xD.

A YouTube user I really like, Anekantavad, has an elegant riposte: Don’t Burn Any Books Day. He holds up a series of books from his library – 1984 by Orwell, the Bhagavadgita, the Quran, the Collected Works of Oscar Wilde, the Joy of Sex, Salammbo by Gustave Flaubert – and simply saying he will not be burning them or any other.

Quite a few YouTube users have followed suit, myself included. My books were A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M Miller Jr, In Defence of Politics by Bernard Crick, La Venganza de Don Mendo by Pablo Muñoz Seca, The Citadel by AJ Cronin, Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel and the Anabasis by Xenophon.

He has collected various videos from people taking part in Don’t Burn Any Books Day in the playlist that follows below.

xD.

Given Mr Hollobone’s previous statements that the burka is ‘against the British way of life’ and ‘offensive’, it is fairly clear to me what its intent is.

Three points.

Firstly, this is deeply illiberal. I shouldn’t need to say much more, but I will. I understand that there are times – airport security, for instance – where we do need to make sure that the person matches the passport and we seem to be managing just fine with providing an area where people who wear the burka can be identified and so on. However, if people are just going about their daily business, I think they should be able to wear more or less what they want. Short of that, this must rank as an extraordinary expansion of the writ of the state and I don’t want the introduction of some sort of sumptuary law.

Secondly, this isn’t the way to go about it. If we assume that the burka is indicative of oppression and isolation, I don’t see how a ban will remediate the situation. If the premise is that women are oppressed and forced to wear the burka, they can be compelled to remain at home or only leave it occasionally. If the premise is that they are an isolated community, ditto, with the additional bonus of feeding into the extremists’ (al-Mujahiroun, the Daily Express…) narrative that it is impossible to reconcile being British with being a Muslim. Mr Hollobone and his fellow-travellers in UKIP haven’t talked about education or reaching out, just about bans.

Thidly, unintended consequences. It is far too easy for me to see how a badly-worded bill could lead to situations like welders’ masks having to be removed if you’re not welding for more than half a minute and not being able to dress up as a ghost for Hallowe’en. The alternative is to specify that this law only applies to Muslim women.

Ultimately, I don’t think this is about covering one’s face. I think that is being used as a proxy for Islamophobia.

I find this proposal abhorrent and I’m glad to say that, as Mr Hollobone came seventeenth out of twenty in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills, I don’t think it stands any real chance of making progress. The second reading will be on December 3rd, by which point the text of the bill should be available.

xD.

Unfortunately, he has ventured into the realm of politics. Below is a video he has recently posted that is causing a bit of drama on YouTube. Please be warned that it includes the burning of a depiction of Mohammad.

This is my response.

I have had in the past a lot of respect for Thunderf00t as an advocate of reason and science. His recent tone about Islam, though, has been bloody awful and this most recent video just blew my mind. I’d appreciate any comments.

xD.

UPDATE 2243 – My video is, it would seem:
#13 – Most Discussed (Today)) – People & Blogs
#83 – Top Favourited (Today)) – People & Blogs
#32 – Top Rated (Today)) – People & Blogs
on YouTube. Yay me.

xD.

PS – a little while ago, I celebrated my fifth anniversary of blogging. This is my one thousandth post.

“Adolf Hitler took Darwin’s evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusions.”
“…Darwin was a racist.”
“Darwin believed that women were not as competent as men, and less intelligent than men, but they were better than a dog.”
“The legacy of Darwin’s theory can be seen in the rise of eugenics, euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion.”
“DNA… presents a formidable challenge to Darwinian evolution.”

H/T The Don’t Diss Darwin Institute.

As you may or may not be aware, the Gideons International place copies of the Bible or the New Testament in hotel rooms across the world – close on one and one-half billion since their foundation in the early twentieth century. I have to mention, as it’s International Women’s Day, that the Gideons always refer to their members being “businessmen and their wives” or similar.

How about we take a leaf out of Cameron and Comfort’s book (well – not quite; we’d be honest) and come up with a simple, short atheist introduction to the Bible that travelling atheists can print out and put inside any Bibles or other holy texts that they find in their hotel rooms?

Any takers?

xD.

I wonder if there is a contradiction between the positions I advance. In the former case, I argue for an individualistic freedom, saying that people should be able to wear what they want. In the latter case, I argue, effectively, against it, saying that people shouldn’t be able to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexuality.

On the homosexuality issue, I dislike the argument that it is natural because I really couldn’t care less if it’s natural or not. I’m typing on a computer that I am fairly sure does not normally occur in nature. Similarly, I see how religion spreads and replicates but I don’t think that removes or reduces people’s agency.

Is there, then, a contradiction between not thinking the state should ban the burka but saying that the state should regulate employment? Admittedly, part of my argument on the former question is fairly utilitarian as I think the negative consequences of a crude ban outweigh the benefits of any positive effects.

I’d like to know what you think?

xD.

He criticises “limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”. I wonder exactly how widely he would draw the definition of ‘religious community’. I wonder how he would feel about the Exclusive Brethren, for starters.

What is particularly brilliant is his statement that “the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

A copy of this natural law would be useful, but if it says that we’re all equal apart from the gays, I want no part of it. This is the same kind of antediluvian discussion we’ve had about whether American aborigines and Africans have souls. Equality so long as you conform to the majority is not equality, but a social tyranny of the majority. The freedom to practice your religion stops, surely, when it impinges on the ability of others to enjoy their rights.

If this were any other organisation – say, the RSPB – then they would be laughed out of court if they tried to ask for an exemption to anti-discrimination legislation. Religion retains its privileged position in our society.

It’s not often you’ll find me quoting from the Thirty-Nine Articles that define Anglican doctrine, but in light of the Pope’s comments on gay marriage, number thirty-eight seems appropriate.

Article xxxviii.—”The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

Quite.

xD.