Buddhist terror

seems like an oxymoron. That's largely because the likes of the Dalai Lama and his celebrity admirers in the West have given the faith good PR. But terror has never been alien to those of the Buddhist faith. The Buddhist clergy in Japan were strong supporters of the regime there in the 1930s and 1940s. Japan of course has never had a Muslim population, and even today there is almost zero immigration, so the "Muslim question" doesn't really arise there.

In Burma things are rather different. In the 1990s and during most of the first decade of this century it seemed as though intervention would be the only hope for the people of Burma, with thousands of political prisoners, the winners of the last free elections, in 1988, dead, in exile or locked up, and human rights non-existent. However, the corrupt elite still running that country have begun, in small ways, to see the light. There is a measure of democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi is out of jail, and got elected. But one minority, the Rohingya Muslims, are being subjected to terror and slaughter on a massive scale. This is not being much reported. The one Burmese leader who is known in the West, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been shamefully silent on this. (If you have not seen the rather good film about her, 'The Lady', starring Michelle Yeoh, then do.) Time magazine deserves credit for highlighting this dreadful situation, thanks Harry's Place for putting it out there too. Here is an extract from its report:

Although there has long been tension between the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority in Arakan, the situation deteriorated rapidly after three Muslims allegedly raped and murdered a Buddhist girl in May 2012.

On June 4, 2012, not long after the alleged rape, Buddhists stopped a bus and invited non-Muslims to get off. Then they let the bus go on a short distance, stopped it again, dragged approximately ten Muslim passengers onto the street, and beat them to death. After that, the violence against Muslims became organized and genocidal. Buddhists launched coordinated attacks against Muslim villages and neighborhoods all over Arakan state. Dozens of Muslims from across Arakan told me similar stories: Buddhist mobs, protected by police, showed up screaming anti-Muslim slogans and demanding that the Muslims flee. They brought guns and knives, and the Muslims who stayed behind—in some cases because they were physically unable to flee—were shot, speared, and hacked. Some of the rest made it to other countries to start their lives over, but most of the displaced are in the dozens of squalid camps across Arakan state. The penalty for leaving these camps is three months’ imprisonment—if a Rohingya is caught by the cops. If caught by the wrong civilians, it could be lynching. The Buddhists burned the Muslims’ abandoned homes and possessions to cinders. Some Muslims eventually retaliated, and a much smaller number of Buddhists died or were driven into camps of their own after riots across the state.

So, Muslims are being slaughtered. George Galloway, where are you? Are British youth training as jihad warriors to go to Burma and save Muslims from the Buddhist terror? If not why not?

I only ask.

I dare you not to be offended

by this image

which is of the mug I drink my tea from every morning. It's apparently the same image the BBC was too cowardly to show recently when it featured on T-shirts worn by two members of a studio audience . I bought the mug several years ago, from Cafepress, and link to Jesus and Mo from this blog. I am a Christian, and I find Jesus and Mo amusing. Maajid Nawaz is a Muslim, and finds this image inoffensive. He is a Liberal Democrat too, but perhaps he'll grow out of that. There are now death threats and calls for a fatwa on Maajid Nawaz, because he refuses to be offended. This is what the Telegraph had to say:

Muslim politician Maajid Nawaz tweeted a picture of a t-shirt with a crudely-drawn cartoon entitled ‘Jesus and Mo’ which he describes as an “innocuous” and inoffensive.

However the image has caused fury among some members of the Islamic community who believe images of the prophet Muhammed are forbidden.

More than 7,000 people have now signed a petition calling for the Liberal Democrats to suspend Mr Nawaz.

Some have even suggested a fatwa should be placed on him while others have threatened they would be “glad to cut your neck off”.

Even the controversial MP George Galloway has waded into the row, tweeting: “No Muslim will ever vote for the Liberal Democrats anywhere ever unless they ditch the provocateur Majid Nawaz, cuckold of the EDL.”

What is happening in England? What?

segregation by...

much fuss and bother about meetings at universities being segregated by gender. Indeed, some of them are. I have no issues with a private, members-only or signup-only meeting being segregated in any way anyone chooses to. I reserve my right to join a women's club which excludes men. A private university too may segregate its meetings, it staff, its anything, in any way it chooses. But a public university which receives State funding is a public authority, and must therefore be constrained in a way private clubs and organisations are not, namely to conform to the prevailing values of the State which funds it. Some may have views about that. Some may question those values. That is another matter. Purportedly left-wing bloggers and writers like Laurie Penny refuse to condemn segregation by gender, so long it is promoted by Muslim organisations or individuals. They give as the reason that organisations such as the English Defence League, part of whose agenda is anti-Muslim, are often also misogynist in the statements they make -  "Women are like gongs: they should be struck regularly" - and because the EDL and similar bodies are largely composed of white working-class men they are therefore  Not Good People and are to be Looked Down Upon by posh girls like Laurie Penny and their Guardian-reading fans. Muslim misogyny is somehow better. Moral relativism. Intellectual incoherence. Segregation by gender may be OK, or it may not. I suggest that in a hospital ward it is a good thing. I suggest that in a theatre dressing-room it is a good thing. I suggest that in a public debate of any kind, organised by anyone at all, it is not a good thing. But that is just my view. If we are going to debate it, let us debate it clearly and properly. Let us not refuse to debate it, giving as the reason that organisations like the EDL are to be condemned. That is posh feminists ceding debate to the misogynists - and silencing women in the universities. OK for them. They went to school. Their daughters will go to school. No-one is going to cut their clitorises off. They can dress as they please.

I went to university in 1972, and attended a Women's College. Only a few years before this male guests were only permitted between certain daylight hours. In my time they were only permitted before ten in the evening. This rule was widely ignored. However, rules like this (and the existence of creatures called "moral tutors") were designed to control women. They were designed to reassure the parents of the young women who attended those colleges that those young women would not be permitted to have sex. That was all it was about. And the segregation by gender and covering and seclusion of women practised in many societies where Islam is the dominant religion (and not only there) is about precisely that. Control of women's bodies and their sexuality. As are the crude misogynist statements made by some working-class white men.

If you agree with the silencing, covering and mutilation of women, say so. Don't say that you refuse to disagree with it because some non-Muslim men behave in misogynist ways. That is stinking relativism.

freedom of expression - is it real?

I do sometimes wonder.  Freedom of expression is not real if it is confined to the expression of views that those who read them are comfortable with. It means nothing then. Following a couple of links led me to this rather impressive blog (in English, he also writes in Arabic) by one Waheed al-Hussaini, of whom I had not heard before. Read it.  He is Palestinian, and was arrested, imprisoned and beaten up, effectively for not believing in Islam and saying so on line.  He was told that society would not tolerate criticism of Islam. He got out and into Jordan, and thence became an asylum seeker in France, where he remains, pending a decision. He says he still does not feel safe. He appears to believe that he is now free to write on line, and so he is. The blog, published in the Independent newspaper's website, is evidence of that. But for how long? The chilling effect of persecution and abuse is well known, even if there is no risk to the writer of being arrested or imprisoned, or worse (try it in North Korea and see how far you get). The Satanic Verses would not be published now, because publishers would not want their buildings firebombed. Jew-hatred is rife. Goose-stepping and Nazi salutes in Brighton, England because it happens to be the location of an Israeli-owned business. This blogger is still doing it, but had to leave his family and friends behind to be able to continue.  How many others would? Would you?

MoToons - to the barricades!



this is satire - Charlie Hebdo

 the weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is publishing - not sure if it is on newsstands, my tabac did not have it this morning - pictures including the cartoon shown here.  It was scary to see Marine Le Pen of the Front National interviewed this morning and to agree with just about everything she said.  Not the language she used, which was pure dog-whistle - "en France" punctuated every sentence, because Muslims are of course Foreign and Not Like Us and Not From Here - but she said that freedom of expression and the rule of law are not negotiable.  Which they are not.  And that if anyone thinks these cartoons have gone too far in the direction of causing racial injury (which is a criminal offence in France) then let them go to court.  The Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said the same thing, just phrased rather differently and without the dog-whistle, and also cautioned against "provocation".  The editor of Charlie Hebdo said the magazine takes the piss every week using cartoons, and only when the cartoons represent (apparently, allegedly) the Prophet Mohammed does it become "provocation".  Anyway, the Charlie Hebdo offices are in lockdown today and surrounded by CRS.  Makes you wonder - Jesus and Mo do cartoons several times a week, most recently captioned "R.E.S.P.E.C.T., I'll burn down your embassy!"  Wonderful stuff.