Liberal veneer

An interesting article by Rumy Hasan in Open Democracy last December: Beware of Islamism with a liberal veneer. We’re well familiar with that phenomenon. The two women sitting next to Abhishek and Chris on The Big Questions were classic examples – using liberal rhetoric to defend illiberal traditions and practices, while enveloped in degrading black bags.

The recent outcry among British politicians and the London press over gender segregation in universities has shone a light on a relatively new phenomenon: the recourse to the foundational principles of liberal democracy by Islamists in pursuit of their agenda. This approach appears to be working as is evidenced by Universities UK’s (UUK) policy guidance (now withdrawn) on gender segregation at events organised by Islamic Societies. In very reasonable language, UUK advised:

“Concerns to accommodate the wishes or beliefs of those opposed to segregation should not result in a religious group being prevented from having a debate in accordance with its belief system”.

A thoroughly reactionary, sexist, practice was justified on the basis of rights – specifically the right of Islamist speakers and Muslim women to have segregated seating. [Read more…]

Don’t think you can straddle

Charlie Klendjian says it’s time to pick a horse.

In censoring themselves Channel 4 News and Newsnight not only failed in their task of reporting the news to their viewers – to enable their viewers to form their own opinion about the cartoon – but they also reinforced the very religious taboo that Nawaz had received death threats for challenging and which had landed Chris and Abhishek in hot water with the Libyan School of Economics – sorry, the London School of Economics. As Nawaz tweeted:

“Thank you @Channel4News you just pushed us liberal Muslims further into a ditch #LynchMobFreeZone #TeamNawaz”. [Read more…]

We oppose that bad thing you did

Something called SOAS Muslim-Christian Dialogue has written an open letter to Student Rights. (SOAS is the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.)

As members of SOAS Christian-Muslim Dialogue Society, we oppose your vilification and targeting of university Islamic societies including SOAS Islamic Society on the issue of gender segregation in their events.

We support the right of each student to act according to his or her personal religious convictions. For some, segregated seating serves these convictions and allows participation in mixed events. We support the right of SOAS Islamic Society to accommodate both segregated and mixed seating in any event. [Read more…]

Did an archbishop create that syllabus?

This is a horrifying development – from The Guardian Comment is Free:

For A-level students in the UK, there is only one exam board that runs a real philosophy course. And that’s about to be changed into yet another religious education course.

For the last nine years, I have taught the AQA’s A-level philosophy course. It’s a good course, and the only one to represent the breadth of philosophy as a discipline in its own right. So I was somewhat surprised to learn that the AQA have this week, without warning or consultation, published a completely new draft syllabus, which is now just waiting to be rubber-stamped by Ofqual.

The new specification completely excludes the previous options to study aesthetics, free will, all European philosophy since Kant, and – most significantly – political philosophy. This will be all replaced with a compulsory philosophy of religion topic, which will make up 50% of the AS course. [Read more…]

Beginners’ etiquette

I’m going to do a Miss Manners thing here and propose a rule of etiquette.

If you’re in a couple, don’t start fucking one of your partner’s children. No, even if that child is adopted. Really. That’s a rule. It’s a good rule. Follow it.

No, even if that child is no longer a minor. No, don’t stay with your partner waiting patiently until that child turns 18 and then pounce.

No, even if the child says you were never a parental figure. Even if you were always buried in a newspaper or playing a video game whenever that child was in the room – even then, don’t start fucking that child. [Read more…]

Two different takes

One take, by Robert Weide in The Daily Beast. First, who he is:

I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

Now, his take:

I was actually somewhat impressed with Ronan Farrow’s now-famous tweet from the summer of 2012: “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” [Read more…]

Inappropriate fatherly behavior

For those who are feeling guilty and conflicted because they know that memory is unreliable but they don’t want to blame victims, it may help to read the Vanity Fair article from November 1992 – yes, so long ago that a baby born the day it was published would now be an adult of 21.

There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist. [Read more…]

Mistaken, or pretending?

Once more I have to link to the Daily Mail. What is this thing where once in awhile the Mail publishes something good?! It’s so disconcerting. Today’s something good is a neener-neener for the mayor of Sochi who told the world there are no gays in Sochi.

As statements go, last week’s assertion by the mayor of Sochi that there are no gays in the resort hosting the Winter Olympics deserves a gold medal in gibberish.

Ridicule was immediately heaped on Anatoly Pakhomov, a burly Vladimir Putin supporter, after his views were broadcast on the BBC’s Panorama programme, prompting yet more concern over Russia’s fitness to host the Winter Games – the  ‘Putin Olympics’ – which open in five days’ time.

Now, one local gay man has written a scathing open letter to the 53-year-old mayor, making it clear that he is definitely not the only gay in the Olympic Village. [Read more…]

Why Chris and Abhishek wore the Jesus and Mo T shirts

The coverage of the controversy over Maajid Nawaz and Jesus & Mo has done a consistently bad job of getting right the part about how and why Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis wore their J & M T shirts on The Big Questions and why they unzipped their jackets to reveal them toward the end of the programme.

They did both because the BBC asked them to.

Most of the coverage has implied or said that it was their idea and that they did it to provoke. Wrong.

The latest is an article today in the Independent by Archie Bland.

His account of the how and why is much more detailed than previous ones, but it’s hardly fair to Chris and Abhishek.

in January the company behind The Big Questions got in touch about participating. The question to be debated was: “Should human rights always outweigh religious rights?” According to Chris Moos, the two students had not intended to wear the T-shirts, but the production company researcher gave them a nudge. “If you wanted to wear your T-shirts on the show, that is fine – however, we would ask that you wear a shirt over the top that could be unbuttoned,” he wrote. “If Nicky would like to see the shirts, he can ask you to unbutton your shirt to show it and we can do a close-up and therefore promote discussion.”

“I was quite surprised,” says Moos. However, Mentorn insist that the idea of wearing the T-shirts was the students’ own; they go as far as to say that “any suggestion that the students were encouraged to wear the T-shirts is entirely unfounded”, which seems a bit odd, when you reread that email. Either way, towards the end of the show, their moment came.

“You guys wore some T-shirts?” said Campbell.

Moos nodded. “Would you like to see them?” he asked. Campbell certainly didn’t seem to know about his agreement with the researcher, and he hesitated. (Mentorn says that neither Campbell nor his editor were expecting the T-shirts; certainly it seems more like a cock-up than a conspiracy.) In the moment he took to say something, the two unzipped. Phadnis and Moos were not filmed in close-up, and the camera did not linger on them. But the cartoons were visible from an oblique angle.

Abhishek emailed Archie Bland to correct this account, and I have his and Chris’s permission to post his email here. They both would like to see the record set straight.

 

Chris also sent me the request in the email from the researcher to the two of them when arranging the programme:

If you wanted to wear your t-shirts on the show that is fine – however, we would ask that you wear a shirt over the top that could be unbuttoned. The reason why we’re asking this is merely because patterns or details (like cartoons) are distracting for the viewer at home and can appear fuzzy on camera (hence why we also ask that you don’t wear checked or striped clothing). Basically, if Nicky would like to see the t-shirts, he can ask you to unbutton your shirt to show it and we can do a close up and therefore promote discussion (does that make sense?).

And then afterwards the BBC can pretend we never did and look hard in the other direction and get Jeremy Paxman to prod Author repeatedly about why, why, WHY would you do such a thing. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn’t.

Dear Archie,

We read your report this morning. We had expected a fair representation of the facts of the case. Your report, however, makes it look like we smuggled the t-shirts in on the sly and produced them as a publicity stunt to take advantage of the producers’ naïveté and gratuitously cause offence to viewers or audience members.

You correctly point out that the producer actually suggested we wear the t-shirts, despite their assertions.

However, we would like to point out, that on January 5th, just before the recording began, we informed the producers that we were wearing the t-shirts. We were asked to sit in the middle of the first row and Nicky Campbell personally greeted us and said he was very keen to know more about our story. Given this  attention, and our prominent placement in the first row, and the communication with the production company, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that he was aware about the t-shirts and about the interest in our story.

As for the recording itself, please watch this video again – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5X_lPXnvU –

51:21 – Nicky Campbell: There’s something else here as well … you guys wore some t-shirts

51:24 – (Phadnis and Moos make gestures, asking for permission to show the t-shirts)

51:26 – Phadnis: Would you like to see them?

51:27 – Nicky Campbell: Oh well! Yes (upon which we unzip our jackets to reveal the t-shirts)

We didn’t unzip “in the moment he took to say something”, as you put it – we gestured to him twice to ask for permission, then we asked “would you like to see them?” and he replied “oh well! yes” – only then did we begin to unzip my jackets.

We would be grateful if you could amend the piece to reflect the fact that Nicky Campbell explicitly gave us permission to show the t-shirts. At the moment the piece gives the impression to the unknowing reader that we uncovered the t-shirt against the will of Nicky Campbell and the BBC, that indeed we were using the programme to cause offence. As you know, in the current climate, this impression likely carries a risk to our personal safety.

Please amend the article to accurately reflect the facts and avoid any possibility of us suffering harm as a consequence of the publication of the article.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis