they were getting.

Not exactly something you'd do without having any idea who you were inviting, right?

Oh, and the police -- my guess is they were on edge, having been told by EHSC that this was a dangerous, possibly violent person who was probably planning an extreme demonstration. Who knows what EHSC may have told the police?

By the way, did the plain clothes officer clearly identify himself as a police officer prior to grabbing the photographer? If not, then the man has every legal right to defend himself against what is clearly an assault.

About that "provisional" invitation . . . did the word "provisional" appear in it? If there were a chance you weren't going to approve a person, why would you call it an "invitation" in the first place? Perhaps "speaker candidate" would have been more accurate. Or "potential speaker"?

No, I've been part of too many speaking invitation processes for this to be considered legitimate.

Lastly, anything marked as "free and open to the public" really can't exclude attendees, as that contradicts the whole 'open to the public' part. Too many people posting here clearly have not read PZ's entire post.

Posted by: IR | November 6, 2009 5:26 PM

Heidi@171
You and I disagree on a major point of contention: I do not think the society acted unethically. In fact, that seems to be the thought of roughly half the people responding.

Reading through the posts I don't agree with your assertion that even close to half the people agree with you. It seems most of the posters here think that the EHSC behaved unethically and in a separate point, Taylor is no pure innocent.

Not to be a douche, but it seems in order to make that claim you would need to go through each comment and tally up the counts for each. I personally have no desire to read through all this again, so I don't blame you for not doing it either. But I think you ought to refrain from claiming that support without going through and providing the evidence. Not to even get into the point as to whether plethora of support gives your (or my) position credence.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 6, 2009 5:31 PM

joe-bleau - You said it. It's exactly why I'm so conflicted about Christopher Hitchens.

Posted by: joe-bleau.myopenid.com | November 6, 2009 5:36 PM

James Sweet @224

Absolutely! You are 100% correct, and I don't think that anyone disagrees that it's a valid perspective to prefer any given worldview over another, with as much certainty as you can muster, for your own reasons.

I wasn't responding to whether her behavior is correct or appropriate, but rather whether it was sane or rational. My point is that it's all too easy to simply declare by fiat that some person and/or her ideas is simply beyond the pale, and thus lazily and sadly dismiss anything that this person chooses to do or say in that light.

IMHO, folks who fly banners like "humanist" and "freethinker" and "rationalists" ought to be better than that. Which, come to think of it, is kinda the point of this thread.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 6, 2009 5:40 PM

James.

Thanks for your clarification in #214. No apology necessary though.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 6, 2009 5:41 PM

Carolyn Ann @ 231,

The Ethical Society invited her, and then disinvited her. End of story. Was it rude? Yes. Can they be prosecuted in the court of public opinion for it? Yes. Were they within their rights? Yes. Was Ms Taylor within her rights to disrupt a private gathering? (Even if the public was invited, it's a private gathering.) Not in any way, shape or form.

The point I think PZ wants to make here, and a few commenters have already expressed in the "deep rift" thread, is that we expect better from a bunch of people calling themselves "ethical society". We expect them to embrace and encourage varying viewpoints, and would have expected them to encourage discussion rather then trying to suffocate it.

So where they within their rights? Yeah. Where they smallminded dicks about it? I think so.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 5:45 PM

@joe-bleu #234:

Ah. Okay, in that case, I mostly agree with you. I was already convinced that "insane" was a poor choice of words (I was using it colloquially, not literally, but it was still not an appropriate word) and have retracted it.

I guess the only point I disagree with you on is that I'm not convinced that EHSC "declared by fiat" that everything Sunsara says should be "dismissed." While I am open to hearing a lot of differing viewpoints, there are still venue-oriented boundaries, even for me.

I would not, for instance, allow a friend to give a twenty-minute dissertation on his preferred techniques for cunnilingus while out to dinner with my parents. If you want to call that censorship or say I am closed-minded, well, okay, but...

I am not sure if EHSC's decision-making process was more along the lines of, "This lady's a Krazy Kommie, disinvite her!", or if it was more like, "Woah, some of the commentary she intends to make is not going to go over well with our Sunday crowd" (which includes Christians, BTW!) "Maybe this is not such a good idea."

If the former, then I'd agree the EHSC leadership were being pretty small-minded (though I still find Sunsara's actions far more objectionable). If the latter, then I just think the EHSC leadership royally fucked up by not properly vetting their speakers. "Will stalk your organization if jilted" is probably a characteristic they should have been aware of beforehand :D

Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 5:50 PM

"Look, your talk is not the kind of bland pablum we like to serve up at our Sunday service... maybe you can do a workshop on Saturday instead?"

But that's not what happened. Both Taylor's and the society's accounts agree that it was set up independently, not as a replacement for the Sunday talk.

Um, no, the alternate Sunday talk was set up independently (though it was publicized by EHSC....), but the Saturday workshop was in-house EHSC, as far as I understand it...

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 6, 2009 5:56 PM

Hmmm, good point. There is a Guster concert this weekend in my town. It is open to the public. I think I'm going to go, and then climb up on stage and demand to give a speech about Radical Pastafarianism. We'll see how well that goes over.

Because a concert is as well known for discussions that follow after ward as are public lectures.

Posted by: Robert Strong | November 6, 2009 5:59 PM

@Carolyn Ann #231
"I'm sorry, I must have the bit where we're all required to vet the people we invite to speak at private gatherings. Is it a law or something?"

I've missed anyone stating anything anywhere near that as well. I do believe quite strongly and I believe several people have commented to the affect that having a clue as to the person you've invited to speak at an event you are organizing and paying for is the norm for anyone that is the least bit competent.

Posted by: windy | November 6, 2009 6:05 PM

Um, no, the alternate Sunday talk was set up independently (though it was publicized by EHSC....), but the Saturday workshop was in-house EHSC, as far as I understand it...

I didn't say it was at an independent venue, I meant that it was set up by a different committee independently of the Sunday talk. So there was no "maybe you can do a workshop on Saturday instead".

And I don't think "letting" her speak on Saturday counts in favor of the society, if they then imply she was too radical and disruptive to speak on Sunday. Wouldn't you be pissed if you were the speaker and presumably adjusted your schedule to accommodate both days?

Posted by: Robert Strong | November 6, 2009 6:16 PM

@pz your wrong #249
"PZ, it's private property. Nuff said."
Just like a church is and I respect this argument to the same extent... I respect the private property argument from a legal standpoint.

I do not respect the EHSC for their lack of ability to first find out the agendas of the people they invite or their handling of this situation. I also question their openness to opinions that aren't shared by their committee.

I also don't respect organizations that take titles and don't live up to the meaning of the title which I believe the EHSC has done with their actions... for example, christian scientists.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 6, 2009 6:22 PM

cm, I'm sorry I was a little snarky.

You're right on the money -- in the sense that you got it wrong.

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 6:26 PM

Rorschach @229: Unimpressed with the incompetent organizers at the EHSC.

Equally umimpressed with Ms Taylor's call to arms @ 26( "see how you've been lied to about communism").

Exactly. EHSC come off as a bunch of idiots. Sunsara Taylor comes off as an annoying, agitprop extremist. But Taylor's behavior was a known quantity beforehand.

My guess is that somebody at EHSC remembered Taylor as that woman who was on FOX News a couple times debating Bill O'Reilly about something or other a couple years ago. So they thought, "Hey, she'd probably be a good person to bring in for a speech." Then they did no research.

Then the police got involved. Taylor was, quite obviously (at least in my mind) grandstanding, as one would expect her to do. But as we've learned from dealing with the Westboro Baptist idiots, when you've got agitators attempting to grandstand the best possible response is to ignore them. By bringing in the police the EHSC did the worst possible thing in that situation.

Carolyn Ann @231: I'm sorry, I must have the bit where we're all required to vet the people we invite to speak at private gatherings. Is it a law or something?

I'm part of a storytelling guild. We have a festival every year and invite three or four featured tellers to tell stories and give them about half our stage time. The selection process starts months before the festival. We basically sit in a group and throw out names, then decide whether we think they're worth inviting or not based on whether or not they're any good, if we think they have enough material, etc.

Once we've invited a teller and everything's set we cannot turn around and say, "You know what, never mind." We ended up making a kinda bad call on the featureds last year, the most egregious being an absolutely atrocious (seriously, it was terrible. And it was at least 20 minutes long, which just makes everything worse) and borderline inappropriate for the audience (I didn't find it out of line, but it wasn't right for the audience in question due to some content) story that one of them told. We did not assault the stage and tell her to stop. What we did was go back and say, "How can we make sure this doesn't happen again?" And so we instituted some new policies for this year's festival.

The point is, if the EHSC feels strongly enough about the type of speaker they want in the first place they should make sure to properly vet the person they invite. I think they were within their rights to disinvite Sunsara, but when she showed up and they allowed her to take the stage anyway the proper response should have been, "We'll let you speak your piece, then make sure this never happens again."

Having the police take out someone who was apparently videotaping the speech at the speaker's request and otherwise doing nothing disruptive is the wrong response. Not preparing any sort of damage control but only letting Taylor's side of the story get out was simply stupid. Especially since if nothing else the events up until that point would have proven that Taylor was going to try to play it for publicity.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 6:40 PM

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution Author Profile Page | November 6, 2009 3:24 PM

Post #35 is not evidence. That's PZ's *interpretation of* the evidence, which I don't agree with. I read the same thing he read and conclude, "yup, this is definitely off-topic."

I responded that way because you asserted your *interpretation* as fact, in the following (emphasis mine):

When they provisionally invited her, they said "We'd like to invite you to speak on topic X - if you wish to, can you show us what your talk would be first?" When she did so, the talk was not on topic X at all and instead was about totally unrelated topic Y, so they said, "never mind - the subject matter we were interested in was X, not Y. Thanks but no thanks.".

So allow me to rephrase slightly... given that you present this argument as a statement of fact, the evidence does not support this statement, as a statement of fact, Steven.

Posted by: Paul | November 6, 2009 7:02 PM

@James Sweet, 201

Your anti-pinko bias is showing. It's disappointing, I usually think highly of your posts on Brayton's blog.

3b. EHSC offers Sunsara an opportunity to speak on Saturday at their venue, which she accepts.

That offer was by a completely different committee than the one in charge of the Sunday workshop, and was put in place before the rejection of her Sunday talk. It wasn't the EHSC taking away Sunday and giving her Saturday.

3c. At the Saturday venue, Sunsara continues to excoriate EHSC for being a total of fascist repression. She also says this wasn't good enough.

[citation needed], unless you are referring to her mentioning she will be showing up the next day to give the scheduled speech if allowed, and otherwise adjourning to an alternate location. If that's the case, that sure is an awkward way to say that.

3d. EHSC, desperate not to make waves, offers Sunsara an opportunity to speak at an alternative venue on Sunday./blockquote>

Once again, wrong. One member offered the alternate venue because they disagreed with the decision of the EHSC. Supposedly they also resigned in protest, but I have not seen corroboration of the claim. What I have seen is a member of the EHSC lie by claiming that the organization offered the alternate location, which is untrue based on all other accounts.

6. The shit hits the fan, exactly as EHSC was afraid of when they made the (admittedly questionable) decision of hiring goons. 7. The goons did what goons do. Now that's clearly a bad thing, but let's tell the WHOLE STORY please!!!!

And this makes perfect sense. Because there was an agitator, they roughed up and arrested the independent videographer recording the altercation instead of arresting the actual agitator. I have yet to see anyone explain how that makes any sense at all, everyone just dances around the point. Why did the videographer (and only the videographer) get arrested? Either she was leaving, in which case he would have been leaving too, or she was refusing to leave, in which case you would have expected her to get arrested. The story the EHSC has been pushing makes no sense at all.

I have no horse in this race, I think lowly of Maoists and I'm still a closeted atheist even. But seriously, the amount of OMGCOMMUNIST in the EHSC threads is creepy, especially when it comes from people like you whom I have come to largely respect based on the fairness of past blog comments.

Posted by: Heidi | November 6, 2009 7:13 PM

@Celtic_Evolution Nope. That's not what I said, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth to label me with a "dizzying logic." I said that what she did justifies her not being asked to speak. What happens after the fact can further justify a prior act.

The Society did the right thing by giving her another venue and time to give her speech that wasn't what they wanted during the Sunday session. She acted unethically, therefore giving any other ethics society due notice that she will probably not act ethically at their conferences, either.

She has acted like a child, and all you can do is insult the people (like me) who point that out? Perhaps you can put YOUR dizzying intellect to better use, like defending the next child you see throwing a tantrum in the grocery store.

Posted by: melior | November 6, 2009 7:20 PM

This is the most unintentionally amusing part of the whole sordid PR disaster:

...Anil Kashyap, who is also a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago...

This guy joins an "ethical" humanist association but is so terrified of an open discussion of anti-capitalist viewpoints that he resorts to laughable distortions of Chinese economic history, fearmongering, ad hominem, and (alleged) approval of brutality to justify thwarting one?

Why so panicky and scared? Hmmm... could the well-documented ethics vacuum among such self-styled geniuses of Elite Banking Skillz that underpinned the recent epic failure of their entire profession's pretensions to competence hint at an answer?

Posted by: Hairhead | November 6, 2009 7:33 PM

To Carolyn, you say that the organizers bear no responsibility for the actions of the police. I disagree strongly. They called the police in, primed them for the event, then unleashed them. So, you bring a pit bull to a barbeque, agitate him so he's all barking and drooling, then point him at a steak, say "Go boy!" and let go the leash. And then you're surprised if he bites somebody?

Once again, and no-one has addressed this point: the videographer was beaten to the point of needing medical attention, had his possessions broken and/or confiscated, is now charged with serious offences, must now find and pay for a lawyer, and may face serious repercussions in his work and personal life, all for accompanying a person who stood up at a public meeting and make some remarks out of turn.

Any punishment MUST be proportional to the crime.

The Ethical Society prepared for and is responsible for damages far in excess of the minor discomfort Ms. Sunsara caused them and their members. If they do not accept responsibility, I say they're major jerks, as well as being incompetent.

Posted by: Jambe | November 6, 2009 7:58 PM

"When you invite someone to speak, that doesn't mean you get to micromanage their talk."

That's pure bullshit, PZ, and you know it. "My house, my rules."

This is all blown way out of proportion.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 6, 2009 8:03 PM

Let's take a close look at one of the things Sunsara stated on her blog:

From all this, it is clear that the EHSC knew I was a communist from the very beginning.

It's like a black woman claiming that the invitation was rescinded because she is a black woman, even though they knew that beforehand. It's complete hogwash.

Posted by: windy | November 6, 2009 8:13 PM

Sastra

She told them on Saturday that, on Sunday, she would show up to give her talk, and, if not allowed, leave to give it elsewhere (this is on video.) From what I can tell, the Humanist Ethical Society was ok with this. Worried, but hoping that's all that would happen.

Er, and that's why they had the place crawling with cops and the Sunday school children moved off site?

--
cm:

The EHSC response above says, "The society bent over backwards to appease Ms. Taylor. She was given an October 31 workshop." This suggests that this was in response to her haranguing post-disinvitation

But that interpretation is contradicted by the statements from 'Proud Member' in the previous thread that the workshop was "arranged and conducted by a different Society committee.", and Sue B. above, who says that:

In actuality, the Saturday workshop was set up last summer at the same time as the Nov. 1st talk, by a different Society committee, on a different topic, “The Liberation of Women and the Emancipation of Humanity.”

(I know Paul and others have already pointed this out several times, but...)

Posted by: delphi-ote | November 6, 2009 8:30 PM

At first, I was relatively neutral on this subject. Sunsara struck me as a bit of an attention whore in all this, so I didn't feel very good about defending her actions.

Evan Kane's completely inane comments have changed my mind, though. If the people defending the EHSC and attacking Sunsara are so rabid as to ask why there's not video of the videographer being tackled by police without pausing to think about how dumb it sounds, there's clearly some deep crazy going on here. That poor lady must put up with a lot of dumb.

Posted by: windy | November 6, 2009 8:35 PM

... Did you miss the part where he injured an officer?

Yes, actually, I DID miss that part. All I saw were vague hints from one person about an officer getting "bloodied".

They invited her to speak on a specific subject, so maybe... they thought she'd speak about that subject. When she gave them her summary, it was irrelevant to the original subject.

That's disputable.

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | November 6, 2009 8:49 PM

One of the slanders leveled against atheist has been to tie us into homicidal communist monsters like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who, taken together, are responsible for the needless deaths of as many as 100 million people. The last thing any group of atheist should do is let any advocate for such an immensely bloody and discredited philosophy, especially a grandstanding bitch like Taylor, anywhere near a podium. It only helps our enemies.

Maybe other atheist are OK with such politically suicidal maneuvers. However, my own contempt for such staggaring stupidity can hardly be understated.

Posted by: Ktesibios | November 6, 2009 8:58 PM

J.R. "Bob" Dpbbs on a Popsicle stick, it's hard to conceive of a better example of failure to exercise due diligence than that exhibited by the Ethical Society.

It takes very little effort to discover that the definition of "Revolutionary Communist Party" is "Moonies with Little Red Books" whose only discernable function in this world is:

A. To maintain Bob Avakian's pussy supply
B. To keep the "socialist realism" art style on life support, even though it's long since brain dead.

If they'd just had the sense to ask their friendly neighborhood Wobbly about Ms. Taylor they could have saved themselves so much trouble.

Posted by: Susan | November 6, 2009 9:02 PM

paid duty officers are subject to exactly the same rules as any public duty time.

The moral of this story for me is that I should avoid any events put on by the EHSC, as apparently they bring in rent-a-cops and "everyone" is definitely not invited, contrary to what they might say. It's all such a waste. They could have heard an interesting speaker, had a thought-provoking post-talk discussion, and then gone about their day. It's not as if Americans are overexposed to the Communist viewpoint after all; most of us have no idea what it really even is. Instead, I have a feeling this whole incident is going to be the subject of many long, sad discussions by the Chicago Humanists for some time to come.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 6, 2009 9:08 PM

Hieronymus Braintree #276

The last thing any group of atheist should do is let any advocate for such an immensely bloody and discredited philosophy, especially a grandstanding bitch like Taylor, anywhere near a podium. It only helps our enemies.

While I have major problems with Maoism and especially Avakian's version of it, I don't equate atheism with Maoist philosophy. If somebody tries to conflate the two, I have arguments against that claim.

As an aside, it would be best if you didn't use the word "bitch" or other gender specific insults when talking about women in general or a particular woman. Just a friendly word of advice.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 6, 2009 9:27 PM

The last thing any group of atheist should do is let any advocate for such an immensely bloody and discredited philosophy, especially a grandstanding bitch like Taylor, anywhere near a podium. It only helps our enemies.

Well sir this particular atheist will not be part of any group where women are denigrated in the way you have just denigrated Ms Taylor. My humanity and commitment to equality are way higher on my list of priorities than my atheism.

Posted by: Susan | November 6, 2009 9:44 PM

the letter from EHSC went south for me around here: so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.

Posted by: Per-Erik Svensson | November 6, 2009 9:47 PM

So, bottom line.

Assumption: They knew she was a communist.

They invited her to talk about subject A, their perception of subject A even - not her's. The invitation is conditioned though. She must show that her perception of the subject is about the same as their's. It wasn't so they did not go through with the invitation. The if statement went in to its else clause. But they most certainly did not go into the else clause because she is a communist - they knew that all along, according to the assumption. They went there (possibly) because there views on subject A differed.

Assumption: They did not know she was a communist.

So what? Not even with this assumption can you say that they disinvited her because she is a maoist. It does not follow from the assumption!

Assumption: They disinvited her because she is a communist.

This is the assumption PZ (kinda) makes. It's a bad assumption that could be true nevertheless. But let us not base the discussion upon that assumption. If this is the case, EHSC acted unethically. But anyone can be made unethical based on randomly created assumptions.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 6, 2009 9:53 PM

@ 272 + 276 by ways of @ 279,

Are those sirens I hear?

No it' s the bat signal going out to TM...:-)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 6, 2009 10:03 PM

Per-Erik

And frankly, yeah... two kids behaving equally ill get treated differently. Each kid will be addressed for his own actions, independently and for the action itself.

And the addressing should be in proportion to the wrongdoing of each kid.

Well... not if only one of them is my kid... savvy? The EHSC in this is like "my" kid... they are supposed to represent a platform of ethics and humanity that I also identify with, and so how they comport themselves is of far more importance to me... why is this so hard to grasp?

Put in simpler terms, as a democrat, if I'm listening to a debate between republicans and democrats, poor behavior displayed by the democrats is going to be of much greater concern to me...

"Several times" you agree that Sunsara Taylor has done wrong, and that it does not concern you to much.

While you can't be bothered to represent what I said accurately, please allow me to point out to you the difference between "too much" and "as much"... one accurately represents my thoughts, one does not. Guess which one you used...

Posted by: speedweasel | November 6, 2009 10:14 PM

We are democratically run organization and the vote isn't always unanimous; some members were disappointed. A petition was started to let the invitation stand of which only about 20% of the members supported. In the end we stuck with our democratic principles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work. - Kent Brockman

ps. Login was in Frech today. Thats a new one.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 6, 2009 10:17 PM

#289

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 6, 2009 10:21 PM

"One plain clothes police officer from the Skokie police department was at the society the morning of November 1 because some members felt threatened by the fact that Ms. Taylor would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program."

That's the giveaway right there. So terrified of Sunsara that they had to protect themselves in advance.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 6, 2009 10:30 PM

BMH,

Sunsara Taylor's Sainthood is PZ-Approved. ...and that seems to be good enough for the lapdogs.

Oh do I sense a hurt ego ? Just because you got belted a bit in the "deep rift" thread doesnt mean you have to be an ass here now.Troll, some might say.

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 10:43 PM

That's the giveaway right there. So terrified of Sunsara that they had to protect themselves in advance.

Hey, man, there's nothing more terrifying than a Communist Revolution. You weren't there in 1917, man. Or 1949.

But, yeah, seriously. What, exactly, where they expecting her to do? Set the building on fire?

Sunsara Taylor's Sainthood is PZ-Approved.

Odd. I don't actually see too many people around here (including PZ) approving of Sunsara's behavior. I know I have repeatedly said she's an attention-seeking agitator. And I find the wall of text comments that she and that "Sue B" put up not even worth reading.

But I see that in La-La Land where disapproval of the actions of one party require complete support of another. What color is the sky there? I hope it's fuchsia. I've always wanted to see a fuchsia sky.

Again: Sunsara Taylor probably shouldn't have done what she did. But that's what we've come to expect from her. She's a freaking dedicated Communist revolutionary. It's what she does.

But the EHSC should have checked in to that before inviting her. They could have avoided calling in off duty cops to protect themselves from her. And, seriously, the whole "going after the dude with the camera phone thing" is pretty silly.

EHSC crapped the bed. It's more of a "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" thing than anything else. But they should have looked before they made that particular bed.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 6, 2009 11:18 PM

"M"usical number?

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 6, 2009 11:22 PM

Odd. I don't actually see too many people around here (including PZ) approving of Sunsara's behavior. I know I have repeatedly said she's an attention-seeking agitator. And I find the wall of text comments that she and that "Sue B" put up not even worth reading.

I do think there's a lot of whitewashing of Taylor's part in this incident going on in the comments here. I'm all for knocking the EHSC for their obvious stupidity in handling it - they deserve that much: but not the demonization of that group? and the martyrdom of Sunsara? Nah.

As for PZ's original posting: I can't disagree with anything that he says about the EHSC. But there's no hint of any possible failing in the interaction between Sunsara and the EHSC --- but isn't that the real story? It's a story about a missed opportunity caused by human failings on both sides, not a story about institutional oppression.

I have all the respect in the world for PZ, but he's taken a black-and-white view of what seems an obviously grey situation.

Oh do I sense a hurt ego ? Just because you got belted a bit in the "deep rift" thread doesnt mean you have to be an ass here now.Troll, some might say.

If I disagree with you I'm a troll, an idiot, and an asshole: right - got it. Unfortunately, being shouted down by your sort probably doesn't bruise my ego to the same degree that it inflates yours.

Posted by: barfy | November 6, 2009 11:48 PM

Taylor spoke for TWO MINUTES!
From the lawyer's post (and the fact that I have never known a commie who could stop talking), it could be reasonable to infer that she would have kept on talking if not for the police showing up.

It has been my experience that talking to a communist is like talking to a fundie. Every fundie sees my mouth moving and only hears Satan. Every communist sees my mouth moving and only hears an oppressor.
I've never known a Maoist who could engage in a dialogue. Sunsara's actions have done nothing to dispel this stereotype.

From the post of Taylor one thing stands absolute - her speech would have been the equivalent of listening to Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. Surreal, idiotic and nothing close to enlightening.

Posted by: titmouse | November 7, 2009 12:05 AM

tl;dr

Unitarians/Ethical Cultures/Tea-n-Cakers

verses

Maoists/Moonies/Scientologists

I say: SCREW THE SCIENTOLOGISTS!

Seriously, any faux pas on the part of the casserole crowd will be no biggie.* If those guys went too far they will surely try to make it right somehow. And as a bonus, they will self-flagellate and loose several nights sleep over their terrible, terrible f*ck-up.

In contrast, team #2 are users of youthful idealism. They are bad-ass fair-gamers and totalitarian bastards. Sure, they talk a good talk. But that's cuz of their mad emotional manipulation skilz (the Haitian mama bit actually made me cry).

Don't kid yourself: the victimhood game is all one way for them. How do I know?

Titmouse's Pod People Screening Test.

PASS IT THEY DO NOT!

Ergo, team #2 can take their revolution and piss off.
-------------------------
*Based upon the way of things usually. Grain of salt required.

Posted by: Spooky | November 7, 2009 12:10 AM

cm, I'm with you mate! I think it's unreasonable for the EHSC to have heard of this woman before.

I mean, I had a look in my address book and did a quick search of the Dubbo News and found ZERO references to her!

Posted by: cm | November 7, 2009 12:29 AM

Spooky, I responding to PZ's assertion that she was "well known". She's not generally well known.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 7, 2009 12:38 AM

No worries, I have not taken seriously anything you have said.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 7, 2009 12:49 AM

Nice of you to equate feminism with communism, barfy.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 7, 2009 1:04 AM

Ignoring barfy's bile on vulva fantasies, I also wondered how she comes to integrate her feminism with the communism she's propagating, I dont seem to remember being taught that Mao had the liberation of women in mind.
Maybe the political types here can comment on that.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 7, 2009 1:16 AM

Based on this thread, I kind of have the impression that they should have let her speak and given her extra time for Q&A. I believe it would have gotten very interesting. Again, I'm no Communist but I'm pretty close. As a pinko (yes, I'm gay) commie (well closer to liberal democrat/near socialist) bastard ('nuff said), I kind of get the impression that the "great rift" among atheists may be more along the lines of our political ideologies than our beliefs or how we promote/protect them.

No, nobody's screaming, "She's a commie!" We're all to sane and reasonable for that. There is, however a bit of insinuation and in one case, outright character assassination and name-calling. As a recently "out" atheist, I've been very pleased to discover how often I meet a like-minded person. Outing my beliefs has been immensely rewarding and I haven't been attacked yet for it.

It has also, however, led me to discover that among the atheists I meet, we all share a lot of things in common, which makes sense considering a key element of our commonality is based on our rejection of unreasonable beliefs. One thing that seems to be a flip of the coin is our political perspective, which is interesting because half of our political perspective seems to overlap: we all strongly believe in individual freedoms (again, none of us are fundamental religionists). However some of us seem to subscribe to a near-socialist liberal agenda (and some go as far as Maoist Communism as I learned today), while others subscribe to a staunch libertarian agenda.

The fascinating thing is that I can nearly always carry out a meaningful and interesting political conversation with an atheist, whatever their perspective, and I find that absolutely liberating. I'm starting to believe that in forming our political beliefs (again because we don't believe anything without critical analysis), we have all realized that every political model is necessarily flawed, and approach the issue from a harm-reduction perspective. At some point we ask ourselves, "Which of all these models carries least risk of catastrophe?" and work from there. I love that, at least among us, our beliefs are usually based on 'best available data' and are flexible.

That's why I've really latched onto this post and the following discussion. If she was disinvited for being a Maoist, that would be my hypothesis failing in the wild. However, I'm still not sure that is the reason for her rejection. Her description may have included wild-eyed, inflammatory accusations about what she perceives as the horrors taking place due to godly immorality, but I still don't quite see where her (perhaps silly and ill-considered) party affiliations come into play. I must admit I to an extent agree with them, but whether I agree or disagree is not the point. Perhaps I'm being naive, and I hope I haven't abused this thread to post a lot of near-irrelevant personal perspective, but I figure we're a reasonable and helpful lot, and someone might further illuminate the topic.

Posted by: barfy | November 7, 2009 1:19 AM

I am equating Sunsara Taylor's feminism with what she calls,"communism."
I believe that her posts to PZ and to this forum argue my point quite forcefully. She believes in a world that men - not mankind - are the oppressors, and that capitalism is a testosterone fueled drive to conquer.
Don't think that I'm not a staunch feminist. I actually believe that women have a duty to engage in combat, if combat is warranted.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 7, 2009 1:31 AM

"She believes in a world that men - not mankind - are the oppressors, and that capitalism is a testosterone fueled drive to conquer."

Barfy, I think it's safe to say that the burden of proof is on you for that accusation. Can you cite specific examples that prove your point?

Posted by: Susan | November 7, 2009 2:08 AM

She's not generally well known.

Compared to whom? She was "well-known" enough to get invited to speak at the sold-out US Atheist Convention. She's in my program along with Dawkins, Krauss, Coyne and PZ! is PZ "well known"?

Posted by: barfy | November 7, 2009 2:20 AM

"A system that has patriarchy and the oppression of women woven into its very fabric."
Sunsara Taylor speaking to her fundamental belief of the immorality of capitalism in post #26.

Her style of feminism/communism is inextricably woven into its very fabric with a core belief that capitalism is male-dominant and oppressive. That's precisely what the above quote states.

A few points directly to David Estlund:
- I enjoyed your first post.
- I should be challenged to defend. Thanks for the opportunity.

Posted by: Outsider | November 7, 2009 2:34 AM

Sheesh- all this unwarranted certainty about a situation that is cloudy at best. I guess the religious aren't the only ones who seem unaware of what they don't really know.

Was Taylor really "cancelled" at the last minute, or was the invitation tentative pending a decision after the committee received a (late) description of the talk?

Did the description sound like the talk was really about "being good without god", or did it seem more like a political screed with two lines about morality tacked on at the end?

Should the committee have thought, "this isn't what we wanted, but, hey, it sounds interesting", or just "this isn't what you said you'd speak about, no thanks. You should have given this summary months ago." (And how is it any of your business which way they decided?)

Was it totally unreasonable to have an off duty policeman there? Was she threatening to show up with 20 others and disrupt the meeting, or not? Were there other things that you don't know about that may have lead them to decide to move the kids off site? Was she asked not to show up, or not?

Did the videographer do something to warrant being treated the way he was? I'm pretty sure none of you can say with any legitimate certainty.

I wonder if much of the excessive disdain towards the group is because they seem so churchy. I say give 'em a break until you really know what you're talking about.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 7, 2009 2:53 AM

The last post was a bit hasty. "We will see" may be true, but it doesn't excuse the fact that she failed to provide the evidence in the first place. I'm sorry again for being unfair.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | November 7, 2009 3:43 AM

Funny, I skimmed through the comments and found that the last one by RayvenAlandria was almost exactly what I was going to say. I mean come on - this is a dustup between a self-important fringe nut and a blundering group of non-spirtual Unitarians who are afraid of being challeneged, yet it's gotten two posts with a total of over 1100 comments. Who cares about this circus of fools? Get some perspective, people.

Posted by: Warren | November 7, 2009 4:45 AM

So many people yelling about rights and legalities. Surely a society set up to explore ethics could have set a better example than resorting to the blunt instrument of the law. Ethical frameworks exist in part to help disagreeing parties to come to a resolution without the use of force or law. That an ethical society couldn't produce a more ethical response doesn't reflect well on the group.

The management seem to add a bit of a Nuremberg defence by shirking responsibility of the action to the democratic process of the group. Just because most people vote for a thing doesn't make it right. I don't suggest that you shouldn't run your organisation democratically, but that the ethical guidelines you corral your democracy within needs a little work and that democratic decisions don't protect the individuals from making stuff ups.

And not knowing about her isn't any better. Yes it's possible they didn't know who she was. One word - Google. If you invite someone to speak, homework is your bare minimum responsibility to the speaker and the group. If you blow it, then you wear it. I co-ordinate speakers for our venue all the time. I'm continually approached by people with less than remotely functional qualifications to be a speaker. They ask. I do my homework. Then I extend and offer. Or not.

Perhaps the Ethical meetings and discussion being engaged in at the Society are a little less academic and more salient to members now. This is ethics. Perhaps you could speak there on this PZ?

Posted by: Rorschach | November 7, 2009 7:28 AM

Let's look at this slightly philosophically for a moment

I'm waiting.

the only bit that we're certain of is one group acting within their rights and the other not

False dichotomy.After 1100+ comments I think we have established that the "ethical humanist" society acted incompetently, at best, whether they were within their rights or not.And Ms Taylor acted as the good agitprop activist she is and tried to get the most out of it, including the well orchestrated responses here on this thread by herself and her associates.Was she not within her rights to enter an event open to the public to give a quick statement? Well Im sure the courts will have a say in it, but I am not sure at all that she didnt.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 7, 2009 7:38 AM

The police violence against the videographer is partly the fault of the EHSC. You know when you are calling the police that you are calling brutal, amoral thugs who live for the thrill of hurting people. Yes, some cops are good cops, but the good cops will tell you that they are in the minority. If you call the police, you are asking for someone to be assaulted.

That's in the past. There is something they can do right at the present time.

There is currently no reason to keep up legal charges against the videographer. He has been "escourted" from the premises already, and there is nothing more to gain. If the EHSC does not drop the charges, then they are proving that they are vindictive, and more interested in retaliation than ethics.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 7, 2009 7:55 AM

http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/DISCUSSIONS/N55_TEXTS/AB_ideologies.html

Until humanity is enlightened enough to understand the ecological consequences of being in population overshoot on a finite resource restricted planet arguing for or against any particular ideology becomes moot. Actually Capitalism for example is not a failure at all in the sense that it protects the power and access to resources of a small minority to the detriment of the majority.

Unfortunately Socialism and Communism are also concentrators of power in the hands of a political elite, perhaps some aspects of these systems are in fact more benign for larger portions of the population than for example Capitalism. However none of these ideological constructs seems to be capable of addressing the laws of thermodynamics as they relate to our current global ecological dilemma.

I strongly recommend reading "Dr. Albert Bartlett's "Laws of Sustainability" a recent post at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5925

As for a reality check on ideology and politics the following sums it up for me: http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/DISCUSSIONS/N55_TEXTS/AB_ideologies.html

Ideologies and religions

Ideologies and religions are systems of thought that shape and decide the way persons and groups of persons think and act.
Ideologies and religions don’t necessarily first and foremost respect conditions for description, and hereby logical relations and facts, but are also often the expression of subjective opinions, social conventions and habitual conceptions. Because subjective opinions, social conventions and habitual conceptions are not necessarily in compliance with conditions for description, religious and ideological assertions are often a mixture of right assertions and wrong assertions.
This is a fundamental problem that is shared by for example ideologies like representative democracy, anarchism, neo-liberalism, communism, capitalism, nazism, and religions like christianity, hinduism, judaism, islam, etc.
Experience tells us that religions and ideologies usually don’t first and foremost aim to respect conditions for description and hereby the logical relation between persons and persons’ rights.
Persons might have personal reasons to believe in ideologies or religions, but ideologies and religions that don’t first and foremost aim to respect persons’ rights, should never be used as the basis of political action, because the fundamental purpose of politics is to protect the rights of persons.
Instead of using ideologies and religions as the basis of political action, persons ought to use conditions for description as the basis of politics and thereby first and foremost try to respect persons’ rights.

The caveat of course is there can be no human rights or democracy in a resource poor world. Humans are apparently no more sapient than your average Saccharomyces...(my apologies to a regular poster on TOD)

Posted by: Dale | November 7, 2009 8:02 AM

Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's the other way around.

Posted by: No BS | November 7, 2009 8:04 AM

All of this is POE right?

Posted by: Rorschach | November 7, 2009 8:20 AM

Brian Sapient of the RRS considers Sunsara a good friend. That's all I need to know to conclude that she's garbage.

Yes, that one was a bit average.

I'm on a first name basis with Peter Schiff, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan.

Kwok alert??

Posted by: Per-Erik Svensson | November 7, 2009 8:39 AM

Put in simpler terms, as a democrat, if I'm listening to a debate between republicans and democrats, poor behavior displayed by the democrats is going to be of much greater concern to me...

Well ok. But that is exactly what I said in a previous post. You hold one of the kids (your kid) to a higher standard.

[...] please allow me to point out to you the difference between "too much" and "as much"... one accurately represents my thoughts, one does not.

Good! My point all along. The behaviour of EHSC upsets you more than Sunsara Taylor's. It upsets you but not AS much as the behaviour of EHSC.

My original:

What you're saying implies that two kids behaving equally ill should get treated differently. Bash one, ignore the other. Maybe because you expect more from one kid than the other??

You agree to the first sentence:

And frankly, yeah... two kids behaving equally ill get treated differently. Each kid will be addressed for his own actions, independently and for the action itself.

As for the second, you pointed out that you're not ignoring wich is just a way of arguing semantics. But either way, i do see where you're getting at.

For the third, you again agree, you treat them differently because one is "your" kid.

Well... not if only one of them is my kid... savvy? The EHSC in this is like "my" kid...

--

As i see it, you're saying that we should bash EHSC and (not ignore but just) don't pay as much attention to Sunsara Taylor. I agree that Sunsara Taylor's behaviour in now way undermines your critique of EHSC, but what I was trying to say was that this series of events called for a balanced "bashing", and that the mono-bashing of EHSC seems unfair. Their mistake was to uninvite Sunsara. That's the only thing we know. We can't assume it was because she is a communist. So, I'm just saying that the response is out of proportion.

Finally, this line of reasoning kind of assumes that some other parent is punishing the other kid. If no one raises the other kid, I believe we should pitch in.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 8:57 AM

I want to know more about their reasons for the cancellation of her talk. She has accused one person of forcing them to cancel the meeting through less han honorable means. I also want to know whether a police officer was assaulted. Those are the two polar points of interest and i have heard different accounts saying different things.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 7, 2009 9:29 AM

I must confess to being rather puzzled by those who are willing to excuse the SHSC committee that initially invited Taylor to speak on the ground they might not have been aware of her political views.

If you are charged with inviting people to speak at an event you are organising then it is to be expected you actually put some effort into deciding who would be suitable. If a few hours of research on the internet is to much trouble then maybe you should relinquish the role.

Posted by: Susan | November 7, 2009 10:05 AM

Thanks, SG. Didn't foot binding finally disappear for good about the time Mao had a say in it, too?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 7, 2009 10:09 AM

Sunsara Taylor, 133,000 hits on Google.

Posted by: barfy | November 7, 2009 10:47 AM

Strange Gods:

Taylor's belief in men as oppressors is no strawfeminist unless she also believes that the patriarchal capitalist society owes just as much of its existence to the failures and beliefs of women as it does to men. Alas, she does not. It is her words, not mine, that signal her belief.
Male privilege does exist, as does female privilege. It has been the privilege of males in America to be drafted into combat prior to maturity. It has been the privilege of females to stay home.
Now, truthfully, I do believe that economic systems to date have been manipulated to favor men over women, but I do not believe that capitalism is intrinsically patriarchal. Taylor does, as she clearly states without support.
What elements of capitalism resist addressing the imbalance of men over women? The men who run things? I don't know what elements you are talking about. I consider this very much in dispute, as my understanding of capitalism has no element of gender ingrained.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 7, 2009 10:54 AM

Thanks, SG. Didn't foot binding finally disappear for good about the time Mao had a say in it, too?

To their credit, the nationalists before Mao outlawed footbinding in 1915, and made some effort at enforcement. The practice continued in secret, and wealthy families would have large shoes for their daughters to wear when the inspectors came around.

Mao heightened inspection and enforcement, but what really ended footbinding wasn't police inspection, it was economic necessity. Mao said "equal pay for equal work," and that did mean "equal work." Under communism, the daughters of once-wealthy families went into the workforce, and suddenly there was a much greater incentive to have working daughters who could contribute to the family's prosperity, rather than strictly marriageable daughters with attractive feet that were painful for walking and working.

As Mao said, there was already greater gender equality among the poorest families who needed both husband and wife working to survive, and footbinding was never popular for peasant families. There's a similar effect here to the women's movement in the US which followed a decline of wages for single-earner households.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 7, 2009 11:18 AM

Taylor's belief in men as oppressors is no strawfeminist unless she also believes that the patriarchal capitalist society owes just as much of its existence to the failures and beliefs of women as it does to men. Alas, she does not. It is her words, not mine, that signal her belief.

Again, citation needed. Most feminists recognize that many women collaborate with and enable patriarchy, because protecting the status quo is a path of least resistance for an individual woman to protect herself from violence. Someone like Phyllis Schlafly is a great warrior for patriarchy and the oppression of women; I doubt that Ms Taylor disputes this.

Male privilege does exist, as does female privilege. It has been the privilege of males in America to be drafted into combat prior to maturity. It has been the privilege of females to stay home.

And women in countries that undergo invasion are either mobilized for war, or subject to rape and murder by the invaders. War is not exactly a net gain for women over men.

Go ahead and count this, for what it's worth, but it doesn't make up for the lost wages and exclusion from the workforce that women have endured. While being exempt from the draft, women have been denied the economic empowerment that allows individual freedom. The decision was made not by them but for them, to stay and home and tend the household and raise children.

There is no military draft in the United States today, but women are still being paid less than men receive for the same work. Some "female privilege" that is.

What elements of capitalism resist addressing the imbalance of men over women?

Look. I linked you an example. Under capitalism it is necessary to pay each worker as little as possible. The workers who have less ability to fight for higher wages will be the ones who are hit hardest by this. Since women have less bargaining power in a patriarchal culture, women get hit harder by capitalism than men do.

Hypothetically, if men had relatively less bargaining power, then capitalism would be just as resistant to paying and promoting men equally, but as it happens that is not the world we live in.

Posted by: barfy | November 7, 2009 11:37 AM

Pale people with penises so enjoy pity parties.

I knew I liked you, PZ. That was damn funny.

I am a pale person with a penis. You got me. I can't escape my turgid belief that sometimes people like Sunsara would like to scream out their immutable truth that male-hood is responsible for a pantsload of problems.

OK. Men create a bunch of problems. The interesting thing is that she (and maybe, you) can't think of any that women create. Or if you can, you choose not to relate them for fear of being politically incorrect.

If you are arguing scale, that is that men create WAY MORE problems and oppression than women, just say it. But please remember, in arguing scale you also have to argue women's ineptitude in dealing with the oppression. That is, immorality comes from being a male, and women, to date, can't handle it. Not a feminist argument that I can relate to.
And that is my thesis.

When I posit a hypothesis that maybe Sunsara's version of feminism is one-sided, I get ad hominemed to being a dick.

OK. I'm a dick. Sunsara was right all along.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 7, 2009 12:01 PM

Barfy, you're still setting her up. What she seems to be saying is that there is a (single) problem of institutionalized inequality (see SG), rooted in the tradition of patriarchy (see Bible). She's not arguing any other problems in that statement. The question of who creates more problems or how good anyone is at dealing with them is irrelevant.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 7, 2009 12:07 PM

Discussing, hell, even bringing up, the idea that men may suffer in a capitalist system is seen by PZ and Sunsara as either rude, or baseless, or bigoted.

Bullshit.

I know PZ does not think that, and from what I have learned of Taylor, she does not either.

Why do you have to lie like this ?

Posted by: Cruithne | November 7, 2009 12:27 PM

I am arguing that feminists like Sunsara think 'male-ness' is intrinsically bad and 'female-ness' is better.

I'd have to ask how far you have researched this view. As someone who has spent time listening to feminists I have never got that impression.
I think your problem is that you take any and all criticism of the patriarchy as a direct criticism of yourself.

It's not all about you mo chara.

Pale people with penises so enjoy pity parties.

I so wish it had been anyone other than PZ who said this, I can't begin to praise it to the extent it deserves without coming across as the biggest asskisser on the boards.

I'll have to settle for stealing it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 7, 2009 12:47 PM

Barfy,

You claimed PZ holds views that he in fact does not hold. Specifically that men cannot also be disadvantaged in a capitalist system.

It does not matter that you "genuinely feel" it is true, since there is not justification for that belief.

If you do not want to be called a liar, then there is a simple solution. Stop making claims that are untrue.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 7, 2009 1:04 PM

I genuinely feel that PZ calling me a pale penis, albeit funny, is an emotional response discrediting my opinion due to my gender and skin tone.

Then you missed the point. While you are oppressed as a worker, you are not oppressed as a man or as a white person. This is in contrast to women who are oppressed both as workers and as women, and in contrast to men of color who are oppressed both as workers and as people of color. See if you can keep going and figure out what working women of color experience.

You complained about Ms Taylor mentioning the oppression of women under capitalism, and you misrepresented her, without citation, as supposedly believing that men are not also oppressed under capitalism. There is ample reason to think that she believes otherwise, though:

There are problems with capitalism, just not male-centric in my opinion.

Since Mao said this already, and since Taylor is a Maoist, you can bet that Taylor already acknowledges this.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 7, 2009 5:03 PM

Wow! That's a lot of virtual ink! :-)

Heidi, Thanks! :-) You're making me blush.

Sastra (#253), Sorry, my confusion. Oh, I do agree with you, a wiser decision would have let Ms Taylor speak. Geds (#254) illustrate this perfectly. We all make mistakes, but sometimes it's more sensible to say "Oops, we'll do better next time!" As Rorschach (#238) also says, the Ethical Society could have behaved better. As to why it happened, cm (#243) illustrates the problem perfectly. It does happen, and always will. (It's not as if we're provided with divine guidance on whom to invite, or not, to speeches... :-) )

Benjamin (#306), you definitely changed my mind when you said:

It's a story about a missed opportunity caused by human failings on both sides, not a story about institutional oppression.

Hairhead (#264), the Ethical Society created the environment for what transpired; Ms Taylor exacerbated it. But once the cops were called in, the Ethical Society has no further responsibility. They cannot tell the cops what to do once it has been decided that so-and-so will be arrested if they continue whatever annoys the police.

I think the reason no one has addressed what happened between the cops and the cameraman is that no one knows what happened. (Although I will claim to have noticed that something did happen!)

Whether the Society should have called the cops or not is not really for debate: someone there felt threatened enough that they deemed it necessary. It was a reasonable decision; what the cops did afterwards? That's a different discussion. The Ethical Society primed the pump, so to speak, but Ms Taylor plugged it in. All it needed was someone to turn it on. (I suspect the cameraman had a role in that; I don't know if it was inadvertent or overt, and can't speak to that.)

The plain-clothes cop at the meeting decided that he had enough to bring in uniformed officers. The Ethical Society decided to employ him as a security guard because some feared what Ms Taylor and her supporters would do. But once the cops are involved, the whole situation is different. They control what happens next, no one else.

I haven't seen any discussion of why someone thought a cop was needed. Someone felt threatened; whether that makes them wimpish (as some have implied) or not is irrelevant. Not knowing Ms Taylor or her supporters, I don't know why they felt threatened, but clearly someone was concerned enough. Remember, the threat of overt violence is not a requirement to feeling in danger. That's definitely a lesson for Ms Taylor and her entourage: don't be bullies, and you won't leave people feeling threatened.

Personally, I find it of great concern that someone felt threatened enough by either Ms Taylor or her reputation, or of her supporters, to feel they needed a cop there! I've had good and bad experiences with cops, but believe me, I would have no qualms about the calling the cops in if someone acted like Ms Taylor. As my final point on that, the wisdom of the crowd analyzing and discussing what happened is not the same, and never will be, as a small group of people concerned for their safety prior to the event.

(I'd like to edit this some more, but time, alas, does not favor me.)
Carolyn Ann

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 7, 2009 5:49 PM

Carolyn Ann, I notice that you completely ignore the only ongoing part of this story:

The EHSC needs to drop the charges against the videographer. There is no reason except spiteful vindictiveness to do otherwise. Nothing is gained by failing to drop the charges, unless their goal is to continue hurting this man beyond all reason.

Posted by: Hairhead | November 7, 2009 6:07 PM

Pardon me, Carolyn Ann but holy shit would I hate to live in a society run by such as you. To quote you: " . . believe me, I would have no qualms about the calling the cops in if someone acted like Ms Taylor."

Again, lets put that in context: Ms. Taylor stood up at a public meeting (in a private place) and spoke out of turn. That's it. That's all. No threats. No violence. No arms displayed. For that, her videographer was beaten to the point of hospitalization, had his equipment destroyed or confiscated, now faces multiple serious charges, will have to hire a lawyer, and could face serious repercussions on his present and future employment. And all because someone spoke out of turn at a meeting open to the public!

Listen, I've been involved in politics a lot, and if every person at a public meeting in a private place (nomination meetings, town halls, speeches, etc.) were subject to police intimidation and brutality, we'd have no democracy to speak of. Virtually every dictatorship begins with violent attacks on opposing views expressed in public. Read some fucking history! Shit, look around you now! Oh, and the videographer was attacked because cops know absolutely that in order lie about their violence, they must first destroy objective evidence. In not ONE case which I have examined (and I have examined many) has the police account matched the visual record made by camera or video recorder, particularly when the police did not know they were being recorded, and had placed their statements in the public record before video evidence was released.

And I despise utterly your attitude that the person who calls the police has no responsibility for police actions. The police are an arm of the public -- YOU being the public, and in particular the person or persons who call the police. Every act of violence perpetrated by the police, whether for good (shooting a crazed serial killer) or bad (lynching an innocent person) is done in your name. That you care nothing for the disproportionate brutality involved in this incident speaks to your authoritarian mindset and lack of empathy; and your willingness to call the police for something as minor as "speaking out of turn" displays both physical cowardice and need for control which is excessive in a democratic culture.

Both sides made mistakes and acted badly. The Ethical Culture Society made worse mistakes and perpetrated worse bad actions which had disproportionately bad consequences.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 7, 2009 9:42 PM

Carolyn Ann | November 7, 2009 5:26 PM, #381

Yes, the Ethical Society proved themselves a bit incompetent

1,200 posts, and people still don't get it, that if this "Society" wants to be known as the Ethical Humanist Society, then it needs to behave humanely and ethically - and the overreaction by means of thuggish policeman and criminal charges are in total disproportion to the provocation.

Your description, Carolyn Ann, of the EHSC being a "bit incompetent" would rate as a similar understatement to "Ray Comfort has proved himself a bit ignorant" or "Tanja Jensen has proved herself a bit silly".

Regards, PMaL

Posted by: David Estlund | November 8, 2009 2:12 AM

Again, I'm not sure why this particular discussion intrigues me so much. Carolyn Ann, again, you make the oft-repeated point in this thread that she spoke at a meeting at which she was not invited to speak and was therefore at the mercy of the organizers. I won't go into the "and their goons" part, because I also think that's somewhat unfair since we don't know all the facts. She was performing an act of protest, which naturally unnerved the hosts, but did she take the podium? Did she do so at a time in which other EHSC programming was to take place? To me, the defenses of EHSC's actions look more and more as though, had Kanye's personal assistant been forcibly removed by police (and whatever else may have happened after) at the MTV VMA's, it would have been just groovy.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 8, 2009 2:45 AM

David, your reference to Kanye is lost on me. I have no idea to whom, or what incident, you are referring.

I'm sorry, I simply don't agree with you. I do not think Ms Taylor's exact location, or the exact timing or whatever is relevant. Ms Taylor decided, impolitely at best, that she was entitled to say her piece. She presumed to turn a private meeting into Speakers Corner. That she had the ability to do so is not the same as the right to do so; the owners or their representatives were within their rights to eject her. They were within their rights to call the cops to aid them in that effort.

If she wanted to protest the group, she could have safely done so on the sidewalk outside the venue. Or she could join the organization, and used its rules against it. Instead, she took a cheap shot. Her protest cost her nothing, it cost her cameraman a life of wretched penury (according to Hairhead). I don't care about the cost to the society.

She was disinvited to speak at the meeting. She chose to impose herself upon those attending, regardless. That's not a protest - that's the act of a recalcitrant child in the middle of a temper tantrum.

Being "disinvited" is rude, but it is clear. She was not welcome at the meeting. If the meeting had been at a public fairgrounds, the Ethical Society would have no argument against her protest. She decided to have her hissy fit on their property. If she turned up on my property and spoke, no matter how reasoned a tone she adopted, she would find herself explaining why charges shouldn't be brought against her. It wasn't a public meeting. It was a private meeting to which the public was extended an invitation.

She could have protested the group, as I say, outside. The cops would have ensured her safety and right to protest was not infringed. (I do hope no one has forgotten where the meeting was?) As MIchael Moore has discovered, on a few occasions, if you have no right to be in a private place, the owner can deny you entry. They can also forcibly remove you.

I do agree she was protesting, but protest by imposing your hissy fit on others in their private space is not exactly a protest. It's simply imposing your hissy fit on others.

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: windy | November 8, 2009 4:11 AM

it doesn't matter if she spoke before, during or after - she was not invited to speak. If an arch-conservative turned up at one of your meetings, would you consider that person in a positive light if they asked why they'd not been invited to speak at your meeting?

Nice dishonest framing on "not been invited to speak". You know that's not all that happened.

Had I invited this 'arch-conservative' to speak, then disinvited him on short notice? Did he/she speak at a similar meeting the day before without any unpleasantness? Why am I being such an asshole to this person?

Being "disinvited" is rude, but it is clear. She was not welcome at the meeting.

Er, it's not clear at all. If your talk is canceled, that does not imply that you are not welcome to attend the event. There are contradictory accounts on whether she was explicitly asked not to attend.

Posted by: Izgad | November 8, 2009 8:05 AM

"I've been to a few meetings of the Minnesota Atheists, for instance, where the speaker was, in my opinion, nuts — and the leadership of the group knew they were inviting someone who would be controversial in our community."

P. Z.
So you admit that there are crazy atheists. :p
I certainly grant you that you are likely to run into crazier people and more of them in certain synagogues. Last week my father’s synagogue invited a speaker who declared that the laws of genetics do not apply to Jews and that therefore Jews should not worry about marrying their cousins.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 8, 2009 10:43 AM

Doesn't 'Trespassing' require proof of the intention to cause damage?

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 8, 2009 1:20 PM

David, I've figured out who that Kanye person is! Isn't there a rapper called Kanye West? And he was involved in some altercation at the Grammy's or something? Oops. I see it was the MTV awards. I forget what it was, if I ever knew, but I'm sure it was noticeable to all except me.

Sorry, keeping track of the antics of loud mouthed louts, unless they're Republican politicians or Fox News commentators, is not something I'm interested in.

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: David Estlund | November 8, 2009 2:44 PM

So the fact that I used a pop culture reference to illustrate my argument (ineptly, in hindsight, as it doesn't illustrate my argument, only what I perceive your perspective to be) invalidates anything I have to say? You're being snobbish, Carolyn Ann, and making rather a show of it at that.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 8, 2009 3:01 PM

Former Non-Profit Board Member: I don't think anyone is reaching for the pitchforks and torches yet, but the videographer is (AFAIK) still being charged, and the only action the board has taken is to write some cover for themselves. It seems that what's needed is a simple apology and for them to drop the charges, if possible.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 8, 2009 3:25 PM

The Kanye example was a non-sequiter. I was just expressing an opinion with that statement, not making a valid point, and I apologize for that, but it is beside the point. My point was that Sunsara was performing an act of protest, but she did not interrupt EHSC proceedings. It was unwelcome, but she was not shouting down speakers, blocking entrances, or otherwise disrupting the meeting. I just really can't understand why you feel the EHSC's actions were justified or why you are so prominently uncaring about the fate of the videographer. You hash out a lot of fine points in some rather long comments, but I don't see why you don't at least understand that the blowback EHSC is receiving is to be expected.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 8, 2009 6:35 PM

I am not concerned that this was a bit public relations disaster for the Ethical Society. They made their bed, they get to lie in it. I object strenuously to Ms Taylor's behavior because she was boorish and arrogant, and people are defending her actions as if they had legitimacy. I don't see that they do. I do not perceive actions as a protest, as I've said. Oh, I'm sure she does, but from what I've read of her writing, accuracy and honest accounting of her own actions and decisions are not her concern.

As for the cameraman, I really do not care what his fate is. As far as I can see, if the cops felt they were justified in their actions, playing Monday morning quarterback is not going to change that. Cops generally do not go about beating people up for no good reason. Oh, I'm sure we could all produce evidence to the contrary - everything from Kent State (which was the National Guard, but who cares about such accuracy) to the recent death of that homeless man in London. But painting all cops as evil, as a result, is not going to persuade me to back the cameraman simply because he was arrested and hurt in the process. I do not know what happened between the cameraman and the cops. No one has accurately stated the events. I will not presume guilt on any party.

If it can be proven the cameraman was standing there, innocently, and not filming a thing - and the cops laid into him with nary a justification, I'd agree the cops should go to jail. But that's not the case. We don't know what happened. We have conflicting and partial stories, and the people directly involved are not letting on. I do not pass judgment in such circumstances. I'm not so naive to believe, for one minute, that he'll get a fair chance to tell his side of the story. What I do believe is that if you challenge the authority of a cop, that cop will not like it. They have the edge in authority in such circumstances, and that's that. Changing that removes the power of the police, which is something I'm not willing to do. But hold the police innocent in this matter? No, and I have not made that claim, either.

People seem to be quite keen to exonerate Ms Taylor, when she actually deserves a generous portion of the blame. How the cameraman ended up in the state he is? Who knows. Blaming all and sundry, which seems to be a popular notion, is irresponsible. Ms Taylor is responsible for her own actions, her own decisions. The cameraman is, too. The cops are, as well. And so are the people at the Ethical Society. The simple fact is, she was trespassing into a private meeting, and she chose to do so. If she is incapable of differentiating between the private and the public, it is not my task to educate her. If others are incapable of the same, it is not for me to persuade them of the difference. (Although I did try; and failed.)

I do assert that it is laziness to consider Ms Taylor innocent of any responsibility for her actions. I also consider it hypocritical to blame the Ethical Society for egregious behavior and not consider Ms Taylor's in the same light. If she was protesting, her choice of venue does not grant her an automatic right to protest. (If she were a member of the organization, she would enjoy such a right. She is not. At least no one has claimed she is., which leads me to conclude that she is not.) Walk into any Mall in America, and if the owner of the mall doesn't like what you're wearing - they can eject you. Just because the public is invited into a space does not, and never will, make it a public space. Whether Ms Taylor agrees with the concept of private property is not a concern; she lives within a society that does value it. Reading some of her work and the defenses of her on this stream of commentary, I can only conclude that she, and many of her supporters, define "public" in a manner that suits them, and no one else. A nice privilege if you can get it.

If Ms Taylor had decided that being unwelcome meant "stay away", the cameraman wouldn't have been arrested (in those circumstances; I don't know if he would have been in others), and the cops would never have been involved. She did turn up, and like a teenager in a temper tantrum made sure she was heard. That she chose a moderate tone in which to do so merely indicates that is familiar with being passive/aggressive.

The Ethical Society is a private organization. What it calls itself is irrelevant. But as a private organization they do have the legal right to decide who gets to stay on their property. They also have the legal right to deny a protestor a platform; I consider they have the moral right, too. Ms Taylor has other venues she can protest from - she chose the very one where her right to protest can be legitimately curtailed.Ms Taylor and her supporters again redefine moral and legal rights to suit themselves. Or at least they try to.

Ms Taylor shirks her responsibilities in all of this; her supporters refuse to consider that she is as culpable as anyone, and probably more so. They project blame, and dire consequences of not agreeing with their view, anywhere except where it belongs: on Ms Taylor. Not once has Ms Taylor said "I might have made a mistake", or considered herself even somewhat culpable for her cameraman's fate. No, she cries oppression and her supporters join in the cacophony. She does her level best to avoid her responsibility, and she's eager to divert any attention from her own failings in this whole sorry affair. No matter how often she claims virtuousness and innocence, believe me, she ain't no saint.

I consider the Ethical Society to be in the right, morally and legally, and have the audacity to say as much. If people don't like that, tough tiddlywinks.

That I pick a verbose way of stating it is neither here nor there; if I had to write to an 8th grade level to be merely understood, I would, frankly, seriously consider not writing. Which might be applauded, but is not going to happen. I always feel a vocabulary is like a pet canine; it should be taken out and frequently exercised. But in the main, it takes two to tango, and Ms Taylor was definitely a strong lead on that dance floor.

Carolyn Ann

Posted by: barfy | November 8, 2009 7:51 PM

I will speak against any morality that is a morality for good germans or the acquiescent citizenry of a new Rome.

My bad. I forgot that PZ makes no bones about being a liberal. But in reviewing the bigotry evidenced by him and others (Sunsara, for one), it is clear that I stumbled out of rational discussion into the 'Scalia Zone.'

The Scalia Zone is my hypothesis that otherwise rational, critical thinkers become functionally retarded when a closely held irrational belief is challenged. In Scalia's case, it is that crackers can turn into flesh and zombies have walked. In PZ's case, it is that white males have no right to speak to the suffering of white males.

Pale people with penises so enjoy pity parties.

This is a bigoted sexist ad hominem attack of the worst kind. Should I forgive it for being funny? It was clearly meant to diminish my opinion based solely on my sex and race.

The truth is PZ blew it. Much like when Rush accidentally lets slip what we all know is an underlying racism. PZ and Sunsara actually do believe that white males are the basis for much of the evil in the world. And not just white males in the past, but BEING a white male is intrinsically natured with evil.

They speak to morality without gods and post racial societies, but it is all just talk when they haven't cleared their own house of their bigotry.

That is what science is for. Freedom from our own bias. You want to speak to the evils of people you identify as men and white. Then define what 'white' is, because 'white' sure isn't science. And when you call me 'white', you just painted me with the same racist brush that the census used to define octoroons. Not company I'd like to keep.

I've been accused of having a Family Circus view of feminism. I would argue that Sunsara and PZ are the sexist bigots. I actually believe in equal rights for all people. Including LGBT who self identify with whatever gender they choose, and self identified males who strongly prefer intercourse with self identified females. That's freedom, baby. The right to be whoever I choose, to heve sex with whomever I choose and to gripe about the ignorant who would like to shove me in a sex and race box specifically to diminish what I have to say. And if I happen to disagree with you, it could just be because you're wrong and not because I'm a "white male."

And if you think that I've unfairly enjoyed the benefits of a society that identified me as white and male, then what benefits would you have me deny? How many reparations do I have to pay for a system that I have done nothing to create? What benefits have you personally enjoyed due to your birth status? And if you're willing to lob guilt grenades at me, of course, for the sake of equal rights based solely on me being a human being, I should be allowed the same privilege in your direction.

I would love to tell Sunsara how she is failing humankind in a thousand different ways. AND SHE IS. How does it FEEL Sunsara? You are a far greater oppressor and immoral blight on humanity than I could ever aspire to. Not on the level of a George W Bush or an Antonin Scalia, but pretty damn bad, nonetheless. You speak of post racial societies and white male oppression and have done everything in your power to further the concepts of sexism and racism. Sorry, PZ and Sunsara, but that is just fact. I'll repeat this for those in the Scalia Zone:
You can't believe in race without being a racist.
You can't believe in race without being a racist.

It doesn't matter if PZ and Sunsara's racism is the soft and fuzzy kind with nothing but 'good' motives. Explain to me what race is. I think I know, but I'm sure that you don't.

I'm sure because you both use it in its worst context. You both are guilty of race-baiting. And no, it was not justified in the way you have used it. Using race and sex to incite division and anger is an immoral act in a world without gods. Sunsara did it. PZ did it.

Now Scalia would ask us to all just understand that the motives of Jesus Christ were pure. Love. Forgiveness. That as long as the motives are 'right', then the actions that flow from this world view should allow for a certain protection from critique. That it is "outrageous" that THE CROSS could not be a symbol for all American veterans. It represents sacrifice, after all. If those of us who are not believers in God could just humble ourselves and our worldview enough to realize that our moral system could never be as good as God's, that we would see the wisdom of being a Christian.

PZ and Sunsara would also like white males to humble themselves prostrate at the wicked sins of the past and the benefits so inured to them in the present. That reparations must be paid. And not just in money, power and privilege, but also in silence. White males have had their time to speak, to oppress, to rule. Now it's everyone else's turn. But YOU are the ones who called me a 'white male.'

So far, so good. You're doing every bit as good a job as the white males who came before you. You TOLD me who I was, without giving me the freedom to choose. Pretty imperialist of both of you.

So, for the record, I am not a white male. Not that either one of you understands what I have just stated.

But, there is a way to your absolution.

Admit to your race and sex baiting. Promise to do your best not to do it again.

Tell the world that "white males" is a term of self-identification meant solely for immoral purposes or used grossly out of ignorance.
THAT would be doing the world a tremendous moral service.

That "white males" is a false HISTORICAL construct used by racist, sexist SELF IDENTIFIED people who chose to oppress and advantage themselves at the expense of others. That to continue to use this term to label those who SELF IDENTIFY as being out of this group is every bit as immoral and egregious as those people who have used this term in the past to advantage themselves. That by using this term to label others is INHERITING the exact same advantages that these racist sexist bigots claimed for themselves.

"...a morality...without white people lording it over people of color..."

So, yes. I am calling out Sunsara and PZ as racist, sexist bigots. In their words, "white people."
Don't like the term, then stop acting like it.

Posted by: barfy | November 8, 2009 9:31 PM

I may be incoherent, but the "good german" quote was taken directly from Sunsara the night before her disinvited speech and from her own blog.
Your pale penis comment, was, of course, directed specifically at me, and I believe to state otherwise is disingenuous.
My 'whining' comes from being indiscriminately labeled by you, PZ, as a pale penis.

And yes, I do have a pale penis, but the whole point is why does it matter to you? Why should it matter to you? How, in any way, does it make my arguments more or less coherent or truthful or worthy of being expressed?

If you want me to state that people who society identifies as 'white males' get more privilege. ABSOLUTELY. I personally have been the recipient, in many ways, of exactly what you claim. I also have specifically turned down such privileges when they were unequivocally sex or race based. Really.

My daughter is academically studying the transgender community, so, admittedly, I have a privileged access to much of the biology and politics of this group. It has changed me and my outlook on human sexuality. I think for the better.

My views on race come from The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza; and admissions I have read but cannot cite at the moment from Race Critical Theorists that race is a plastic, social term.

Please, just give in a little on the 'white male' thing. Your readers would look at me, and being the social animals that we are, stereotype me and my arguments with this racist sexist label. It's fine to use it as a term for those who self-identify as 'white male', but it is not fine to use it for anybody else.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 8, 2009 9:45 PM

I also have specifically turned down such privileges when they were unequivocally sex or race based. Really.

do you provoke the police so that they'll randomly stop you/arrest you as often as they do to minorities?

do you purposely do things that would make people reject you for a job offer/overlook you for a promotion/etc. as often as happens to non-SWM's?

do you provoke random thugs so you can live in the same fear of attack that non-SWM's live with every day?

SWM privilege is more than just receiving positive effects for being a SWM; far more extensively and importantly, it is the lack of negative effects for simply being who you are that make mundane everyday things more difficult for non-SWM's.

Posted by: Carolyn Ann | November 9, 2009 12:14 AM

I'm terribly sorry, Windy. I should have realized that by choosing the words I did, I was being, oh what was it?, equivocal.

If you would care to read all my comments, you would undoubtedly notice that I do state that having an invitation to speak rescinded is not the same as being denied an invitation to that same meeting! My goodness. Whatever next? Literal writing 101?

I later changed that to Ms Taylor not being welcome at the meeting for two reasons. Perhaps I should state them? Firstly, because it was easier. Secondly, because a moment of reflection led me to the conclusion the Ethical Society would rather Ms Taylor not turn up. They didn't have the wit to say "stay away", and I'm not sure it would have made much difference to Ms Taylor, anyway.

Re my wit. So what? And why should I care what you think of my attempts at humor? I don't notice any in your efforts!

Carolyn Ann

PS I sincerely hope I didn't delete that particular comment! That would be embarrassing, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 9, 2009 12:59 AM

“No sane cop would use unnecessary force on a case like this and risk losing their job over some communist woman’s camera operator.”

Not that I'm saying this is the case here, but "police would never do that" is one stupidly naive response. Police does do that, all the fucking time.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 9, 2009 1:12 AM

No, they really aren't. Police using unnecessary force happens in all sorts of circumstances.

Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 9, 2009 1:56 AM

Cameraman's website... more info to be found in the Google cache.

Posted by: Evan Kane | November 9, 2009 10:00 AM

"The fact that someone has been convicted of a crime in the past does not mean that the police can beat him up and mace him at will, nor does it imply that he was not docile."

PZ, is shows that he has a history of being violent and making bad decisions about when to use force, including a decision to kill another human being.

I am beginning to think that your formidable intelligence does not extend far past biology.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 9, 2009 11:15 AM

She took the podium. That was inappropriate. I should have watched the video in the first place. It still doesn't justify the cowardly act of taking out the cameraman the way they did. It's clearly a cowardly act to prevent him shooting footage of them dragging out the protester (or even asking her to step down). It was foolish and ill-considered.

Posted by: windy | November 9, 2009 12:00 PM

She took the podium. That was inappropriate. I should have watched the video in the first place.

That's from the workshop the day before.

Posted by: David Estlund | November 9, 2009 12:18 PM

Thanks Windy. I thought the actual video of the Sunday announcement was posted somewhere, though. If the cameraman did not either have his camera confiscated nor the video erased, then why has it not been posted? He doesn't seem to mention the video at all. I'm sure her statements were entirely predictable, but it seems odd that he doesn't mention what happened to the video that was both the reason for his presence and for his arrest.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 9, 2009 12:43 PM

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers."—Karl Marx
Sounds like a really nice guy. EHSC Member

You are an invincibly ignorant idiot. What Marx was saying was that the bourgeoisie, by creating capitalism, also created the proletariat (the industrial working class), which he expected to bring capitalism to an end - hence, they would be the "gravediggers" of the bourgeoisie, figuratively speaking. Incidentally, I'm not a Marxist - you don't need to be one to take the trouble to find out what the guy was actually talking about, a point that evidently has not occurred to you.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 9, 2009 4:38 PM

I went back to the earlier posting and read the witness accounts (something I hadn't done before). So, two witnesses have stated that Koger did nothing provocative before the police grabbed him. They may not have seen or heard everything; but so far NOTHING has been cited that conflicts with their account of events. Until or unless I see or hear a credible account of provocative behavior, SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN ARREST (and not all provocative behavior qualifies), I have no reason to think that Koger was aggressive. Police accounts of what constitutes aggressive behavior by an arrestee are (unfortunately) so often falsified that there can't (in my view) be any presumption in their favor. I was a prosecutor in Illiois for two years; I know police procedure and police misconduct in criminal matters VERY WELL.

If some of the people piling on Koger are ill-disposed towards him because of his politics, that's their prerogative, but none of them has explained yet why his politics are relevant here. Since they're not relevant, please come up with something else or be so kind as to shut up.

Posted by: vltava | November 14, 2009 12:59 AM

[blockquote]Cops generally do not go about beating people up for no good reason.[/blockquote]

"Madam, on what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Barney Frank

Posted by: Rose Hill | November 17, 2009 8:20 PM

This is a very complicated issue. Although I am very sympathetic to Marxist views and am an atheist, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of which Taylor is a member, has a long history of being extremely aggressive, dishonest and manipulative. I distrust them so completely that I can understand why an organization might change their mind about having a spokesperson come and speak. The RCP is notorious (over many decades) for being physically threatening when challenged. I see them as a cult - their leader, Bob Avakian, is a nut job who is quoted among his followers as if he were a god or Mao Tse Tung.

On the other hand, I question the Ethical Humanist Society's long-term position about having atheists and Marxists come and speak has. The Society has, in my opinion, always been pretty weak and spineless on these issues.