You may have heard that YouTube blocked Pat Condell's latest video — here's an alternate source for that video.
I have to disagree with part of what Condell says in it, though. He is arguing against the promotion of "tolerance and diversity," saying it has gone too far. I don't think so. I think tolerance and diversity are great, I want a society with an interesting mix of weirdos and straights and strange cultural backgrounds, and I want no one to be afraid to express themselves, or worse, to be actively suppressed. What has gotten out of hand is the demand for outright respect, not just tolerance, and the de facto view that certain views, such as that religion is good and just and wonderful for you, must be held by everyone, or you are a bad person.
Condell is right that shari'a is ridiculous…but so are the ten commandments. The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society.
Tolerance is good. Intolerance is what Condell is experiencing when god-lovin' dogmatists try to silence him. We should all have the right to point and laugh — we can laugh at Christians and Muslims, and if their faith is really that strong, they should be able to bear it; they can laugh at atheists, too, and I'm confident that we can cope, as long as they don't censor instead of laugh. And I fear that they'd rather silence us.
And, by the way, legislating shari'a into power is not tolerance, nor is opposing it intolerance. Ancient bigotries and ignorance should not be granted any kind of legal authority.
- Log in to post comments
Why not link to the FLV file directly so that youtube users here can all upload the file themselves in defiance of this outrage as I and ~130 other people have so far done (search condell and sort by date in youtube, it's really amazing to see). http://rapidshare.com/files/150089804/Pat_Condell_-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Br…
The link didn't work for me.
But, I subscribe to Pat Condell's Godless Comedy (audio) on iTunes.
They have that episode. (9/30/08)
I agree PZ, him blaming tolerance and diversity is missing the point. It's tolerance and diversity that are going to stop segregation; the real problem here.
I think that this is at least partly what is behind Condell's video being dumped from You Tube - The Kuwait Human rights commision has called on YouTube to remove all videos profaning Muhammed as it is, and I quote, "the worst form of human rights violation in the world." !! I've just blogged about this here;
http://rogalert.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-youtube-buckled-to-islam.html
I can't believe the deludeness of these people !!
rog
Interesting distinction between toleration and respect, I had never thought of that before.
//What has gotten out of hand is the demand for outright respect, not just tolerance, and the de facto view that certain views, such as that religion is good and just and wonderful for you, must be held by everyone, or you are a bad person.//
Thank dog for that post PZ ! Im like,yesssssss,finally someone more important than me says it too !
//I have to disagree with part of what Condell says in it, though. He is arguing against the promotion of "tolerance and diversity," saying it has gone too far//
I think this is to be seen in the context of the particular circumstances in the UK,what with local Sharia courts and all.(Heya Nick G,here we go again lol)
Of course tolerance and diversity are good things,its just that that only seems to apply for people that have grown up in the social context of the enlightenment,a lot of Muslims would not agree and would prefer to introduce Western society to the joys of 7th century Islamic law,and I think thats what Pat Condell's point is.
[minirant]As I've noted here in the past, one thing that ticks me off are these references to "them" - Muslims, Saudis, etc. - and "their" treatment of women or gay people. As though oppressed people weren't themselves political actors. It's why I keep posting links to human rights organizations in (or working with those in) Muslim countries, hoping that the people who claim to oppose oppression will put their outrage to more productive use. Unfortunately, I don't think my efforts been particularly successful.[/minirant]
clinteas,
Polls show a clear majority of UK Muslims prefer to live under UK law not sharia - a promising way to change that is rants of Condell's type. Indeed, I suspect that's exactly what he wants.
Really? That's enough to make you content? A mere majority of Muslims don't want it so everything's A-OK? Well 40% DO WANT IT, and I happen to be of the opinion that should probably be sufficient to scare the shit out of you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Mus…
Ah, and I see Nick Gotts has done it in this case here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/preparing_for_the_jubileeor_…
//Indeed, I suspect that's exactly what he wants.//
Why on Earth would he want that?
//Polls show a clear majority of UK Muslims prefer to live under UK law not sharia //
Well,thats kind of my point !! That if you are a Muslim female in the UK you have an expectation of being treated like any other first world female,and not end up being objected to 7th century Sharia law bullshit,in the name of religious tolerance !
The parliament actually allowed Sharia courts to be set up in the UK? I heard there was talk about it, but I never figured they'd actually do it; the English common law system is one of the best judicial traditions in the world. The U.S. has always assimilated other groups wonderfully without having to allow immigrants to make their own courts; Britain's assimilation problems don't come from its legal system. I'm no expert, obviously, but from what I've read on the subject the difficulties mostly come from a generally exclusive political system (how many MP's of Caribbean descent have there been?), and the nativism bred by a culture founded on national identity.
Without seeing that video I can't say much, but wouldn't it be the case that we are being too tolerant with intolerance?
Youtube goes and removes a video because some intolerant loonies find it offensive and we all just accept it just like that.
Random house decides against publishing a book because it offends some other loonies (actually, the same loonies) and I hear voices saying that it is unreasonable to offend the loonies.
We are being too tolerant with intolerance. To the point of being immoral for we are letting the loonies eat our lunch.
Yep, we are tolerating the intolerant; which kind of defeats the whole purpose.
There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm
Re the UK sharia decision, I still have this question: is it still (technically, at least*) opt-in, and specifically for family law (divorce, especially)? Just wondering. I note that it's now legally 'binding' in the sense that the UK courts/police system have to enforce the decisions... But is it assumed if you're Moslem you're subject to this court, or do you still get to say which system you wish your dispute to be processed within? I can't seem to find a conclusive answer easily, here. Seems to me more likely it'd be the former (it's been that way sans judicial enforcement for years, by the way... there were always informal and private tribunals available), but it doesn't seem real clear anymore.
(*No naivete is to be assumed from the question: yes, I know only too well a woman, especially, under heavy pressure from family and community might well not feel she has much choice... I'm just wondering what the technical status is, there. Question is, more to the point: if it's still actually a minority of Moslems who want it, do the rest of them now legally *have* to be subject to it?)
D'oh. Former should be latter. As in: previously, it was opt-in, technically at least.
I think Nick's point, like mine, is that there are many people from Muslim backgrounds who oppose this, and that those who are sincere about being against oppression (rather than against people from Muslim countries) would do well to work in concert with them, rather than ignoring them politically or suggesting that everyone in their countries - including, by implication themselves - is mentally ill.
There's a lot of ambiguity in popular tropes like "we must respect other people's beliefs" and "people should be allowed to believe what they want." Well, yes -- but it depends on how they're interpreted. Some folks seem to think they translate into the idea that it's wrong to criticize, mock, or insult someone else's ideas, because anything that makes someone feel bad is a personal attack. You're not letting them "believe what they want."
As if it's only a short step from rational argument to throwing people in prisons and gulags. As if rational argument will always lead to argument by force. That's only true if you're trying to argue for something that by its very nature can't be supported -- like, say, religion.
I think tolerance and respect entail the opposite -- seeing the other person as being like yourself, and therefore persuadable. Respect is the necessary ground for debate and dissent. Using the word as a substitute for criticism is a misuse of the concept. It's like saying we should respect America, so don't complain about anything the government does.
Like others, I'm having trouble accessing the video -- but I just spent about an hour listening to other Pat Condell videos, and so I'm pretty sure he's not arguing against genuine tolerance and diversity -- but the phony imitation of the same which seeks to eliminate open disagreement on the common ground of universal human rights and individualism. Instead, in the name of 'diversity,' people are locked into their group identities, and defined by their limitations.
Condell often complains that the official Muslim spokesgroups DON'T speak for all Muslims. Pretending that they do is insulting to the Islamic moderates and liberals.
Well, you can choose to use a sharia court as a binding arbitration service in a civil dispute, which is probably not quite what you think when you hear this. I'm divided on the matter - people can choose arbitration of whatever form they like, and I can't see a good way to restrict that. However, I can see serious problems with the "choice" aspect of it - just how can we be sure that such choices are truly free?
However, this problem is not, in any way, unique to sharia and the Muslim community - it applies to all forms of binding arbitration.
Here is a working link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c95_1222914658
SC,
this :
//rather than ignoring them politically or suggesting that everyone in their countries - including, by implication themselves - is mentally ill.//
is not what I said or implied,and I wish you wouldnt suggest it.I know you refer to my occasional rant here in the past,but its not my opinion that all Muslims are mentally ill,thats just not fair,I am quite capable of a differentiated view on things.
As to thread topic,I agree with PZ on this :
//And, by the way, legislating shari'a into power is not tolerance, nor is opposing it intolerance. Ancient bigotries and ignorance should not be granted any kind of legal authority.//
Thats pretty much my view on the issue.
Also, video petition supporting Pat: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d3_1222900840
I assume this video is also on youtube, but I can't connect to it here at work.
No, it is most definitely not. For arbitration to be binding, both parties must agree to it prior to entering arbitration.
clinteas,
I wasn't referring to you at all! I was referring to Condell's remark in the video. I thought we were discussing Nick's comment @ #8.
The Condell video is here:
http://www.patcondell.net/index.html
Well I've given my opinion before and I'll give it again.
Condell is the worst kind of intolerant, bigoted, red neck loud mouthed, xenophobic, anti-immigrant clown, and I am surprised that so many people in what I hope to think of as a rational intelligent atheist movement see him as one of our own.
Tolerance and diversity gone too far? Does Condell understand the difference between respecting someone's beliefs and respecting their RIGHT to hold them? Does he understand the difference between criticising an irrational religion and branding a group of people in a simplistic manner based on the utterances of the most extreme? Does he understand the difference between ration discussion and hate speech, or have any idea how much his simplistic ranting support the ravings of the extreme anti-immigrant right?
Perhaps we should call this one "Pat Condell's War on Freedom".
I could elaborate, but I am actually very busy at the moment.
But this site should give people some pause for thought - the extreme anti-immigrant right love Condell.
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/05/telling-it-way-it-is…
Thanks, Dunc. Kinda assumed that, but it was pretty hard to tell from a quick look-around.
SC,
ok sorry LOL,things are starting to get a bit hazy here and i had best retire...:-)
Learned my lesson for the day already,from Patricia of course,1 Samuel 18,27,the thing with the foreskins,now thats priceless !
Setting the alarm to wake up in time for the VP debate.....
NiNi
clinteas - No worries. 'night! (So strange to say at 10 AM.:))
I agree. When governments take tolerance too far, it ceases to be tolerance, and turns into appeasement. Appeasement is what should not be tolerated. There's nothing wrong with letting Muslims practice their religion, speaking in the public square, etc. etc. But, when a muslim cleric demands that in order not to offend Muslims, all women in a country conform to sharia law even if they are not muslim, he is not asking for tolerance, he is asking for appeasement.
There is no guaranteed freedom from things that offend you. And while you may have freedom of speech, you are not guaranteed an audience or respect.
The law in England & Wales - don't know about Scotland, Nick G may - has always allowed the parties to a civil dispute to agree to be bound by the decision of an arbitrator. This is where the Beth Din (rabbinical court) comes in and has functioned smoothly for many decades, dealing with such things as business disputes and family property, child maintenance, etc. No legislation was required to set it up and the same is true of Shari'a courts which operate, so far, in a very few cases.
Of course there is there is real concern that the "agreement" especially of the weaker of the parties may not be true agreement but the result of pressure either from family or from clerics.
The root of the problem, where there is one, is ignorance and the solution as ever is education. Muslim women, for instance, should be in a position to know where they might get a better deal or more protection from the secular courts.
More worrying to me right now is the fact that very young women, some new to the country and speaking no English, are pushed into marriages at the local mosque which are religiously valid but do count for the protections of the civil law. Each mosque has the option to register so that marriages conducted there are also formally recorded - just like most of the churches do.
As I say, this option is open to every mosque but the imams and mosque committees - almost always entirely male - seem strangely reluctant to give their women that protection. I'd be happier if we tackled that one first before we get over-excited by a handful of decisions in a Shari'a court which cannot in any case over-ride the civil let alone the criminal law.
Yeah, I understand that - most of what you find on a quick look around is a bunch of idiots wildly misinterpreting things so they can get their culture war on.
Much as I enjoy Pat's work I think that, on this occasion, he has got his facts wrong. Under UK common law we can do whatever we want provided there is no law against it. There is no law against dispute arbitration under Sharia law and therefore those who wish to be governed by it may be so. However, it is wrong to say, as Pat does, that Sharia Courts "have the full backing of the law" by which he means UK law.
If a dissatisfied party were to seek to have a Sharia determination amended or nullified by the English courts I imagine the decision would be that the courts have no say in the matter and that, as far as English law is concerned, the agreement is non-binding under English law. However, if the parties had agreed within the Sharia proceedings to be bound by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 then the English courts would have jurisdiction but, of course, in the conduct of the proceedings, the Sharia court would have had to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A failure to do so would make any Sharia determination unenforceable within English law.
English law, as with Sharia law, acts to a great extent with the consent of the parties. Even in a personal injury cases if the injured party refuses to give evidence there is not much that can be done to force him to do so and therefore the prosecution falls. If there are disputes within or between Muslim families which involve injury then there is not much English law can do against the perpetrators if the victims refuse to press charges.
In getting overheated about Sharia courts it should be pointed out to Pat that when it comes to female emancipation with respect to property rights Sharia is not so very far behind English law. It is only a little over 120 years since married women were allowed to own their own property under English law even to the extent that any property they took into a marriage became that of their husband (http://tinyurl.com/brm4v). Furthermore, it is only a decade or so since divorced women became entitled to a substantial part of the husband's wealth acquired during the marriage.
What is certainly an immediate problem with Sharia is that it is invisible to English society and this is wrong. Pat makes the good point that, undoubtedly, many Muslim women will be bullied into the Sharia system and, there, the rights they would have under English law will be overridden. For this reason alone, I shall be signing the petition.
No country can survive under two separate systems of law. In so far as that was suggested by him the Archbishop of Canterbury was wrong. The law is always changing and it maybe that there are some good things about the Sharia compensatory system which we could adopt usefully into English law - I don't know as I haven't studied it - but what is certain is that no good can come of two separate systems of law. Sharia should be banned.
Letterbox Ladies...hehe...that would sound cute with a British accent. Out of the mouths of babes...
Wow, so the UK is really changing, eh?
I've signed.
Frankly, I cannot believe that anyone would even consider the idea of Shariah courts in the UK. It's not for nothing that ours is known as the mother of all parliaments. Our laws are made over the years by a process of reasoned debate involving real people, not based on some 1400-year-old text supposedly handed down to a paedophile (Muhammad is known for bumming a nine-year-old) which, if it were not for the fact that some religion considers it holy, would be held to constitute hate speech.
(And I've mentioned the stupid twat who is trying to sue Tesco on my own blog. Unfortunately, he lives in my home city.)
This conflicts with your earlier statement:
An arbitration decision does not and cannot override UK civil or criminal law.
As a long-term Pat fan, I'm quite concerned that this video is the one he's been censored for, because he's fallen into the trap of shouting about Sharia, rather than talking about the whole issue of religious courts for mediation.
Jewish Beth'din courts in the UK have been able to give legally-binding mediation since time immemorial, in exactly the same way as the Sharia courts are operating. And they must be stopped, too.
But the only way to do that is to ensure every trace of Christianity is taken out of the official legal system, and that's going to take a lot of work.
Yes, Sharia is the most frightening form of these kangaroo courts, and it's their rise which has caused people to protest. But singling out Islam on something which is a religion-wide problem opens him up to accusations of racism, which is the last thing we need.
I don't believe Pat is racist. I think he's just very concerned about the inexorable rise in the UK of the most psychopathic of the Abrahamic gods, and his videos on Christianity, Judaism and even Scientology confirm his contempt for religion, not brown people.
But anyone who just watches the banned one isn't going to see that.
Sastra@#19:
Cogent and articulate as usual. Where the hell is her OM, PZ?
I'm of the opinion that Condell is actually advocating intolerance towards intolerance.
Kind of like advocating intolerance towards war. About the only way you can tolerate that kind of intolerance is by dying. Not good. So, the only possible solution is to become intolerant of war, me thinks.
Same thing regarding freedom, equality, and tolerance itself. Intolerance against these values must not be tolerated, or else, in time, you lose. And it doesn't take long.
Um, here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
:)
How many Muslim women would be able to refuse the Shari'a verdict? Remember that there are honor killings in Britain, and opting for kaffir law may bring accusations of apostasy.
Many European bloggers are worried about being prosecuted for "racism" if they criticize Islam. The cartoonist who goes by Gregorius Neckshott has been silenced.
Dune wrote: "An arbitration decision does not and cannot override UK civil or criminal law."
Arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1966 is part of English Civil Law. It has nothing to do with criminal law. In so far as the Act is adopted by Sharia Courts then its decisions would be binding on the parties.
Sharia Courts cannot override the criminal law. The problem arises when victims of crime refuse to give testimony under English law but are willing to participate under Sharia Law.
Some things that I put in another thread, that are more appropriate here:
I'm pretty sure that Pat Condell is not a racist. e.g. A word to Islamofascists at about 4:20. Or Am I a racist? or Unholy scripture.
Personally, I don't think that independent arbitration rules should be scrapped. But I think that it would be good to change the law so that independent arbitration cannot discriminate based on things like gender or race. (Which probably gets messy in the details with things like child custody)
I want to thank John Bebbington #34 for his accurate and informative post. Lest it get lost in the shouting, I think that this means that John has Won at Teh IntarNetz and therefore this thread is now over. ;-)
Louis
P.S. To the "Pat is a racist" crowd. I'm hypersensitive about racism, it's one of those things that really energises me. I am virulently anti-racist. I don't get a racist vibe from Pat nor, more importantly, do I get racist overtones/undertones from his actual words.
HOWEVER, that said, the rhetoric of the BNP etc, who have traditionally hidden their racist agenda behind a veil of "religious criticism" (not very well actually) is not enormously different to some of Pat's comments. Let's get this clear: in Pat's case I think it is more likely (based on his avowed expressions of anti-racism and pro-tolerance/diversity) a case of poor choice of phraseology/people seeing racists where none exist. In the case of the BNP it's demonstrably a cover for their racist agenda (as has been discovered on many occasions).
Pat, in this instance, has muddled something. Sharia arbitration courts should be allowed IF (and only IF) other religions get such privileges (like Judaism and the Beth Din). The question isn't "should there be Sharia arbitration courts?", the question is "should there be specially privileged arbitration courts for ANY religion?". One out, all out!
Challenging religious privilege, whatever religion gets it, is a noble goal, one I know Pat supports. Challenging one religion's privilege whilst supporting the privilege of another because it "has less darkies in it" is (c)overt racism, and I think we can be very clear that Pat is NOT doing that.
In sum:sure Pat's got a few wires crossed, but I severely doubt that they are the racist wires.
General comment about the word tolerance: tolerance is not enough - one tolerates a toothache, but eventually the problem must be solved. The goal is at least acceptance.
Clearly there is a huge difference between tolerance and respect. Just look at any dictionary. Respect often uses synonyms like "honor, high regard, admiration," etc., whereas tolerance uses synonyms like "permissiveness, allowable deviation from a standard, to put up with, ability to cope," etc.
Relgious tolerance is what is really required, which means we have to put up with the crazies holding whatever nonsense they want in their minds and saying what they want to say. There is NO need for respect of the ideas/beliefs.
The old saying of "everything in moderation" can be extended to be "everything in moderation, including moderation itself" which points out the potential (if not necessity) for contradiction when using absolutes.
This same type of contradiction applies to tolerance. We put up with as much as we can of the crazies. But at some point, enough is enough. It's the dialectic: when quantity turns into quality.
To endlessly tolerate fundagelicals of all faiths who are themselves almost completely intolerant, we end up allowing them to destroy tolerance generally. So there has to be a limit even to tolerance in order for it to be generally maintained.
Bottom line: NO respect for religious ideas, tolerate (put up with) as much of their nonsense as you can (to be civil) and fight back as hard as you can when they try to foist their craziness upon us as public policy instead of just keeping their crap to themselves.
Here is the petition Condell wants signed.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/sharialawuk/
You must be british and the deadline is october 4.
Ramases says:
And yet you reduce yourself to Condell's level with such biased namecalling? Thanks. When Islamic extremists have succeeded in taking away all your freedoms, don't blame Condell. He tried to warn you. Unless you are willing to suppress the extremists, they will try to suppress you! It is useless to "tolerate" or "respect" them, because I can assure you that they do not tolerate or respect you!
Destroy them BEFORE they destroy you. That's all Condell was saying and what should have been obvious to all. Peace.
Fair enough. See also, above, 'no naivete is to be assumed'. Note also that, even in families that aren't so much into murder, some pretty heavy guilt and serious social ugliness could also be expected to occur. For lots of women, the reality is going to be: take the lesser settlement the sharia court hands out just to preserve a little peace within the larger family, not be called a bad Moslem, so on.
1. They already do.
2. It's not just about religious arbitration. Parties to a civil dispute have the right to agree to arbitration. There are all sorts of arbitration services, both secular and religious. What some people appear to be arguing for is that one particular type of arbitration service should not be allowed, on religious grounds.
As it stands, you can choose whatever form of arbitration you like - secular, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Discordian, whatever. Or you can refuse arbitration and settle the matter through the civil courts. What the opponents of "sharia courts" are arguing here is that one of those options, the Muslim one, should be disallowed, purely because they don't like it.
Would it kill people to have the first effing clue of what they're talking about?
For the video, search googlevideo "Pat Condell Welcome to Saudi Britain" for the app. 150 reuploads. lol.
Ramases said, "Well I've given my opinion before and I'll give it again."
Which, I'm afraid, does make any less wrong than you were before.
They have "rednecks" in England?
But this site should give people some pause for thought - the extreme anti-immigrant right love Condell.
You might want to traffic less in logical fallacies. On a radio show, I once heard a KKK member reach total agreement in an argument with a Black Separatist. I'm sure they went out and got an apartment together the next day. (cue Odd Couple theme)
Good job misrepresenting what Condell said Myers. When saying that tolerance and diversity have gone to far he was not arguing against tolerance and diversity in general, rather, he was just arguing against the establishment of UK Sharia courts, which came about under the pretext of tolerance and diversity.
I have come to enjoy Condell's work. I have gone back and forth, as sometimes his rhetoric hits the mark and the ridiculousness of cowtowing to religion, and then later he gets into a level of vitriolics that is too far for me, though it usually occurs when a concession is made to religion. But what has made me feel better about him is the one statement where he made the point of emphasizing that not ALL muslims are bad. That is a problem with some who give criticism. Some try to tar all people, atheist, Christans, Muslims, etc., as being homogenous and at fault. But Condell was willing to concede the main trouble is with ideas and extremist. But when he tries and knock over tolerance and diversity, I have to disagree. Diversity is good. Tolerance is as well. Now, aboslute tolerance is horrible. And the way that the British governemnt has been approaching tolerance and diversity is balmy. Not all balmy, but this sharia business, not briging search dogs into muslim homes for fear of offense...balmy.
When speaking of tolerance, I think it's important to differentiate between actions and identities. We can't ethically choose to be intolerant of a class of individuals. However, we are obligated to not tolerate wrong actions.
Of course Muslims should be tolerated as people, and of course, the actions of Muslims, when wrong, should not be tolerated.
The problem is when the reasonableness of an action is measured by the identity of the actor rather than the action itself.
(.)(.)
I took Pat's use of the terms tolerance and diversity to be references to the government's Orwellian re-definistion of these terms.
I don't think he was seriously suggesting the tolerance and diversity were bad things, but that "tolerance & diversity" as they are being re-defined by the government are bad things, when that re-definition involves suppression of criticism and endorsement of dangerously old-fashioned and non-egalitarian legal positions.
To get an idea of the sort of abuse Condell gets for speaking his mind, look here:
http://www.patcondell.net/page4/page4.html
And here's what Condell really says about himself:
http://www.patcondell.net/page9/page9.html
He sounds very much like PZ Myers to me!
Dunc, the point is that religious courts of any stripe should be banned. That means no shariah courts, no Beth Din courts, no Christian courts, no Wiccan courts, no Pastafarian courts even. Arbitration, if it's used as an alternative to the courts, must be kept strictly secular.
READ THIS
Pat's video was pulled on a technicality. He called for a direct action, and was asking people to sign a petition, which was a political instrument outside the youtube framework and there is a rule against that.
If you are a Pat Condell watcher, you know that particular video was pretty mild for him, it wasn't censored for content, it was censored on a technicality.
<<<>>> The U.S. has always assimilated other groups wonderfully without having to allow immigrants to make their own courts
There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm<<>>>
Well it seems to me that the Navajo people are not immigrants, if you look at the history of treaties they might be seen as separate nations i.e. the Navajo nation
I will not even address the tolerant aspect of the comment as regards to the "First Nations" let history stand for itself.
If islamic courts are in fact and practice arbitration courts how are they different than "court TV" which I assume is just an "entertainment" form of binding arbitration. What people agree to do they agree to do what can you do about it if what they do is not against the law. Even if it is against the law what can you do before the fact or without witness testimony?
If it's voluntary arbitration, agreed to by both parties, I don't see why. If Party A and Party B decide to ask Party C to resolve a dispute for them, what business is it of anybody else's why they chose that particular Party C? And how on Earth would you enforce such an edict?
Individuals have the right to settle civil disputes in any way they like, provided it's legal.
Here's the correct link:
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/10/02/condell%E2%80%99s-attack-on-sha…
['twas the wrong type of apostrophe]
Posted by: Dunc | October 2, 2008
If it's voluntary arbitration, agreed to by both parties, I don't see why. If Party A and Party B decide to ask Party C to resolve a dispute for them, what business is it of anybody else's why they chose that particular Party C? And how on Earth would you enforce such an edict?
Individuals have the right to settle civil disputes in any way they like, provided it's legal.
Ideally, you are correct. But it does not fit in reality. How many women that would enter into British Sharia court would be coerced into it by their family and community?
Scooter@#61:
Ahhh, so this renders this post as an Emily Latella moment, huh?
"The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society."
A valid general point, PZ, but not true here.
It's simply not the case that these Muslims exploited an already-extant veneration of the Church or hesitation to criticize or challenge sectarian dogma.
The habits of laughing at the C of E, viewing it as a quaint historical relic or disregarding it entirely were well-established in Britain before this present trouble with Muslims.
The problems on display in the UK stem specifically from the belief that Brits must bend over backwards to show "sensitivity" towards minorities - in this case, Islam - and that criticism of it is tantamount to racism.
You and other here are correct to distinguish "tolerance" from things such as genuine respect, but the real engine of this madness is so-called Multiculturalism with its toxic mix of pandering condescension (which IS racist) and borderline-suicidal cultural masochism.
Not unreservedly it isn't.
For example, not many people would agree that a mass murderer should be tolerated in killing anyone he wishes to kill - ie because his opinion that he should be allowed to get away with it is as valid as that of anyone saying he shouldn't be. Most people take the view that there are some actions which should not be tolerated - ie that those determined to commit them should be physically prevented or mentally dissuaded by rational argument etc. A criminal shouldn't be able to avoid the judicial process by claiming his delicate feelings are hurt by merely being accused of the crime he committed or even having it mentioned as a bad thing in other people's opinions.
Yet the religious often guard their ignorance and dishonesty so jealously that they aren't willing to risk any of their number (especially their children) even hearing opposing arguments and evidence which might persuade them out of the religion and into the reality-based view of things. Some things are wrong/bad and should not be tolerated and most should not be "tolerated" in that distorted way of not even being allowed to point out exactly how and why they are wrong/bad.
"The reason people are bending over backwards to respect Islam is that they know any open laughter at one form of religious authority opens the door disrespect of the principle that any religious authority can be the foundation of a rational society."
I don't think that's it. Otherwise YT they would be bending over backwards to avoid hurting the feelings of _any and all_ religious people, and that's not the case (see the wafer desecration vids).
Maybe the reason that Islam is so often treated with kid gloves (including here) is that its currently the religion who's adherents are most likely to riot, damage property, and to do violence.
SC: There is this, however:
http://www.navajocourts.org/index5.htm
A little different situation. The Navajo, and other tribes within the US, are not immigrant groups, they are sovereign nations. Many have their own criminal courts, not just civil courts, also.
Dunc, in #51.
Erm, read back before going off half cocked. I DO know what I'm talking about. I (for example) mentioned that I knew there were religious arbitration courts already (islamic or not).
Would it kill people to effing read for basic comprehension and follow a post IN CONTEXT once in a while?
BrainFromArous in #67 gets one of the issues behind what Pat (and others) have commented on. And Scooter in #61 also gets to win at Teh Intarnetz. Read John Bebbington in #34 again, Dunc, read my agreement with it, and next time, be a little less quick to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension by declaring other people don't know stuff they've already referenced. Thanks.
Louis
I never really cared for Pat Condell's rants. Although I usually agree with him, he's not exactly saying anything I didn't already know. They're all kind of the same too.
I guess I just don't get the appeal; is he supposed to be particularly witty? Who is he anyway, besides a guy with a webcam?
Everyone here seems to love him, so I'm sure this won't be a popular sentiment. But hopefully that means someone can tell me why they think he's so awesome.
PZ, I think that you are missing the point here, which is that Pat isn't talking about American tolerance, but rather British tolerance, which consists of inviting these Muslims in and assimilating them.
The problem with the assimilation is that it has gone so far to cater to people who live in a primitive mindset. These are not the kind of people we should be encouraging.
David Brin had some good thoughts on tolerance and how it should be applied... "In fact, I think that we should go forth and crush every other worldview that doesn't promote tolerance!" (First page here.)
I completely understand Pat's concern over Sharia law particularly given the situation in Britain. Over there no one really has to worry about the ten commandments being imposed as religious law over the people, Sharia on the other hand is an actual threat.
We recently played the "introduce Sharia arbitration" game here in Ontario (but since we don't have Pat, nobody much noticed...) We also had previously allowed other religious bodies the right to arbitrate in family court matters. The attempt to introduce similar Sharia courts resulted in Ontario's Bill 27 banning all forms of religious arbitration in such matters.
It didn't seem to me that Condell stepped out of line re: tolerance and respect, as PZ suggests. The over-riding problem with Islam is that Muslims are forbidden to show tolerance for 'infidels', let alone respect - indeed, they are obliged by their faith to kill them, if at all possible.
I see from the comments that some have had difficulty seeing Condell's video. I had no trouble accessing it at:
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/2008/10/02/condell%E2%80%99s-attack-on-sha…
using Mozilla Firefox (not running under Windows by the way).
Everyone here seems to love him, so I'm sure this won't be a popular sentiment. But hopefully that means someone can tell me why they think he's so awesome.
No idea. I guess he's awesome because he's supposed to be awesome, I suppose. I think it's kind of like Roy Zimmerman. He's awesome too, but I don't know why. Just take everybody's word for it, Roy Zimmerman and Pat Condell are really really awesome. (I guess.)
Everyone is uploading their copy of the censored video, download it here http://rapidshare.com/files/150136369/saudibritain.avi.html
John Morgan, #77: The over-riding problem with Islam is that Muslims are forbidden to show tolerance for 'infidels', let alone respect - indeed, they are obliged by their faith to kill them, if at all possible.
Except for those Muslims who are required to show tolerance for other faiths. So I guess the problem isn't so much with Islam or Muslims as it is with some Muslims.
CW @ #76:
Now if only we could also strip the Catholic robot factories (aka as "schools") of their taxpayer-supported status, I would kiss Dalton McGuinty.
Post a pic and I'll pass the offer along. You never know...
Of course since he's a Roman Catholic, attended Catholic schools himself and his wife teaches at a Catholic school I'd not hold my breath.
The problem with religions with imaginary deities and incoherent holy books is that they can be used to justify anything.
secularguy, #84: The problem with religions with imaginary deities and incoherent holy books is that they can be used to justify anything.
Well, I admit that different people with widely different moral and ethical systems can claim to be using the same sacred texts (or any ideology, for that matter) as the basis for their systems. I'm not sure why that's a problem, though.
It seems to me that the problem is that because a person thinks that their ethical system is based on a certain sacred text, then it is beyond question and, in fact, the person become surprised or angry when someone has a contradictory opinion on the matter.
Couldn't agree with you more, PZ. Just discovered your blog (you've linked to me from some of my paintings of Palin: on a dinosaur, as a librarian) and I'm really glad to have found it.
-Z
I think Condell refers to the multiculturalism that's become unhinged, not the one where everyone who partakes in it knows that everyone has to make adjustments to their way of life to partake in it. Condell's aim has always seemed to be the center. But I could be wrong.
Pat is one of the few non-deceased people on my Heroes list (click my name for link if you're curious who the others are.)
funny - looking at the list again after all these years, I've just noticed how many atheists are on there.
The Navajo may have sovereign nation status but they're still immigrants - unless anyone can provide thoroughly convincing evidence of a separate emergence of homo sapiens to that reasonably well established in Africa.
Tim Rowledge: #89
Posted by: tim Rowledge | October 2, 2008 3:18 PM
The Navajo may have sovereign nation status but they're still immigrants - unless anyone can provide thoroughly convincing evidence of a separate emergence of homo sapiens to that reasonably well established in Africa
Well, there's even more to it than that. It appears that the Athabaskan languages are from one of the more recent migrations - it looks like there are linguistic links to Siberian Yenisei languages still extant. Dave Marjanovic I think edited a wikipedia page on it, and would know the citations.
So the Navajo are immigrants over-and-above the initial immigration into the New World.
On topic though, what's the big controversy here? If I understand correctly, Sharia is being treated as any other private arbitration, with just a stream-lining of the process. If that's correct, what's all the yelling about? The problem would appear to be primarily one of poor education of Muslim women in the UK, whereby they are fairly easy to bully. Changing the arbitration rules would have no effect on that - this is a problem of proper "civics" education, proper welfare funding for these women to make themselves independent, and proper application of criminal law to get at abusive Muslim men.
I actually live in the UK. I have something important to say which will probably be lost amongst all these posts, but here it is.
Sharia law in the UK is no big deal.
Yes, you heard me right, but let me explain further. Everyone is just as phobic of Islam in the UK as they are in the US and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some nutcases in the UK starting spraying pepper spray at Muslim children on the basis of a dodgy DVD. (Yes, I am referring to the chemical attack found in Pharyngula's blog earlier this week.) As such, when Rowan Williams decided to suggest that greater provisions needed to be made for Sharia law in the UK, there was a huge outcry within which few people showed any understanding of the Archbishop's intended meaning.
The way it works is this. Jews have a Jewish court for civil issues and Muslims have only recently gained similar status Sharia court which works the same way. British law is still sovereign, but Islamic law is used for minor civil disputes (but never for criminal). The people most affected by all this are Muslims and the problem for them is as follows: they are too conservative in their interpretation of Islamic law for their own good! We actually have a situation where Muslim women will actually insist on rulings overly biased in the favour of men because they think it is more authentically Islamic (much to the annoyance of "Women Living Under Muslim Laws" who wish to encourage a more liberal understanding of Sharia).
Here's an article on the ins and outs which you may find enlightening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/14/religion.news
The claim that "tolerance is good" is self-evidently wrong. I needn't give examples; there are plenty of things which sensible people certainly shouldn't tolerate.
Why would a clever chap like PZ commit such a blatant error? Possibly because he's been indoctrinated by the widespread, "politically correct", needlessly strong, vocal emphasis on tolerance, which is exactly what Pat Condell is railing against.
I don't follow. How is this "no big deal"? These women are being brainwashed into believing they're inferior to men.
Yes, I'm betting that several of us already knew that and still think it sounds problematic.
info_dump (#72) wrote:
He's a comedian, or perhaps used to be a comedian, and a writer.
I haven't seen all of Condell's videos, but the ones I have watched I liked because they were humorous and straight to the point. They were articulate and forceful enough (maybe even merciless at times) to make the point, but were still entertaining.
He didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know either, but he did present the arguments in a way that I appreciated. Particularly because I know that sort of thing drives both the apologists and fundies up the wall, and I can't say there isn't a small kernel of evil in my heart that doesn't get some satisfaction out of that.
(OK. I admit it. I cackled like a perfect witch.)
He can be harsh, though. So I can understand why it would be a turn-off for some people, but I still *mostly* like it. And while I can't remember specific examples, I do remember thinking that some of his points were pretty weak (thus the use of the word "like" and not "love").
But opposing a binding arbitration approach that is freely agreed to by all parties is also problematic. I am no fan at all of Sharia law, but at the same time I'm not a fan of the state telling people how they should mutually resolve their private differences. And that's true even if Sharia law is misogynist. Because if we go after this kind of binding arbitration to protect women, it seems to me the same principle could be used to outlaw other mutually-agreed activities that some feel demean women, such as female submissive BDSM between consenting adults. Do we really want that much intrusion of the State into these issues?
How can anyone be "tolerant" of any belief that promotes slavery of any other person? Yet the bigots in Islam and several sects of Christianity do just that. Women are not the property of men. So is control of any other's body by labeling abortion murder, or considering that women are 1/2 the worth of men, which Sharia maintains is the strict agreement of slavery for women. I support Pat 100%.
Why just women? For example, if there was a voluntary secular arbitration in child custody cases that consistently ruled in favor of the mother, wouldn't that be a problem? Shouldn't there at least be some sort of assurance of informed consent?
Somebody correct me if I've misunderstood, but isn't there also the issue of these sharia decisions being "legally binding"? I know this is less severe as it sounds, since the sharia court is voluntary and the rulings at least in theory can't be against the law. But imagine that there were some BDSM community where people could voluntarily enter into semi-permanent dominant-submissive relationships (something like Goreans?), and they had their own rules and set up some sort of arbitration court to deal with breaking these rules. If you consented to the arbiration beforehand, the decision of that court would be legally binding. Is that intrusion of the law into private matters not potentially dangerous?
Tulse: But opposing a binding arbitration approach that is freely agreed to by all parties is also problematic.
It seems the question is very simple - can you in the UK agree to binding arbitration via a roll of the dice, a footrace, a crossword puzzle, wrestling, or the decision of a random stranger? If so, then this is no big deal; if not, then religious arbitration is a problem.
Ahh, the old slippery-slope, eh? The traditional non-argument for maintaining the status quo. No. Sorry. Doesn't fly. It didn't fly when used against allowing women to vote, accepting same sex marriages or any of the thousands of other times it's been trotted out. While you can manufacture a tenuous similarity between the two "issues", the fact is that they are not the same, not actually linked, and legislating against one does not directly lead (or even tend to lead) to legislating against t'other.
frog (#90) wrote:
My initial thought is that if there are specific legal accommodations for other religions, then it must also be for Islam, at least to the extent that it does not conflict with British law. You certainly can't prevent people from using their religious laws to negotiate their private affairs, but what is the point of legally recognizing it at all? Further, whose version of Shari'a gets the accommodations? (I am still confused about what exactly those would be...)
However, the most obvious concern is that it could be used to diminish the rights of Muslim women (in particular, although this is certainly also true for men), or that they could be coerced into acting against their own best interests by participating in arbitration that may diminish their rights, or that it would work to convince them not to seek the full benefits granted to them under British law. That isn't to say that it necessarily will, but if (for example) women refused to seek civil divorce because they couldn't get an approved Islamic one, you have what amounts to a system that prevents some people from equal access to the law. That is a legitimate and serious concern.
The article Fatpie42 posted has a lot of good points about the confusion that results when people confuse Islamic rule for British law and think they have protections that they do not. That is yet another very serious and legitimate concern.
This just sounds silly to me. I doubt Muslim women are any easier to bully than Christian women, whether they are educated or not. If they are, I don't understand why giving them an extra hurdle, or providing their abusers with an opportunity to bully them further in the Islamic courts, would be a good solution to the problem. It's simply another layer of difficulty.
This is like arguing that we shouldn't change discriminatory laws or policies because the problems are "civic" or social in nature. That makes no sense. If the problem is civic, then the solution is also, at least in part, civic. We should make every attempt to foster both legal and social equality, and act to prevent unnecessary hoops, hurdles, or potential abuses. All citizens should have equal access to the law and be able to defend their rights and best interests without having to first go through a church council.
That said, it seems to me that, based on the Guardian article posted above, that people can and do participate in the system independent of any legal recognition of it. Thus, it seems pointless to grant it any special legal recognition, and it provides more opportunity for abuse. That would of course be true of any religious law.
Regarding Condell and "tolerance" - maybe this can change your mind on what he was referring to with "tolerance". I remember at least once him being saying in being rightfully completely intolerant in any limitations to our freedoms or human rights, like Islam forcing.. whatever.
Also, I saw nothing of the video saying he was against or disliked tolerance and diversity, he even outright said he liked them, but that bad/stupid people have turned these terms into covers for bad things...
Leni: My initial thought is that if there are specific legal accommodations for other religions, then it must also be for Islam, at least to the extent that it does not conflict with British law. You certainly can't prevent people from using their religious laws to negotiate their private affairs, but what is the point of legally recognizing it at all?
All your arguments make sense if this is actually an acomadation for the religion, and not for the courts. If private binding arbitration is generally legal in the UK (as it appears to be) -- then this system is a simplification for the courts!
In other words, the courts have to deal with private arbitrations done by all kinds of mediators. The most common classes of them can be simplified, for the courts, by legislating them some standards. That way, each appeal requires a lot of work for the judge.
It's like using standard contract forms. You can write a contract on any old note-pad, with any old words. But for all parties involved, including the legal system, the whole thing is streamlined and clarified by using standard contract forms where you just fill in the blanks.
That's the essential question: Does the UK recognized private arbitration of disputes by private parties in general? Can you hire your neighbor to do it, and could he use any logic he wants to arbitrate? Is it just another private contract?
He is arguing against the promotion of "tolerance and diversity," saying it has gone too far.
No he isnt. if you listen to him in context, and in the context of the political climate he is protesting, his use of "tolerance" and "diversity" in this context includes the "" on each side. The idea of "multiculturalism" is all about "tolerance", ie: the tolerance of intolerance. Just replace the word "sharia" with the word "nazi" and the absurdity of allowing "sharia courts" in a tolerant democracy becomes obvious. If the comparison sounds a bit off, try replacing "jew" with "Woman", and "white supremacy" with "Islamic purity" and the comparison is completely fair. everyone can see that Sharia law under NO circumstances belong in a society that values freedom, free speech, equality, fairness and tolerance.
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
There is an ambiguity in what is called "tolerance", much like the ambiguity in what is called "militant". For example, PZ Myers would be a "militant" atheist because he criticizes theism. When someone says "militant Muslim", on the other hand, it is assumed that the label refers to the promotion of violence. Theists and atheists are held to different standards: militant atheists say mean things about theists for killing people, and militant theists kill people.
The notion of "religious tolerance" meant something different when the notion of a secular state was more foreign to people: it meant "tolerance" by the literal definition, i.e. living with something undesirable as opposed to forcibly destroying it. The conflation of "tolerance" and "respect" is a post-Enlightenment modern Western invention.
If they're being coerced, how is the dispute even going to get to arbitration? Arbitration can only happen when both parties are sufficiently empowered and determined to force it.
If you're able to coerce someone into accepting your terms in a dispute, why bother with arbitration? Most civil disputes are settled privately, without going anywhere near the courts or arbitration.
For those interested in some facts, rather than hysteria, about what British Muslims think, the most recent poll I can find is at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/media/pdfs/Muslim-Poll-May08.pdf
I'd just note that (1) The poll sample was not weighted as there are no sufficiently good demographic breakdowns of the Muslim population, and (2) the "sharia" question is:
"Would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain in which some element of Sharia Law is introduced?" [ my emphasis]. This is pretty vague: it could mean stonings and beheadings, or it could mean rulings about what food is halal. Clear majorities say they're attached to Britain, Islam is compatible with western democracy, Islamic values are compatible with British values. According to the most recent census, Muslims make up 2.7% of the population.
So to Blake, who said poll results similar to these should "scare the shit" out of me, I reply: you are, at best, a hysterical idiot. So is Condell.
On another point, both English and Scottish law allow parties to a civil dispute to select their own arbitration tribunal. If the tribunal is registered, the civil courts will mostly recognise their rulings, but can overrule them. It is under this provision that sharia courts have been recognised. I'd prefer that all religious bodies were excluded from this because of the social pressure that can be imposed on members of particular communities to make use of them, but while they are not, it would clearly be invidious to exclude sharia courts and allow Beth Din, the Jewish equivalent.
How carefully is the Sharia court system monitored? Is it monitored at all?
What if the resolution of civil dispute demands that the offending party must submit to having an appendage sliced off?
Do the UK courts simply look the other way if, say, a Sharia court approves the marriage of a ten year old girl? Or if a Sharia court dissolves a marriage, and ensuing custody/visitation rights, based on a violation of religious stricture only, say, not wearing a burka of the approved color?
It seems to me that what we might call inherent or basic or natural human rights may not be respected in religious courts, and I can't see how the UK can justify that.
Again, are the Sharia courts monitored?
Gingerbaker: What if the resolution of civil dispute demands that the offending party must submit to having an appendage sliced off?
NG explained: On another point, both English and Scottish law allow parties to a civil dispute to select their own arbitration tribunal. If the tribunal is registered, the civil courts will mostly recognise their rulings, but can overrule them. It is under this provision that sharia courts have been recognised
So clearly Sharia resolutions must be consistent with British law. You can't marry 10 year olds or cut-off appendages, it's the same as if you were to go in the US to "The People's Court" or Judge Judy and have them arbitrate your case -- just in this case, instead of getting a wise-cracking Miami judge, or a cranky 200 year old woman deciding from their wealth of personal experience, you'd get a bigotted and bearded old man spouting off Hadith instead.
You can't make a private contract that involves breaking the law, and expect the courts to uphold it as legally binding. But it's not against the law for a woman to agree to giving up half her inheritance to her brothers.
PZ, I think you are contemplating the term 'tolerence' in a standard American definition; while I am sure Pat is objecting to the same term being hijacked in the UK to provide rhetorical cover for the acceptance of Sharia as binding law in the UK. I don't think Pat is being intolerant in any way to object to that state of affairs. If that was tried in the US there would be millions of people raising holy hell (sic). That's like the Catholic Church sentancing you to 30 lashes for your desecration. Sounds like England is on a slippery slope here with their liberal European ethos getting the better of their power of reason. But there WILL be a backlash, you can count on it.
-Robin
#63:
Really?
So I can set a voluntary arbitration organization that accepts contracts for lifetime servitude and you've got no problem with that? Basically the party you are contracting with gets full use of your time for the rest of your life in return you get a lump sum payout.
Normally such contracts do not give you the freedom to have children as that would impinge upon your work output. However, other stronger contracts that are binding on your children can be had for an additional lump sum and with the contractual stipulation that you will be allowed to have children.
Criminal law, and I imagine when you were reading my last two paragraphs that is exactly what came to your mind. You were thinking, "That's slavery and it's a crime."
Are you by any chance some kind of anarchist?
I'd disagree with this a smidge. Neither the Ten Commandments nor Shari'a is any more ridiculous than a handmade stone axe. They are a basic and functional tool, and usually constitute an improvement over a complete lack of tools. They are a useful piece of history, and a part of humanities knowledge of the "state of the art".
That said, a Chainsaw is better for cutting down trees. Unfortuantely, science has not yet (that I am aware) produced an analogous full replacement tool (or tools) for religion. Science is a vastly superior tool for producing understanding of the universe; however, there are other tools we need before fully replacing religion will be practical. We need "better" technology (or technologies) than religion for signalling societal membership; for building trust within a society; for improving co-operation between members of society; for reducing cheating and purely selfish behavior; and, overall, for addressing questions of morality. (A sociologist or scholar of religious studies might be able to point out additional uses; I'm just an amateur.)
You want to wipe out religion? Science needs to make progress on those problems... and they are hard.
Prof Myers,
Wrong. He said:
He's obviously arguing against a Orwellian version of both "tolerance" and "diversity" where the words are mere homophones for good words but actually different words that mean bad things.
You can pretty much count on those two words having a different meaning when associated positively with the words "speech codes" and "Islam" or negatively with the words "Islamophobe", or "Wingnut". Generally what those words then mean is that we are going to tolerate suppression of speech that the left dislikes, and suppress a diversity of opinion on subjects unless it conforms with leftist prejudices.
Generally that means a non-white can emit any racist effluvial they want from their mouth as long as it's directed at whites, in which case it's understandable. Likewise any non-Christian religion has free reign to be as intolerant as it likes.
No where in his stand up routine did he argue against true tolerance, the good kind, or diversity.
BTW, diverse is a word like say discrimination that is good in some cases and bad in others and yet means the same thing. It's good to discriminate in ones palate and not to have so diverse a cuisine that one consumes poisonous mushrooms. There is no difference in meaning between those two words in that example and in bad ones like discriminating against blacks and being against a diverse racial makeup to a country.
Words can get loaded with particular meaning and when you change diverse to diversity it generally has been used in the later case to identify a good thing, but often in order to justify bad things. So pardon some of us if we are skeptical of it's use to justify anything. I certainly prefer that a person advocate against racism than for diversity. The former seems to entail less bad political riders that the latter.
A point Condell has repeatedly made.
Another point Condell has repeatedly made. He did an entire video on repect for religion. There are more but I'm not going to look for them. Are you even paying attention.
You gotta love a comedian who says:
You are aware his youtube style is listed as "stand up". You surely wouldn't interpret this as an advocacy of nuclear war? Would you?
#111
No you can't, you tool. I'm pretty sure I had "as long as it's legal" in there as a qualifier somewhere. You've just postulated a ridiculous strawman - I didn't say that the arbitration service could set whatever conditions they like, up to and including blatantly criminal ones. I just said that there is no reasonable basis for preventing people from resolving their disputes in whatever manner they see fit, provided it's legal. As frog says in comment #109, "You can't make a private contract that involves breaking the law, and expect the courts to uphold it as legally binding."
And are you really arguing that you want to use criminal law to ban two parties in a private civil dispute from consulting their religious leaders for arbitration? Really? That's abhorrent. I'm as atheist as they come, but you can't freakin' ban people from being religious and using their religious principles to settle private disputes in any (legal) way they like, no matter how stupid I personally might think those principles are. It's none of my, your, or the state's business.
I may be some kind of anarchist by some definitions, but that's not my issue here. My issue is with the idea that the state can ban people from resolving their private disputes by consulting their religious leaders - or indeed anyone else they like.
#34 John Bebbington,
By that argument Europeans were not so far behind English law over two thousand years ago. The practices of two thousand years ago being only about 120 years behind the times, by your logic.
We only abolished slavery about 142 years ago here in the US. That would make the ancient Egyptians only about 142 years away from abolishing slavery at the start of the Dynastic period in 3000BC. All those pyramids, like the Great Pyramid, build after 2658 were obviously done with voluntary labor.
Likewise you must have derived your view from other examples like Islam. It was established around 700AD. You must have some compelling evidence that they completely abandoned slavery by 842AD.
You must find it real puzzling why the KKK has not abandoned their desire to enslave blacks at this point, or any at any point that was twice the number of years between the end of slavery and the establishment of their organization. The KKK was established one year after slavery was abolished so I would fully expect you to be there at the grand opening saying that surely since we had only abandoned slavery one year back that this new organization was "not so very far behind" and "it's a little over 2 years since" slaves were allowed.
I dare say that if the KKK were actually established prior to the abolishment of slavery to fight the election of Lincoln then you might use your reasoning skills to deduce that they would abandon their pro-slavery stance at exactly the same time that it was abolished legally. After all if we are only four years away from abolishing slavery then surely they are.
I guess in your world beliefs count for nothing. It's all about time scales. Not the fact that certain people are wedded to intolerant and claimed immutable and infallible ideologies with the mores of the 7th Century.
By your logic everyone is now and at all times only one year way from awarding Gays the right to marry. Which leads to the question, "Why wasn't this done millennia ago?"
Hell, some racists only gave up their racism like a few months ago. So we can hardly rail against any racist ideology as it's likely to transform a couple months down the road.
I hope I never hear this argument ever again.
What? Are you from the Nick Gotts' school of argumentation? I don't mind you abusing my ideas, but please refrain from abusing my person during this discussion. You can even use the word stupid in reference to an idea I hold just so long as you support your position. Otherwise, I'll call you on that too.
BTW, Nick, I'll stop using you as an example so long as you change your behavior. BTW, you up on the latest embarrassing mistake found in the 2008 cover-up of the hockey stick produced by Mann. It's a howler. Seems Mann inverted a graph and ignored established bad data when favorable to his view, while tossing contrary data on a whim. Well not a whim, a bias.
So you'd have no problem with voluntary slavery just so long as it was legal? Which was my whole point.
I took your last sentence into account, which was, "Individuals have the right to settle civil disputes in any way they like, provided it's legal."
Slavery has been legal for millenia. So under, say the US Constitution, anytime pre-antebellum, you'd think people had the right to not only sell themselves into slavery but to own slaves, just so long as it was based on voluntary contract?
So as long as there was no explicit law against keeping your women ignorant, not teaching them to read or write, you'd be fine with that. Furthermore, you'd be fine with any contract they might scribble an X to. Just so long as they were represented by counsel or some extra-legal guardian.
Perhaps it is merely you who is mis-communicating or not thinking through the implications of your statements. I see no straw man in my questions, and arguments.
I'm quite serious, I don't think you have thought your position out very well.
Sure there is. It's perfectly reasonable to prevent people from resolving their disputes via duels, by criminalizing this method of resolution.
Duels were a perfectly legitimate and legal method of resolving disputes at one time. So surely if you alive at that time or if we should repeal such laws then you would be claiming there is "no reasonable basisno reasonable basis for preventing people from resolving their disputes in" this manner. You said, "any manner" and I reduced it to one, dueling.
But in this you are wrong. There may be no legal basis on which to prevent it but certainly there is a reasonable basis on which to do so, and that is why we passed laws against this method. I won't bore everyone with the reasons, which are numerous.
No kidding. Doesn't apply here. Slavery could be legal.
Certainly believing in a religious cult that doesn't allow women near any information that might make her informed about her rights could be perfectly legal too. Which kinda makes the contract void from a rational perspective since such a person wouldn't be competent to sign it.
But then again we wouldn't expect the courts to NOT hold it up as binding, just so long as other rules are followed. Clearly nothing illegal was done that would void the contract, only something that was unreasonable, yet perfectly legal.
Courts don't operate on pure rationality the last time I looked. They work via law with a small dose of rationality.
Well, no I wasn't arguing for anything. Just questioning what you were talking about. Sounded wrong to me.
Well, not if the religious leaders solution to child custody is Solomon-like. Should a baby really be split in two if both parties are in a dispute and that's what the the religious decision is?
Suppose a pair of parents agreed to abide by the religious authority of say, Christian Science, and had a dispute about whether to provide proper medical care to a child. Further suppose the religious leader rules that the baby must die by gods hand and awards custody to the crazy parent as per the marriage contract. Further suppose there is no criminal statues covering this scenario.
You find it abhorrent that I think that the not only the state but any individual can interfere with this situation and be rationally justified? Furthermore, you find it abhorrent that I believe that one can outlaw such acts?
You have a strange notion of abhorrent.
I didn't say it but, yes, I "want to use criminal law to ban two parties in a private civil dispute from consulting their religious leaders for arbitration" in such situations.
What's being an atheist got to do with it. There's nothing about atheist that says you can, or cannot, should or should not do anything.
I can't ban them from being religious, hell I might be a religious atheist myself, but I can certainly ban them from taking certain actions on the basis of their religion. That ban is done by making such actions illegal.
There are certainly rational moral grounds for banning [making criminal] many religious activities.
Well that's not true. Some of this stuff is very much my business and by derivation the states business.
Certainly any religious activities that defraud, trespass against, or endanger me or those who seek my help are my business. Furthermore any such activities impinging on those who are incompetent and without timely access to a valid guardian are my business.
Let's call people who are mentally normal but have been purposely isolated from current reasonable mental opportunities and development, the mentally deprived. An example would be preventing women from going to school in order to read and write. Another might be keeping your child isolated in a room with no education.
This presents many problems for me that make it my business. For instance, one day the parent might die and then the mentally impoverished child would perhaps wander the streets, having by necessity to steal or rob in order to survive.
There are many people, myself included, that were they to happen upon such a child would feel compelled to help. This being my nature it would not be a choice in the normal sense. You do believe in basing morality and law on human nature, correct?
Well any reasonable person is going to have to help such a child.
Not only that but if their de facto guardians are the very individuals who have so incapacitated them then those guardians have no valid claims of guardianship. Guardians are supposed to take reasonable care to act to the benefit of their wards. Should I happened upon such a child I would have as much claim as the purported Guardian, with regards to the welfare of the child, on a reasonable person basis. Of course this only applies if the guardian took an active role in preventing development of the child. You couldn't take a child from aborigines merely on the basis that they hadn't invented writing. Morality is subjective in this way.
The mentally deprived can be in fact dangerous to me, if they are indoctrinated with defamatory and libelous information about me. It can lead to them harming me. Plus if I see others of my kind being harmed by these individuals on the basis of this misinformation, by a reasonable person test, I have standing to believe I am being trespassed against by exposing me to unreasonable risk.
Furthermore the very act of impoverishing someone mentally and/or teaching them defamatory information against me, violates my right to freedom of association, and does so via fraud. Keeping someone isolated from information in order to control them is in fact a form of fraud.
So I have given you an outline of my views on this. Now how about the issue of Sharia law with respect to Muslim women? I would argue that if that law entailed the impoverishment of those women, or if they were in fact separately impaired, then they would not be competent to agree to arbitration, and therefore could not give proper consent.
This, of course, is a principle I could apply intra-society, but only intra-society under special circumstances. Unless and until there is the real possibility that individuals from the foreign society have the realistic potential to endanger me, then I cannot claim that "It's my business" with regard to that aspect of my claim, endangerment.
I can however claim my right to free association, and other rights, pretty much anywhere. Of course, claiming and achieving are two quite different things.
Might be an issue to the argument but that's not why I asked. I asked because I thought your position was unusual but had encountered it before. In fact several times. I've seen this position from some non-anarchists on the left and some left and right anarchists. But your style of argument you use to defend the position is definitely anarchist or libertarian. I was just trying to see if my radar is working, and that "state's business" is pretty confirming.
You are free to consult whoever you want if you are a competent adult. What you do with that information is a different matter. In fact, if the religious leader you are consulting is actively inciting murder, or defaming others then even that is something that others should be free to interfere with, against that leaders wishes.
Do you believe that under the color of religion you are allowed to incite murder of individuals let alone whole groups. Does incitement become ok just so long as it's incitement to genocide, directed at a group and not at an individual? I've heard people argue that one. In fact the law is such in some places, you don't have standing to sue for incitement unless its directed specifically at you as an individual. The law allows "We should kill all the Jews. Allah told us too.", but not "We should kill Ira". To me the former seems actually a greater crime than the latter.
Likewise, it's against civil law to say "Ira swindles his customers" but quite legal to say "All Jews swindle their customers". The former is much more likely true than the latter, since if the former were false and Ira was Jewish then the latter would also be false. Gross over-generalizations tend to be false in the first place. By a reasonable person test one could argue that any such gross over-generalizations could be used by any individual of the group to claim they were being defamed.
Pat Condell's banned video appears to be back on YouTube.
Just wanted to interject that Pat Condell has also quite forcefully denounced the BNP and other right-wing racist groups who've tried to associate themselves with his videos, etc. I don't know Pat's politics, he comes off as being either a moderate Tory or old-school Labour (definitely not "New Labour"). I've yet to find an instance where I disagree with Pat. He strikes me as a British patriot, somewhat conservative, in a qualified sense (hey, even I'll admit some things are worth conserving) perhaps but far, far from "the worst..." [insert favorite PC buzzword here].
I think Pat is disgusted with the Orwellian use of the terms "tolerance and diversity" in modern Britain. I'd love it if Pat were PM, but that will never happen.
Since Pat's videos are visually unremarkable, I have switched to simply downloading the audio on iTunes, and I'd like to thank Pat for making his content available in that audio-only format.
BM: No kidding. Doesn't apply here. Slavery could be legal.
Well, putting aside your verbal diarrhea, the point you seem to be missing is that in the UK currently, slavery is illegal. It is irrelevant what any particularly tribunal says -- the fact is that slavery has been banned.
If Sharia has secularly unnacceptable principles (which as far as I understand it does) which are not currently illegal -- then it is incumbent on UK law in general to ban those principles as the basis for tribunal decisions. Then it becomes irrelevant whether or not Sharia is used as a basis for tribunals -- they could not then, in a binding manner, apply the illegal principles and neither could any other arbiter.
Being religion-blind would be a more general solution than just removing Sharia -- it would also apply to Jewish tribunals, for example.
"I don't follow. How is this "no big deal"? These women are being brainwashed into believing they're inferior to men."
- Count Nefarious
Hey, when did I say you couldn't criticise Islam? All I said was that 'Sharia law' is no big deal. These women would still be brainwashed and would still be in favour of an outcome in favour of men regardless of whether we had Sharia courts. You see the problem is actually that Sharia holds a personal importance for those who use the Sharia courts, regardless of how legally binding it is. We are actually better off if the Sharia courts have some links with the legal system because then it is held to a greater level of accountability.
The Guardian article (see my previous comment if you didn't read it) pointed out that if Sharia courts are given a more official position (which is a recent change that Pat Condell is currently opposing) then there can be more consistency and it is also easier to challenge the judgements of these courts.
The alternative is that the Sharia courts are simply settlements unrelated to any legal system and thus completely unregulated - yet, for those who have chosen to approach the court to deal with their dispute, the verdict will still be viewed as holding complete authority regardless of its legal status.
"The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas -- uncertainty, progress, change -- into crimes."
-- Salman Rushdie (1947-), Is Nothing Sacred?, 1990