Why Dont You Blog?

Chad/Darfur/Sudan. Scene of an ongoing and pretty incomprehensible disaster. In June, Save the Children reported that

Over 70 children under the age of five die every day in Darfur

(It’s a fair bet that about 30 of them are probably named Mohammed, of course.)

As Alun pointed out in a comment here, we should maybe start looking at what lies behind the ludicrous Sudanese Toy Story?

I’d like to put all the blame for this on religion, but, I’m something of a materialist and religion is so often just the gloss on real-world struggles over power and wealth.

The UN has reached agreement on sending in a peace-keeping force, according to Associated Press.

U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno warned the Security Council on Tuesday that the Sudanese government is putting up numerous obstacles to the deployment of the so-called “hybrid” force that could destroy the effectiveness of the joint AU-U.N. mission.

Reuters reports that the Sudanese are blaming the UN for the delays. Maybe I am biased but I tend to see the UN point of view as likely to be more accurate. According to Jean-Marie Guehenno, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force, Khartoum is putting conditions which would render the UN force unable to achieve anything.

International experts estimate some 200,000 have died and 2.5 million been driven from their homes in almost five years.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior government minister and a militia leader accused of colluding in war crimes (More from Reuters)

Spanish Inquisitor made some excellent points about the disaster that is the Congo and got some great thought-provoking comments, including ones from the Exterminator, XanderG , Philly Chief and John Evolutionary Middleman the other day.

Although they were discussing the Congo, the issues they talked about apply to the man-made disasters that are increasingly consuming the African continent.

Most of the commenters (being Americans) felt that the USA should do something, although the Iraq debacle didn’t seem like a great model. PhillyChief said, somewhat ironically, “Too bad there’s no oil in Africa.” Tim Little pointed out that there is plenty of oil in Africa in general and a lot of mineral wealth in the Congo.

I have referred to this debate because it expresses where many of us are in relation to the horrors of the world. If we live in the rich countries, we don’t know enough about what is happening elsewhere. These are places we only hear about in terms of war, genocide or political turmoil.

A comment posted here on T_W’s first teddy bear post said:

This is appaling - if she is not freed today I will definately boycot anything Sudanese.

However, I doubt you can find anything Sudanese to boycott. These countries liek Sudan and the Congo are on the very edge of disintegration. And the people are turning on each other, as any people tend to do in the face of social disaster. The insane Islamic stuff is just a part of this process of disintegration.

So given the futility of applying more normal means (like boycotts and tough words at the embassy) of expressing international outrage over the situation in Darfur, all that’s left is the UN.

My feeling here is that the hapless British teacher has been used in the most cynical manner to stir up nationalist outrage, by reference to religion. Governments in Muslim countries are well aware of the ideological power of an appeal to Islam, which provides an opportunity to gather international support in the name of an (imagined) attack on the Prophet.

To misquote Dr Johnson, religion, combined with patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

However, the technique is likely to backfire drastically. The rich countries have already gone so far down the road of an inability to distinguish Islam from rabid fundamentalism that most Western populations are starting to assume that any appearance of possible Middle-Eastern descent (as in the case of Jean-Charles de Mendes) implies that an individual is a terrorist.
People in the UK have responded to the Toy Story case with unbelieving shock and anger.

As an irrelevant aside, the suggestion that she was being culturally insensitive and should have known better is utterly mistaken. She was teaching in a Christian school, ffs. Any muslim parents who sent their kids there would have had to accept that they were getting taught by non-muslims. She was clearly English, so she brought her own culture and customs. that is part of the experience of immigrants across the whole world. It’s pretty clear - except to the neo-fascists who use anti-immigration as a rallying cry to bigots - that we all have much to learn (accept/reject) from other people’s backgrounds.

In any case, I can imagine few Muslim families in the UK would stop their children calling their soft toys whatever they chose. Suddenly, not calling your toys after muslim religious figures has become an article of Islamic faith. Have the five pillars of Islamnow become six?

Wikipedia says

The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salah (ritual prayer), Zakah (alms tax), Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca)

If I were to add “non-blasphemous naming of soft toys” to the wiki entry, I suspect I’d have a fatwah on my ass before I’d left the page.

Popularity: 16% [?]

As if the previous farce over a teacher being jailed for 15 days and deported because she committed that most heinous of crimes - she allowed her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed - wasn’t stupid enough (Previous post and Nullifidian’s comments), we find out more today.

The BBC have reported:

Crowds of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for a tougher sentence for a UK teacher jailed for insulting religion.

It is put slightly stronger on AFP:

KHARTOUM (AFP) — Thousands of angry Sudanese, some brandishing swords, marched Friday through the centre of Khartoum calling for the execution of a British woman teacher as she began a brief jail term for insulting Islam.

“Those who insult the Prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets,” a sea of white-clad demonstrators shouted after Gillian Gibbons, 54, was jailed for 15 days on charges stemming from naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

What absolute, stark-staring, raving, madness. As if the people of Sudan have nothing better to be outraged about than this trivial nonsense. More importantly, it drives home the problem of allowing religious beliefs to dominate rational thinking. The whole concept of actually shooting someone for this idiocy is truly mind boggling.

It strikes me that this is nothing but the effects of rabble rousing being carried out by those who are looking to accelerate the inevitable class between Islam and the “Christian” West. I can not for one second think that these people would really have been insensed by such nonsense without prompting - and Friday is the big prayer day… I suspect that some of the more fundie clerics have stirred their masses up and unleashed them. It is worrying that this effect is so pronounced and obvious. From AFP:

Sheikh Hussein Mubarak told thousands of faithful gathered for the Muslim day of prayer that the court’s “verdict was lenient out of fear of criticism from human rights organisations, America and the West.”

…

Earlier, Sheikh Mubarak railed at what he said was an attempt “to transform Sudan from an Islamic state into a Christian state,” adding that the British teacher had come to Sudan “as part of that design.”

“Why did this teacher come to Sudan? She surely didn’t need to emigrate from her country for the money? So she came for another reason…” he told the faithful at Al-Safa mosque in the city’s eastern Jarif district.

See, Hovind et al are not alone. Islam has more than its fair share of evil, lying, self serving, manipulative scum bags. AFP continues: (emphasis mine)

He [Sheikh Mubarak] denounced “those who try to defend democracy and human rights and insult the Prophet,” adding that he did not think the teacher would even serve out the 15-day sentence.

At the central Martyr’s Mosque, another imam, Sheikh Abdul Jalil Karuri, said Gibbons “did it with the intention of insulting Islam.”

The crowd responded with cries of “The army of Islam will prevail.”

Like I said yesterday, the real crime isn’t so much naming a toy Mohammed (although now I will name every inanimate object I come across after prominent Islamic figures), as it was allowing the class to participate in a democratic action. What an evil woman this teacher was…

Well it seems like we get another wonderful example from the religion of peace. All I can say is they are all mad. I am, however, a bit surprised by how tame a lot of the political / international reaction has been. I have even read US based blogs talking about how it was the teacher’s responsibility to have learned all about the culture before she went there. I found that quite ironic.

Popularity: 18% [?]

The wonders of religious belief strike again. The ongoing saga of the British teacher in Sudan has now reached its (illogical) conclusion. Islamic clerics have managed to reinforce the idea that Africa is a haven for raging nutcases. Well done to them all. I am sure their god is a lot happier now, I mean he must have been really peeved that a teddy bear could be named after him. (Typical the Judaeo-Christian deity to be so vain).

Today the BBC reported that after a speedy trial the teacher was found guilty and sentenced to 15 days then will be deported. Wonderful. I am sure Sudan is full of surplus teachers and getting rid of this obviously evil one is only a good thing. How dare she try to teach her pupils to think and participate - she should have been caning them daily and teaching them nothing but what was in the Koran….Showing what a farce this whole thing is, the BBC article talks about the previous hopes for this to all blow over:

The prime minister, Sudanese embassy officials in London and UK Muslim organisations also expressed the hope that Mrs Gibbons would be released.

So, the Sudanese embassy officials have such poor insight into the mood and will of their country’s clerics they didn’t see this happening? Remind me why they are in the embassy here?

Typically, part of the truth is revealed (do you like that play on words?) by this little quote from the BBC:

But Sudan’s top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

Once again, crazy Islamic clerics in Africa create an imaginary western plot against Islam. Brilliant isn’t it. Bloody paranoid fools. The west obviously infiltrated that school and convinced the kids to name the teddy Mohammed all as part of a great master plan…

Toutatis only knows what the goal of the master plan is though… Do we think that this sort of thing will make Islam vanish maybe? In reality, the crackpot fundie clerics are managing to generate much more ridicule of Islam than anything a single teddy could manage. Even if it was a large teddy.

Worryingly, there is a lack of condemnation for this nonsense among international Islamic groups. Most have skitted around the issue a bit and come up with some variation of how they hope it wont result in jail time. None (as far as I can see, I hope I proven wrong) have stood up and said “these Clerics are nutjobs and it is nothing to do with Islam.”

[Hat Tip: Nullifidian]

Popularity: 17% [?]

First off, I have to say I am sorry. Once upon a time I had thought all those years of compulsory Religious Education at school had taught me a thing or two about religion. I think I was wrong.

Take one of the basics as an example. I was taught that Moses had carried a tablet with ten commandments which formed the basis of the annoying triumvirate of Monotheistic religions we suffer with in this day and age. Today, reading Wikipedia, I learned I may be wrong. This is from Wiki’s page on the Ten Commandments:

1. I am the Lord thy God
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
3. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
4. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
6. Honor thy Father and Mother
7. Thou shalt not murder
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery
9. Thou shalt not steal
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
11. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house
12. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife

Now, I might be a bit old fashioned but I actually count 12 there… It seems most religions get round this by lumping two of them together every now and then. I suppose the “Ten Commandment” had a more authoritarian ring to it even all those years ago.

This leads to the second bit of confusion. I was brought up thinking the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” was on the books and it was only today I discovered the rules were you couldn’t murder someone. Apparently only Catholics say the “not kill” bit (must have caused a few problems during the crusades). I find this odd as my school was at most a Protestant one (mostly secular) and we certainly weren’t taught the Catholic doctrine anywhere else.

Anyway it now seems killing people is fine, as long as it isn’t murder. This creates a bit of confusion though. Does God wait until a secular court has reached a verdict before he consigns the killer to hell? Who decides when taking a life is murder and when it isn’t?

Why cant these bloody religions make sense. It is all proof that the bible was written by Loki while he was bored if you ask me…

Popularity: 15% [?]

The teddy bear fiasco in Sudan doesn’t look like it is going away. Null’s WTF is a good starting point, and from there the Times Online takes up some of the slack.

Writing today, Joanna Sugden notes:

Gillian Gibbons has today been charged with blasphemy, and accused of inciting hatred and insulting Islam, in Sudan for allegedly naming a class teddy bear Muhammad.

Now, I am obviously much to rational to be able to work out how naming a class teddy bear Muhammed either incites hatred or insults Islam. If she had named the bear “Islamic law is madness and anyone who follows it is a lunatic,” I could see their point, but she didn’t.

She made the mistake of allowing her class to vote on a name for the bear. Obviously this is the problem. Acts of democracy and free-thinking for children is potentially deadly for Islamic nations and they seek to stamp it out at the earliest possible stage.  Loki forbid that Sudanese law have concepts such as mens rea - who cares if she intended to do wrong, the fact of the matter is a thinly skinned religion has taken the hump over a trivial issue. Who said Islam had no sense of humour? (Well they were right)

Interestingly, and just in case the raging nutcase Christians thought they were being let off lightly today, the article on the times has this snippet:

Blasphemy is a crime on the statute book of Sudan, as it is in many countries governed by Islamic law.

My, what backward nations they are… Oh, hang on a second… Blasphemy is still a crime on the statue book of the United Kingdom and we certainly are not governed by Islamic law… (I suppose the only difference is you wont get 40 lashes in the UK…)

If you are sane enough to think this is madness please take a moment to sign the petition calling for the revocation of this nonsensical law. If you have a blog, please spread the word about this petition.

Popularity: 17% [?]

The two seem inextricably linked. It isn’t very often that this blog gets to abuse Islam (mainly because it is still very much a minority religion where we live) but this week has produced two wonderful examples of who religion and rationality are still very much apart.

First off we had the breath-taking madness in which an English woman (foolishly) teaching in Sudan has been arrested because she allowed her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed (see nullifidian’s post on the matter). Despite the fact this teddy was apparently named after one of the boys in the school, this has been seen as a vile insult to Islam for which she faces either a year in a Sudanese jail or 40 lashes. What a wonderful, rational, modern-thinking religion this is.

Oddly, the radio news today had some voice clips of various officials in Sudan saying it was a minor offence and she would be released without charge “in a few hours.” As the radio presenter pointed out, she is still locked up awaiting her trial and punishment. Religion really is not a force for the good of the world.

Next, hot on the heels of the Sudanese lunatics we get Turkey. Turkey is often thought of as being a more secular Islamic nation, and indeed has lots of secular-style laws. Obviously in this day and age, it is losing credibility with the other holy book waving nutjobs and feels the need to prove it is actually just as insane as the next Islamic nation. Well done Turkey.

It seems that some one in Turkey has read the God Delusion and has been offended by it. Not being the type of person to simply stop reading, this person has complained to the state.  I am tempted to call the police on a daily basis as a result of being offended by pretty much every tabloid newspaper in the country. Sadly, unlike the backward UK, Turkey has some wonderful legislation (Article 301) and this has been enacted. I am not fully sure how the religious offence caused by the wonderful God Delusion has been equated to this part of the article:

A person who, being a Turk, explicitly insults the Republic or Turkish Grand National Assembly, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months to three years

It remains possible that this whole issue is a publicity stunt, so I will refrain from any real vitriol over it for a while

Publicity stunt or otherwise, it does highlight the barking madness which results from allowing religious authorities to exercise power in a secular manner. Pretty much every country I can think of has laws based on the teachings of the national religion, and while lots of these are acceptable by a secular standard there are more than a few which are insane.

While it is funny to mock religions (and nations) that we in the west think of as being a little “rural,” we have to remember that modern, 21st century, secular, Britain still has Blasphemy on its statute books.

Religion + Law = Idiocy + Madness.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Lame pun, based on whether or not you can “peddle atheism” (Peddle? Pedal? geddit? Look I’m sorry, ok?)

Well, it’s got Nicole Kidman in it and she’s not exactly one of my favourite actors (she says, as politely as possible*) but the Golden Compass movie can’t be all bad. According to the BBC:

The author of the book on which the new film The Golden Compass is based has hit back at critics who accuse him of peddling “candy-coated atheism”.
Philip Pullman dismissed as “absolute rubbish” accusations by the US-based Catholic League that the film promotes atheism and denigrates Christianity.

So now, I suppose we’ve all got to watch it then? Bah.

* Well, I have never seen her in anything good. She is a wooden actress. She has an annoying face. Plus, she’s responsible for appearing in the most irritating perfume adverts ever. And that’s in a field where the bar is set so low that an ant with a spinal injury would have trouble limboing through.

Popularity: 16% [?]

The story about the teacher arrested in the Sudan for letting kids call a bear Mohammed is too obvious a blog topic for an atheist blog so I’m ignoring it. Someone else is bound to do it better. I bet on Nullifidian and, oh yes,it turns out that he’s he’s done it.

I’m going with the more complex question of the BNP and David Irving getting to speak at the Oxford Union. (The links are to Wikipedia, by the way. :-))

To his great credit, a Conservative MP has resigned from the Oxford Union because of this. A Conservative MP no less. Dr David Lewis who makes some great points, so I’m quoting what he said to the BBC.

The MP, who studied at Balliol and St Antony’s colleges, said the right to free speech should not guarantee access to privileged platforms.
“Nothing which happens in Monday’s debate can possibly offset the boost you are giving to a couple of scoundrels who can put up with anything except being ignored,” he said.
“It is sheer vanity on your part to imagine that any argument you deploy, or any vote you carry will succeed in causing them damage.

He is supported by Trevor Phillips, who it’s less embarrassing to agree with, but I think the Tory makes the best point.

Freedom of speech is not the same as access to privileged fora for disseminating your ideas. The Oxford Union is a respected debating chamber. Being invited to speak at the Oxford Union gives one’s views a level of authority that doesn’t come from publishing hate-filled leaflets and getting your party’s name tattooed on the back of a fool’s neck - the forms of public expression normally associated with the BNP - or publishing fake historical holocaust-denying books - David Irving’s claim to fame.

Do I have some controversial opinions? Well, yes. Has the Oxford Union been bothering me with constant requests to take part in its debates? Strangely, no. Will I EVER be invited to share my wit and wisdom with Oxford undergraduates? Blatantly, no.

I am all for free speech. In order to cut down the number of things about the world that drive me to despair I keep trying to blot out how many journalists and bloggers are prevented from expressing their opinions, including those imprisoned or put to death for speaking out.

I don’t think the Oxford Union is a free speech issue. The right to be given a national and international platform for your views has nothing to do with a right to free speech.

Just because you believe in a principle of freedom of expression doesn’t mean you have to provide an arena for anyone who wants to express themselves. (You can’t even post an unwelcome comment on a fellow blogger’s site because most blogs moderate comments and refuse to print ones that they find to be offensive or spam.) The Oxford Union made this decision.

The only person who comes out of this well is a bloody Tory MP ffs. What is the world coming to?

A quick check on the BBC shows that protestors have forced their way into the building and it looks as if this farce won’t take place after all. Let’s hope.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Generally speaking, I have a very, very low opinion of newspapers and journalists. I suspect that our supposed desire for 24 hour a day news may be to blame, but the fact is they love to create stories out of nothing, playing on our fears and our preconceptions. Also generalising, I used to think of the Times and the Guardian as being at least reasonably respectable newspapers, where at least some semblance of sensible reporting was taking place. I admit, I may have been a bit naive here.

In yesterday’s Guardian, page 6 and most of page 7 were taken up by an article titled “Do you want Lloyds or HSBC? Account details for sale online” (online version of article). This is a well timed article to play on our fears, both over the missing 25 million HMRC records and our fears about identity theft / online fraudsters emptying our accounts.

Now, I am not for one second trying to say there is no risk or that people do not have their bank accounts hacked and all their money stolen. I just suspect it is a lesser threat to the “average” person than the newspapers make out. In this article, Robert Booth begins with:

It took just 19 hours from first contact with the anonymous Russian fraudster until he collected my $240 (£116.50) payment from a local “drop”.

And then continues, sometimes in the manner of an airport spy novel, to detail how in a short period of time he has found dozens of (mostly Russian) criminal organisations who are selling bank account details for a pittance. It is scary reading. Robert Booth writes about how these “Internet Banking Fraud communities” steal accounts and circulate the details over “untraceable” internet messaging applications like ICQ. (Really, he does write this). He continues writing about his adventures:

The encounter with the anonymous Russian in an internet chatroom was one of scores like it going on at the time. In a separate private message, another vendor promised: “I will give you HSBC full info with 26k Pounds…for $500…When can you wire money?”

The whole (longish) article is like this. There are quotes from people at SOCA, security consultants and the like. All talk about how dangerous the internet is and add to this image of the “Internet bank fraud community” sitting around trading details and earning fortunes as a result:

The community has developed a high level of sophistication so that trusted parties can trade efficiently. In one posting on a forum selling card details a fraudster reports to the rest of the community on the “review” he has conducted of a new entrant to the market.

He has tested his speed of response and accuracy of information supplied and marks him out of 10 for communication, timing and product. “Total: 9/10 nice score,” he concludes and awards the status of “trial vendor”.

Many vendors offer discounts for bulk buyers and even display a replacement policy. If the account details do not work most vendors will replace the data with a different lead. SOCA, which has responsibility for fighting organised internet fraud, has set up a series of cross-border alliances to tackle the problem, but declined to comment on our findings.

Wow. Lock up your bank accounts now! This is scary stuff!

However, you can breathe a sigh of relief gentle reader because, largely, this is a case of a journalist who has fallen for a pretty basic scam. Yes, there is fraud going on here, but the victim isn’t the innocent bank account holder. A simple application of logic (counts most journalists out then) to the basic premise hints at something not being as it seems.

Imagine this, you are a techno-savvy criminal who has gone to all the trouble to acquire account details which will allow you to empty £26,000 from a strangers account. You have done this without anyone knowing or being able to trace it was you. Would you then sit on the account details until another complete stranger got in touch with you and sent you US$500?

What sane criminal is going to turn down the £26,000 (US$52,000) and take one hundredth of that instead. The risk to the cyber-crook remain, he has just given up 99% of his potential monetary gain. In fact, if anything, his risks have escalated significantly because he now has to contend with police sting operations.

It is madness to suggest that these account details are really being sold online for such pitiful sums of money. Cyber criminals who hack into bank accounts will either empty them there and then, or use them for their own ends. Selling the details on to random internet strangers is completely stupid.

Just to underscore my point, the Guardian article finishes with this bit of reassurance:

As sobering as the trade in stolen identities has become, there was a crumb of comfort last night for the Halifax account holder whose details the Russian fraudster was peddling. Twelve hours after the payment had been withdrawn from a Siberian wire office, the Guardian was still waiting for the promised bank details.

So, in reality, I suspect this is the more common type of fraud. People who want to be cyber-criminals but lack the technical knowledge to manage it are being conned by other cyber-criminals who at least have the brains to pretend to be able to do something. The best frauds work by playing on the victim’s greed and willingness to commit criminal acts - I mean if someone is conned into paying £116.50 for illegally gained bank details, who can they complain to?

Popularity: 22% [?]

T_W’s last post linked to a salient post which showed charts of Internet traffic for certain phrases, with a fascinating plunge for a fortnight in early November. He did post this yesterday.

I looked at Technorati’s authority for salient. He wasn’t credited with a visible recent link from our blog - despite getting a clear link from us IN THE MAIN TEXT, rather than the sidebar and despite him having made comments, which should have counted as links because we strip the nofollow tag.

In fact, according to Technorati, salient’s last blog post was 19 days ago. I count 5 or 6 since then. But lo, I now get this when I try to re-click on the Technorati censorship newest post using the blogger “newer posts” function on the site Technorati.

Technorati’s Censorship?
expression as battle with the enemy.
Original post by salient
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 31st, 1969 at 7:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Wow. There’s a wormhole on salient’s site. He’s gone back in time. No wonder his post has disappeared. It won’t be written for nearly 40 years.

Stop, salient!! This is too dangerous. You may stop the whole Internet from getting invented, by snapping a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon.

Popularity: 20% [?]