Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Category: Society

  • The Sins of the Fathers

    Richard Dawkins writes about the phone calls he received recently from journalist Adam Lusher, who began the first call somewhat as follows:

    “We’ve been researching the history of the Dawkins family, and have discovered that your ancestors owned slaves in Jamaica in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. What have you got to say about that?”

    Dawkins replied:

    “Your ancestors probably did too. It’s just that we happen to know who my ancestors were and perhaps we don’t know yours.”

    After a second call, in which Lusher demonstrated his total lack of understanding about genetics, the fruits of his labour were duly published in the Sunday Telegraph. The article is at best laughable, and at worst low, cheap and out of order – and that is apparently the view of a fellow journalist at the Telegraph.

    For the record, I can trace my family back to Sir John Gordon of Embo, who died in 1779. I note that my great-great-great-grandfather (George Home Murray) had two uncles on his mother’s side (Dr. John Gordon and George Gordon) who were both, as I understand it, plantation and slave owners in Jamaica. It’s not unusual.

  • Secularism and Tolerance

    The recent pronouncements on “militant” secularisation by Baroness Warsi have triggered a flurry of comments, both pro- and anti- in the media. I found this piece by Julian Baggini came close to summarising my own thoughts on the matter. But then today I found this comment by Norman Geras on Baggini’s piece introduced two important qualifications that brought things into focus for me.

    Baggini’s central point is something that both Geras and I wholeheartedly support:

    Secularism, in the political sense, is not a comprehensive project to sweep religion out of public life altogether… Rather it is – or should be – a beautifully simple way of bringing people of all faiths and none together, not a means of pitting them against each other.

    It all goes back to how we understand the core secularist principle of neutrality in the public square. Neutrality means just that: neither standing for or against religion or any other comprehensive world-view.

    Geras then states two reservations with Baggini’s thesis: first, concerning Baggini’s claim that ‘we are obliged to talk to each other in terms we can share and understand, not in ways that are tied to our specific “comprehensive doctrines”‘. Geras thinks that no such obligation exists; we may not be persuasive if we do not use terms that we can share and understand, but that is not the same as making it an obligation.

    Geras’ second point concerns the tenor of Baggini’s last paragraphs, where he (Baggini) is asking “us secularists that we be more relaxed towards religion, not acting as its enemy. It’s a plea for a more tolerant attitude than some militant atheists today display”. I think Geras puts it very well when he says:

    Though (once again) I know what motivates his saying what he does, and share his feelings about a certain kind of relentless discourse of hostility towards religious belief and religious practice, I also think the plea for tolerance in this matter ought to be bounded by clear limits. There are believers who, in the name of religion, act to silence, harm and sometimes indeed kill others, and there is, unfortunately, a lot of this sort of thing about. No secularist is obliged to adopt a relaxed attitude towards it. On the contrary, in defence of freedom of belief, they should be intolerant of it. Secularism, just like genuine liberalism, does not entail tolerance of the appeal to religion to justify intolerant, cruel or murderous ends.

    Exactly.

  • Hamza Kashgari

    It is one of life’s ironies that at a time when Baroness Warsi frets about the rise of “militant secularisation”, she is ignoring the very real danger of militant religion. Just one example:

    Hamza Kashgari is under threat of execution by the Saudi authorities for blasphemy.

    There’s been a petition set up calling for his release. Please sign it.

    Apparently, there’s also been a Facebook page set up to support him. I don’t do Facebook out of principle, but I understand that it has something like 2,500 signatures. I note in passing that at the same time that the Baroness talks about a rise in secular intolerance of religion, the rival Facebook page set up calling for retribution against Kashgari for tweeting about Mohammad has 22,500 signatures.

    The Baroness chooses to ignore examples of the real intolerance of freedom of expression (and human rights) by religions and speaks instead of chimeras. Phrases such as motes and beams spring to mind. Perhaps she should pause for a moment and give some thought to the plight of a fellow Muslim.

  • “Militant Secularisation”?

    I see that Baroness Warsi believes that Christianity in the UK is under threat from “militant secularisation” and worries “that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant”. Music to the ears of the Pope, it would appear.

    It seems to me rather that the established religions are finding that they are no longer getting a right to control in the public sphere, and are finding it hard to adapt to being given an equal voice alongside everyone else.

    Personally, I have no problem with the established religions putting forward their points of view – that’s what it means to live in a secular society – but they, in turn, should accept the fact that some of their views will attract ridicule and robust rejection. So it’s no surprise that the Baroness is attracting much of the same for her ridiculous hyperbole: Ophelia and John are both worth reading on the subject.

    The Baroness is behaving like a bully, and is being called out on it.

  • Japanese Archery

    I often drop by Jeffrey Friedl’s blog. He’s a computer scientist living in Japan, but in addition to this, he’s a keen, and talented, photographer, and his blog usually has stunning images of Japan and Japanese society.

    He recently attended a Japanese Archery contest for the first time, and has written a number of blog posts about the experience. Do go and take a look; I suggest you start with this one, followed by this and this. There are others in the series as well.

  • If You’re Not Angry, You’re Not Paying Attention

    That’s the culmination of an excellent speech and article by Maryam Namazie. Please, just go and read it. Her argument rings true.

  • I Don’t Believe It!

    You know, when I was at university, in the dim and distant past, back at the beginning of the 1970s, the LSE (the London School of Economics) was viewed as a hotbed of student activism. So recent events at the LSE have left me completely at a loss.

    It appears that there has been a mass invasion of politically correct body snatchers that has resulted in a Students’ Union that has completely lost the plot about what free expression and the ability to criticise means.

    Maryam Namazie points out the obvious: the LSE SU is supporting criticism of religion, just not that of Islam, which gets a free pass from them.

    It would never have happened in my days at Uni. What on earth is wrong with the students of today?

  • Burka Ban

    Five years ago, I thought that news that the Dutch government were considering a burka ban to be a very bad idea.

    Fast forward to today, and now the current Dutch Cabinet has voted in favour of the ban, despite advice from its most important advisory body, the Council of State.

    As I said five years ago, this is taking a sledgehammer to crack the metaphorical nuts of between 150 and 200 women in the whole of the Netherlands (population: over 16.7 million):

    While I happen to think that the garments say more about the odd ways in which women are viewed by one religion (and gawd knows, it ain’t the only one), I don’t think that banning them is going to help one bit towards the avowed intent of integration into Dutch society. It’s more likely to drive the “us and them” wedge further into this society’s hearts and minds.

    What would be far more helpful is for public order to be preserved by coming down hard on extremists such as the Islamists who attempted to break up a public meeting in Amsterdam last December.

  • De Botton’s Folly

    A few days back, I wrote that I was not convinced by Alain de Botton’s presentation of his Atheism 2.0 thesis, and even less impressed by his use of a false categorisation of Richard Dawkins.

    Now I see that de Botton is back in the news today. He’s announced that he wants to build a “temple for atheists” in the City of London. It is to be a 46 metre tower, costing one million quid. According to the Guardian’s report, the tower is:

    to celebrate a “new atheism” as an antidote to what he describes as Professor Richard Dawkins’s “aggressive” and “destructive” approach to non-belief.

    Sigh. More false categorisation. As Dawkins has apparently said:

    “Atheists don’t need temples,” the author of The God Delusion said. “I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking.”

    I can understand the tower as being a piece of public art (although hopefully not paid for by the taxpayer). The tower serves no purpose other than being a Folly, in every sense of the word.

    In passing, I note that the Guardian couldn’t resist a quote from the Rev George Pitcher:

    “This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones.”

    Ah, yes, the good reverend has previous form in such remarks.

  • “Verging On Fascism”

    There was unease last week in Amsterdam’s Orthodox Jewish community when it emerged that their nominal Chief Rabbi, Aryeh Ralbag (who lives in New York), stated that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured. As a result of this patent nonsense, the Chief Rabbi found himself suspended by the community.

    Now the US-based Committee for the Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality, which includes Rabbi Ralbag as one of its members, has opined that it is “shocking” that a chief rabbi in the Netherlands has been suspended for his statements on “centuries-old religious truths”, and that this action is “verging on fascism”. Welcome to Planet Godwin.

    I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. They are no different to the Catholic Church or Islam in their touching adherence to ancient and false beliefs about human sexuality. But what really raised an eyebrow was the report that

    …the rabbi believes his life would be in danger if he came to the Netherlands.

    Ralbag told the NRC newspaper: ‘I have strong indications that my wife and I would not be sure of our lives if we came to the Netherlands now.’ He declined to say what the threats were but did say he took them ‘extremely seriously’, the paper reported.

    I’m sorry rabbi, but you really are living in another world if you think that to be the case. The Amsterdam Orthodox community, and the rest of us, are merely pointing out what an idiot you are. Idiots don’t deserve death, they deserve education.

  • Atheism 2.0? Dear God, No…

    Alain de Botton is a philosopher. He recently gave a talk at a TED conference where he proposed “Atheism 2.0”, a form of atheism that would reject all deities and supernatural acts but cater to the “ritualistic side” of some atheists.

    It sounds like an appalling idea to me. I see that Jerry Coyne, over at Why Evolution is True, finds the idea to be “a facile attempt to appropriate the trappings of religion as something essential to an atheist world”. As Coyne says, “What we need, as sociological studies indicate, is not stained glass, potted lilies, and a gasbag orator, but a society that cares about its citizens”.

    In fact, I like some rituals, such as walking the dogs in the woods, or going to the theatre or listening to a concert; but the idea of elevating those ad-hoc activities into prescribed rote and trappings is simply a bad one, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “atheism”.

    What really irritated me about de Botton’s performance in this TED talk, is that he opens it with a thinly-veiled sneer at Richard Dawkins, saying that “many [people] who live in North Oxford” simply find religion ridiculous. De Botton then has the effrontery to go on to say that:

    I’m interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, “I can’t believe in any of this stuff, I can’t believe in the doctrines. I don’t think these doctrines are right. But,” a very important but, “I love Christmas Carols, I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament”.

    So de Botton has created another Dawkins strawman by his sneer, because, in fact, Dawkins is in just the kind of constituency that de Botton claims he is interested in. Dawkins is on record as recognising himself as a cultural Christian, who loves listening to Carols, and who, in The God Delusion (p.344 in my hardcover edition), writes:

    …an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.

    I should note that I’ve read very little of de Botton that I have been able to nod my head in agreement with, or indeed, take seriously. Give me Daniel Dennett any day…

    On a side note, is it just me, or has the quality of TED talks gone down the toilet in recent years? There was a time when I enjoyed listening to them, but these days they seem to contain a high percentage of woo-merchants doing their happy-clappy schticks.

  • Forced to be Sterilised

    There are times when the law goes beyond being “a ass” as Dickens’ Mr Bumble famously said, into realms where the law is simply anti-human.

    I was amazed to learn this week that Sweden requires, under force of law, that its transgender citizens be sterilised. I was prepared, at first, to think that, OK, it’s a quirk of the law that no-one could foresee, but now that we are in the 21st Century, it will be changed tout suite.

    Not a bit of it.

    The Christian Democratic party in the Swedish Parliament, being key to the coalition, are against any change to the law. As an aside, I am really not surprised that it’s a political party with religious roots that is insisting on this barbarism – ‘twas ever thus.  However…

    As the Human Rights Watch organisation states:

    The Swedish transgender law stems from 1972 and is out of step with current international best practice and understandings of Swedish obligations under international human rights law.

    In July 2009 Thomas Hammarberg, the commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe, made the observation about the forced sterilization requirement that in reality the state prescribes medical treatment for legal purposes, “a requirement which clearly runs against principles of human rights and human dignity.” This was followed up in the extensive report on human rights for LGBT people in Europe that the commissioner published this summer. The commissioner there recommends Council of Europe member states to do away with all physical requirements for people who want to change their legal gender.

    In March 2010 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended to member states, including Sweden, that requirements, including changes of a physical nature, for legal recognition of a gender reassignment, should be reviewed in order to remove abusive elements. The Committee recommended that member states should take appropriate measures “to guarantee the full recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way.”

    I am mindful that the situation here in the Netherlands is not so far in advance of that in Sweden; however, the Dutch government, a coalition of the conservative Liberal Party and the Christian-Democratic party, has publicly acknowledged that its transgender law violates international human rights law and has published a law proposal which does away with the forced sterilisation requirement.

    Here’s Georg Elfvelin asking for your support to help change the Swedish law:

    And here’s where you can sign a petition to Sweden’s Prime Minister. I hope that you will.

  • Dedicated Comic

    I see that yesterday’s Jesus and Mo is dedicated to Rhys Morgan, Jessica Ahlquist, One Law for All, and Salman Rushdie. Quite right, too.

  • A Dastardly Plot

    I know that there are some intelligent churchmen around, but I do despair when I read bollocks like this:

    The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations. “The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools.”

    It, quite literally, beggars belief.

    Update: Benedict also talks bollocks. Sigh.

  • Slice of Life

    I was writing a reply today to an email from old friends who had recently emigrated to Canada. In it I wrote that, having arrived here in the Netherlands 27 years ago, and in spite of having dual Dutch and British nationalities, that I nevertheless expected to die here, and not return to the UK.

    One of the reasons is that, despite my disappointment in the rise of Geert Wilders and his Christian xenophobia, there remains in Dutch society a residue of the tolerance and openness that attracted me here in the first place.

    On this New Year’s Eve, for example, the main entertainment programme on TV was presented by Paul de Leeuw, an out, and married, gay man (and who always strikes me as “mad, bad, and dangerous to know”). His guests were the Dutch equivalent of the Speaker of the British House of Commons, a cocaine-using Dutch Olympic gymnast (wearing a very tight T-shirt that displayed his body and arms to their best) and twins who are the oldest working prostitutes in the Netherlands. Somehow, I can’t imagine the equivalent happening in dear old Blighty…

  • Gay Rights Are Human Rights

    I missed hearing or reading about this speech that the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, gave to an audience of diplomats at the United Nations in Geneva on the 6th December. It is quite remarkable. I’ve put some extracts below. The full transcript is here, and it is well worth reading.

    “It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

    “The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

    “Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

    …

    “The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

    …

    “The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

    “Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

    “Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

  • RIP, Hitch

    So, Christopher Hitchens is dead. He has left Tumortown and passed beyond the Land of Malady, after leaving us with some last words of advice on dealing with mortal illness.

    I’ll miss his voice and his writings. We now have all that we are going to have from him.

    I can’t resist adding his widely-quoted words of wisdom:

    “The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.”

    Like Christopher Hitchens, I’ve enjoyed them all. Over-rated? Possibly. Enjoyable? Certainly.

    RIP, Hitch.

  • The Kindness of Strangers

    In today’s Observer, Henry Porter writes about a revelation that his friend, Gilbert Adair, had in the months before he died. It’s worth reading. And it’s a reminder that for some people, nursing remains a vocation, rather than a service from which profit must be wrung. Treasure them.

  • Boris and Brazil

    I read this in the New Statesman today. It reminded me of the scene in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil where armoured police break into the flat of Archibald Buttle, terrorising his wife and children and ultimately bringing about the death of the innocent Buttle.

    I’ve never been a fan of Boris Johnson. This makes me like him even less. This is not how community policing should be.

  • It’s Time…

    Life, dating, love, tears – and a marriage proposal; all in a little film that lasts under two minutes. What on earth could be wrong with that?

    Well, judging from the comments on YouTube, and the fact that it was necessary to make the film in the first place, some people obviously do have problems with two people wanting to share their life together and having their friends and relations bear witness to their commitment.

    I’ve never understood their objections.