freeinfidel

The process of destroying freedom often starts with steps that seem reasonable. If you want to strip everyone of their civil liberties, start with a group everyone despises. Few groups fit this bill better than paedophiles.

There is a famous and oft-quoted text that reads:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then … they came for me … And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

The poem is generally attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), though there is some debate about both the attribution and the wording. But no matter: the sentiment is clear - it’s important we recognise dangers even when they are not targeted at ourselves.

But the poem has a weakness. It addresses our need to consider the fate of ‘others’, but it doesn’t extend that unambiguously to ‘despised others’. And this is where the erosion of our freedoms more typically starts.

The greatest resistance to an attempt to take away a freedom we cherish occurs when the law or regulation is first made. Once a rule is established, prohibiting this or regulating that, then many will see the battle as lost and will put their energies into the next fight. Little by little, freedom becomes eroded.

The trick, then, as far as the authorities are concerned, is to make the regulation seem reasonable. Phrases such as ‘for your safety’ or ‘good for society’ are often deployed whenever the result of a new law is to place limits on your freedoms.

It works even better if the restrictions affect a minority group within society that the majority despise or fear or for whom they can raise no compassion. And paedophiles are to today’s society what the Jews were to the Nazis. Who cares if paedophiles have their freedoms stripped away: they brought it on themselves, right? Surely they don’t deserve the same benefits and liberties as the rest of us.

The latest proposed restrictions in the UK would ban convicted paedophiles from social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo. The ban would be implemented by the sites themselves, based on email addresses supplied by the Government. Paedophiles would be obliged to supply details of the email accounts they use.

Presumably, this is an attempt to prevent the cyberstalking of children. There is some debate about the extent to which this happens, and whether it presents a genuine threat. But I have sympathy for the attitude that one case is one too many.

The scheme is clearly unworkable. Computer forensic experts can tell you that the most active (and potentially dangerous) paedophiles are technically adept. They would know how to use proxies, TOR, wardriving, cyber-cafes and other technologies and techniques to hide their identities. Gmail and Hotmail accounts can be created in seconds. And most social networking sites are based outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

It might also have the opposite effect to the one desired. The restrictions would affect only convicted paedophiles. Those yet to be caught could still roam Facebook. And, believing that such sites are now safer places, children might be tempted to let their guard down.

What is more sinister for all of us is that this new rule would establish a mechanism by which the authorities can designate a group that is to be denied the use of some portion of the Internet. And the actual restriction would be imposed not by government authorities but by commercial organisations - the Government gets to keep its hands clean.

How easy it would be to start extending this mechanism to other groups, other parts of the net, other areas of life. If someone notices, just blame it on ‘mission creep’. Because we feel a natural distaste for those branded as paedophiles, who will oppose this regulation? After all, ‘it’s for the children’. Once it is accepted, though, there will be little to stop its expansion to embrace us all.

There always was something slightly messianic about Tony Blair. Now he is calling for a greater role for faith in world affairs - as if religion were the solution rather than the problem.

According to The Guardian, Blair will be delivering a lecture at Westminster Abbey where he will say that “failure to engage with religious groups will drive believers to apathy or fundamentalism” (the Guardian’s words). Apparently, Blair believes that people are moving either towards religious extremism or a feeling that religion is a “spent force”.

That actually conforms with polls in the UK - religion is declining overall but evangelism and fundamentalism are increasing. But note the implication that both ends of the spectrum are a bad thing. And notice that there is no mention of atheism - just apathy. This is clearly a way of denigrating atheism without having the courage to do it directly. Blair is a slick spinmeister. He knows that atheists form a large section of British society. He can’t call them a problem outright. He has to resort to innuendo.

It is a common tactic for movers and shakers in the religious world to sideline secularism whenever there are debates about bringing world peace or social benefits. There is much talk about ecumenical approaches and multi-faith initiatives, but never the slightest consideration that taking faith out of the picture altogether might actually remove barriers to progress - that spending any energy and resources on considering the role of faith might be a wasteful irrelevance. Get rid of faith and you can get on with the job. But too many people in positions of power seem to think that the only solution to the world’s problems lies in medieval witchcraft.

This faith in faith says a lot about Blair. His crusading zeal in the role of Bush’s lapdog can best be explained, perhaps, by a common interest in supernatural phenomena. There seems no other reason why a pseudo-socialist prime minister would cosy up so snugly to a crypto-fascist president.

In an interview, Blair recently said that he largely kept his religion out of the public spotlight because “frankly, people do think you’re a nutter”. That’s an illuminating comment. It shows the massive gulf between the status of religion in the UK and the US. Indeed, in the UK, religious fervour is the perceived domain of the unhinged. In the US, it’s a requirement for the job of president.

But US-style religious extremism is creeping into the UK. Blair oversaw the rise of faith-based initiatives in areas where religion has no business - doing the work once done by government departments. Faith schools have become stronger. Even the anti-intellectual disease of creationism is on the rise. This may be Blair’s true legacy.

After leaving office, Blair converted to Roman Catholicism and is leading the Faith Foundation for young people (as the figurehead of New Labour, his experience of spin and indoctrination will come in handy here).

In case Blair hasn’t noticed, though, maybe we should point out that faith already plays a major role in world affairs. Ask anyone in Iran. Or Iraq. Or who lost loved-ones on 9/11. Perhaps what Blair, acting now as the acceptable face of the Inquisition, is trying to tell us is that people need the right religion. But we’ve been there before, haven’t we?

A website promoting a short film by Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-immigration politician, has been taken offline by the Internet services company hosting it. This was not a judgment on the quality, morality or intellectual worth of the film: it was an act of fear.

(more…)

A UK professional photographers’ group has hit back at the Metropolitan Police’s fear-mongering campaign against photographers. But at least the ‘togs have a sense of humour.

In classic Orwellian fashion, the Met’s ad campaign (which I wrote about in Pump up the paranoia) incites the general public to watch itself. It promotes suspicion and fear. Its headline, “Thousands of people take photographs every day. What if one of them seems odd?” seems calculated to appeal to that fraction of society that likes to appoint itself the guardian and judge of the rest.

It continues: “Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photographs and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone doing that, we need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take.” And it ends: “Terrorism. If you suspect it, report it.” The likely result of the paranoia this kind of campaign generates is the suppression of the press. News photographers already have a hard time doing their job without every gullible nerk thinking there’s an RPG inside that long lens.

But photographers and terrorists are not the only groups capable of dubious behaviour.

The Editorial Photographers UK (EPUK) group maintains a website with information and news for photographers as well as a private mailing list. It’s an invaluable resource for documentary and reportage shooters, providing advice, guidance and support, often in a more timely and effective way than any formal industry body.

Now. in association with the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers Association, it has responded to the Met’s shameful behaviour. Its own poster design (available on t-shirts and mugs here) mimics the Police’s posters, but with rather more wit.

“Thousands of coppers stop photographers every day,” it says, with forgiveable hyperbole, “What if one of them seems odd?”

Then, with a reference to the Police’s frequent abuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, it says: “Police twist the laws to help prevent protest, stopping people and threatening arrest under vague all encompassing terrorism laws. If you see a copper behaving oppressively we need to know. Let experienced journalists decide what action to take.”

STATE CONTROL. IF YOU SUSPECT IT, REPORT IT.

An anti-terrorism campaign by London’s police forces is exploiting the public’s paranoia in the hope of catching would-be terrorists in the act. It will also have the effect of making life even harder for press photographers. But maybe the erosion of press freedom might be seen as a bonus by the Metropolitan Police.

(more…)

Religions demand a special status for themselves - the right to practise a profound hypocrisy. They squeal ‘persecution’ whenever they feel they are not being shown due respect, yet at the same time show themselves ready to employ the methods of persecution in prosecuting their own aims.

The ugly side of religion has revealed itself again in the renewed controversy over the Mohammed cartoons. A Danish newspaper has reprinted the cartoon of the prophet wearing a bomb-like turban. This time, the inevitable outrage has been somewhat more muted, but one can expect the usual death threats from extremist Muslims.

Moderate Muslims and many non-Muslims have also condemned the publication of these cartoons as being disrespectful. The irony of that position is that it is itself highly disrespectful - of people’s right to free speech. In most advanced societies, such free speech is regarded as a cornerstone of civilisation.

Indeed, while we might all agree that mutual respect is desirable as a general rule, it is also essential that when some of us find the beliefs and actions of others to be risible and worthy of contempt, we must have the right to voice our opinions. And the law agrees. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which makes it an offence to stir up hate and incite others to violence, also takes pain to spell out:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

Not that laws are always perfect. In Brazil, the evangelical Universal Church of the Kingdom of God is abusing the legal process by overwhelming journalists with legal actions, in an attempt to stifle criticism. Again, freedom of speech and journalistic freedom are regarded as dispensable in the face of religious beliefs.

And let’s take another example in the UK. Hindus who felt they should be able to keep a bull infected with TB and to prolong the suffering of an injured cow (which they were treating with acupuncture and massage) have protested about vets stepping in - as they are required to both by law and natural compassion - to put the animals down.

In all cases, and many others, the faithful believe their feel bizarre and insupportable supernatural beliefs not only deserve an exaggerated ‘respect’ but also somehow trump rationality and key rights that affect everyone (rather than a pious minority). They consider themselves entitled - even required - to cast aside the rule of law if their religious doctrines (as they interpret them) say so. In other words, their faith makes them special, above the rules that govern the rest of us.

One incarnation of this belief even has its own name - ’sectarianism’. In the UK, we most commonly associate this with the tiresome and brutal conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. A recent UN Report on freedom of religion or belief in the UK (Word document), by rapporteur Asma Jahangir, also points out that the same conflict is present in Scotland (try attending a Celtic/Rangers match). But I would add that it has a much wider presence: witness the frequent demonising of Jews by Muslims. And as religious extremism increases, one can expect more of this mutual hostility between incompatible faiths.

An article in The Atlantic - ‘And the winner is…‘ - about the worldwide competition between religions, correctly reports that there is a general decline in religious belief. It also suggests that when religions gain a new foothold in a particular society - for example, the burgeoning of Pentecostalism in South America - they tend to do so in a slightly watered-down fashion that more easily slides into the legal, social and political framework of the host nation. However, this ignores the power that extremist elements within a faith can exert, both in terms of influence and direct action. The UK is a case in point: religious belief is waning rapidly, but those who do still believe seem to be moving towards the more extreme margins of strict Catholicism, fundamentalism or radical Islam.

The UN report suggests that members of all major religions in the UK feel they are being persecuted. But with one exception, this translates into them saying they are not being given enough special privileges, or they covet the perceived privileges of the other faiths. That exception is the belief by Muslims that they are being unfairly targeted both by anti-terrorism laws and the authorities’ application of those laws. They probably have a point, although whether the solution is actually in their own hands is a debate for another time.

Hypocrisy is defined as ‘the pretence of virtue or piety’ (Collins English Dictionary). Virtue and piety are qualities that the religious like to reserve to themselves. For example, a belief still persists among the religious that you cannot be ethical or moral without religion - specifically, without their brand of religion. They like to reserve a few other things to themselves, too. Anglicans still get to have 26 seats in the House of Lords, for instance: tough luck for the other faiths, but then that’s the nature of privilege, isn’t it? It’s about excluding the others, about having more power and fewer responsibilities to society as a whole than your rival belief systems.

The sheer arrogance and hubris of religious people believing they should be special cases, that they are exempt from the laws and requirements that govern the rest of us, has no place in modern society. That’s why our laws should not be founded on, nor adjusted to, the doctrines or requirements of faith. Our society is for all of us. Your religion is your business.

In the intemperate controversy surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury’s unwise remarks about Sharia, there are several voices - and not just muslims - pleading for a more liberal view of Islamic law. And they nearly all miss the more important point: why should religion play any part in shaping a nation’s laws?

(more…)

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has once again proven how distant he is from reality by suggesting that UK law might incorporate some elements of Sharia. His statements have been widely condemned, but they are not entirely surprising. It is another example of how those infected with religion consider that faith always takes precedence over society in general.

(more…)

Mike Huckabee’s failed bid for the Republican nomination might seem to consign him to the list of also-rans. Yet the fact that he was ever in the running has profound and dark implications for America’s future.

At the time of writing, Mike Huckabee’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination looks all but over. Many will breathe a sigh of relief, but that may be premature. The significance of Huckabee’s run for the most powerful job in the world is not that he lost, but that he was taken seriously. That should be a matter of deep concern to anyone who truly values freedom.

(more…)

In Japan, interest in Buddhism is waning so fast that not even bar-crawling monks can spark a revival. As with many other religions, people like the ceremony, but aren’t so fussed about the supernatural nonsense that goes with it.

(more…)