Khartoum characters
As you'll know, I'm no fan of the religious nutjobs who sentenced a British teacher to jail for letting her class name a teddy bear Mohammed.
But some of the shots being aimed by the tabloids and other press at the people of Sudan are of the cheapest variety, and smack of 'Let's have a laugh at the silly blacks in Bongobongoland'.
News websites, incapable it seems of checking their facts before chucking stories onto the web - well, if we get it wrong, never mind, every single person we've misled will check again later and read the same updated story - had a right old picnic over details of protests about the teacher's punishment. Many put the brakes on soon after, including the BBC, when it became clear that the calls for Gillian Gibbons to be killed, while true of some of the crowd, were misrepresenting a protest that might not even be representative of the population at large in the first place.
Let's look at the British media's sensitive handling of the protest.
Newspaper pictures of Gibbons were burned on a makeshift stage at the heart of Martyrs Square. One protester was seen making a stabbing gesture with his sword. A group of men shouted: "She must be killed by the sword."
One person making a stabbing gesture becomes
More than a thousand Muslim demonstrators in the Sudanese capital called for her to be shot or stabbed for insulting Islam after her pupils called a teddy bear Muhammad.
Shot or stabbed? Couldn't they make up their minds? Maybe they meant shot and stabbed. Wait, stabbed first, then shot. No point stabbing someone after shooting them is there? Or poisoned as well? And set on fire?
That's 1,000 people (well men, to be specific, and we know the reasons for that) out of a city population of 1,000,000. A tenth of one per cent, much of that whipped up by organisers and joined in by all and sundry, not all of whom were violent or had violent intentions. Sigh. But if it's the uppity blacks calling for murder of a white, we'd better make it sound as bad as possible! Let's see how the Sun's coverage compares to the Guardian's.
KNIVES OUT FOR GILLIAN: Thousands demand teddy teacher be shot
It's thousands now, is it? Blimey, these protests in Bongobongoland grow fast, don't they? (Still, at least the Sun subs got the subjunctive right, which is more than you can say for the Telegraph drones earlier in the day who said the crowd 'demand teacher is shot'.)
And on and on:
THOUSANDS of people, some carrying knives and sticks, have marched on the capital of Sudan calling for the teacher jailed for naming a teddy bear Mohammed to be shot. The marchers - amassing outside the presidential palace in Khartoum - are claiming Gillian Gibbons' 15-day jail sentence is too lenient and that she should be put to death.
Just shot, not stabbed this time. So why carry knives and sticks? To shoot her with? Hmm, sticks. Not exactly a weapon of mass destruction. Am I wrong to think they're trying to suggest spears? Anyway, there's one picture that keeps getting used in all the coverage, as well: of a single geezer with a big knife. No-one around him seems armed, but we've found one of the swarthy varmints tooled up, so let's make sure that picture's used nice and big! Just like the quotes from the wire services, the most shocking images get used time and time again.
Another bit of the wires here from the Mirror:
Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers: "Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion. This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad."
Why quote such a fucking idiot in the first place? He's clearly intellectually sub normal. Teaching hatred? Who except an imbecile believes that? And why represent the feelings of the Sudanese with the biggest nutter you can find? It's like asking Ian Paisley for his views on the new Pope.
Right, noseclips on, I'm going in. The Hate Mail:
MOB BAYS FOR HER BLOOD. Spitting hatred, thousands of hardline Islamists called for British teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot yesterday.
Is it just me, or is there something curiously funny about the Mail attacking someone for 'spitting hatred'? Thousands called for her to be shot, though. And the evidence?
They streamed out of mosques in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, shouting: "Kill her, kill her, kill her by firing squad."
You mean to say the Mail had reporters outside various mosques in Khartoum waiting for the reaction? Hmm.
Ever tolerant of our Muslim friends, the Express opts for
KILL HER. Up to 10,000 Muslims took to Khartoum’s streets shouting: “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.” Armed with clubs, swords and axes, the mob burned her photograph because she allowed pupils to call a teddy bear Mohammed.
Ten thousand is it now? And where did the clubs, swords and axes come from?
But hang on, this is Web 2.0. Where's an ill-informed shite comment from a blethering idiot?
We went over there to teach these heathens a bit of civilised society and what happens? They throw it back at us.
Thank you, 'Zeigfried'.
Look, I despise those who use religion to oppress others. I hate religious states enforcing horrible medieval laws because a Big Green Book told them to. I despise the idea of basing law and justice around the twisted interpretation of ancient texts that haven't kept pace with science, reason or enlightened values. And it makes me sick to think that relgio-fascists can take a grip around a nation state, suffocating democracy, common sense and justice. It is a crime against humanity.
But you might as well stick a bone through the nose of the Sudanese and paint them next to a cooking pot the way the British scum tabloids are depicting them. It's lazy caricaturism of the worst kind, twisting agency reports into your own agenda. It ignores the truth, or doesn't care about it. It depicts a thousand protesters as a lynch mob, ignoring the 999,000 people in Khartoum who maybe took a different view. It's outdated, rubbish, racist stereotyping of the very worst kind, which we should have seen off years ago. And it stinks just as badly as the disgraceful treatment given to Mrs Gibbons.
Theoretically speaking
A marvellous thing has happened for scientists and scholars everywhere: Charles Darwin's entire works have been put online here. Searchable, clickable, linkable... wonderful. It's all there, the Origin of Species, the Descent of Man, even sketches and notebooks - the whole shooting match. For me, this is what the internet is actually all about and should always have been all about, though I'm sure there are Web 2.0 disciples out there who are a bit miffed that you're not allowed to write 'what a load of shit' at the bottom and run off giggling.
But have a look at this report on the Darwin website by the BBC and see if you can spot what it is that disturbed me. Just a little phrase in there that should set a couple of alarm bells ringing.
The anonymous BBC drone writes:
The resource is aimed at serious scholars, but can be used by anyone with an interest in Darwin and his theory on the evolution of life.
and
His theory on evolution has influenced many science disciplines
One word. Theory.
Theory of evolution.
In 2007, we're still talking about a 'theory' of evolution?
Make no mistake: that word is significant. It doesn't just pop into sentences about Darwin and evolution unless it's meant to. It's not an accident. Let me make a comparison. Let's see what the BBC write about Isaac Newton here:
However, in 1687, with the support of his friend the astronomer Edmond Halley, Newton published his single greatest work, the 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica' ('Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy'). This showed how a universal force, gravity, applied to all objects in all parts of the universe.
There's no doubt about that, is there? No 'theory' of gravity. It's written as if it's fact - which of course it is to all rational scientists. But so is evolution, to all but the most wilfully ignorant of scientists, all but the extremists, the religious wingnuts who can't swallow the idea of evolution as a fact so try to get it taught as a theory instead.
It's in the classroom that the religio-fascists try to get their way, more specifically in the United States, though my own country isn't immune of course, as this creationist zoo near where I live shows - the website doesn't give much of a clue as to what's inside, and parents could be forgiven for thinking it's a zoo like any other... but when you get inside, the 'educational' side of the visit is taken up with pseudo-scientific explanations for the Bible and attacks on evolution. This is an attraction for children, I remind you.
Heaven forbid (yes, pun intended) you might try and be a politician, particularly on the right in America, unless you're determined to be a completely ignorant bastard about the truth of evolution:
Huckabee later added, "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."
This isn't some complete jerk who's entered the presidential race as a bit of a joke. He's a former governor of Arkansas; he's someone who has garnered millions of dollars and thousands of backers in support of his push for the Republican nomination. He's someone who genuinely thinks - maybe thinks is the wrong word; believes - that human beings aren't descended from primates. He clearly has the intelligence of a gnat, created or evolved.
And he's also a baptist, as CNN finds it important to tell us. What? Is religion really that important? How about libertarian, liberal, socialist, Keynesian, monetarian? There isn't room for that on the CNN profiles, apparently. All we know is the religious status of these politicians: you have Hilary Clinton (methodist) against Rudy Giuliani (catholic); Barack Obama ('christian') against Fred Thompson ('protestant'), and so on, and so on. Not an atheist among any of the leading contenders, by the way. Not a single one of them with the cojones to try and be honest about it. Is it just that atheists don't want to be president? Or that a president could never (again) be an atheist? Even an agnostic? No? Are things really worse than I thought?
Here's another worrying sign. I put 'Darwin' into Google News to see how they'd be covering the release of the documents, seeing as I'd only just read about it on the BBC. And the search came up with this piece of excrement. In the news section. The fucking news section! Interestingly enough, I didn't come up with any such article from an opposing political standpoint. Is that because science is too smug about itself? Does it take it for granted that evolution is accepted as fact by all except a minority of stubborn religious limpets, clinging on against the tide? Well, it shouldn't.
There's still a battle to be fought by reason against these idiots. There's still a case to be made against those who pollute the internet with lies, fake science and religious rubbish. There are still those who would insist on calling evolution a 'theory', and some of them will be writing articles about science. Putting Darwin online is the beginning of that battle for reason; it's a wonderful step forward that will hopefully allow children of whatever upbringing to look at the great man's work and decide for themselves whether evolution by natural selection, or a fairy story, is how the world of today came about. As the American presidential race shows us, there is still much to be done.
No dad = bad?
Following on from today's post about the catholic drivel masquerading as a decent news source, I looked into things a little further.
It wasn't just same-sex couples wanting IVF that the catholic priests and Iain 'Duncan' Donuts were opposed to, but also the idea that women could use IVF without the sperm donor (= 'father') being around to bring up the kid.
This makes things slightly different. It's not just rampant homophobia from the church that made them wade into this debate in the first place, but also hypocrisy of the most ridiculous kind. The Christian church, and the Catholic church in particular, spout the ludicrous idea of a virgin birth. That is to say, a family without a father. A woman getting pregnant without a man - through 'God' turning up in a dream. Even in these days of science and reason, they're still trotting out the horseshit about a woman being made pregnant without a sperm cell being involved. Yet they want us to take them seriously when it comes to matters of procreation.
These fools who either believe in magic - or realise it doesn't exist but still continue perpetuating the claptrap and drivel to children and adults alike - are trying to tell us that they have the moral authority and scientific understanding to know about families and children. They may believe that pregnancy is possible without sperm, but they want you to take them seriously when they say that families need fathers to be effective.
Perhaps there are many who believe in the role of fatherhood who find all this bollocks from the church and politicians a little distasteful. And although some may find it less desirable for children to be brought up without a dad or a father-figure, the reality is that it's happening all the time and it's part of our culture nowadays. Who are we to intervene? What business is it of ours? What right is it of ours to say who can and who cannot have children? On what evidence? Or just on a hunch that we don't like these people? Should we make IVF less available for people whose lifestyles we don't like? How do we know they're worse? We already do that for adoption - and if the moralistic wankers of the Tory party and the church had their way, it would be even less available.
What fucking business is it of yours?
My earlier post about the church being viewed as an important thing by journalists scratching round for a new angle on a murder story was trying to make the point that we give these religious leaders far too much of a source-bias when we put together news stories.
That might not seem such a bad thing if the church was, on the whole, A Good Thing. If it was all Jesus and Mary, lovely and mild, aren't things nice and you should turn the other cheek, then I wouldn't really have a problem. But there is a problem. Religion is not meekness and mildness, I'm afraid. Every now and then, it comes out with a complete crock of shit to suit its prejudices and homophobia, which is eagerly lapped up by the news sources, including the beloved BBC of course.
In a Times letter, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said the plans were "profoundly wrong" and undermined "the place of the father in a child's life".
Hang on a minute. Here's someone who is not a father and who can never be a father because of his superstition telling us all about how to be a father. What? I'd rather get parenting advice from one of those skiddy rat-dads on the Jeremy Kyle show. What the fuck does a Catholic priest know about fatherhood? It's like me trying to comment about motherhood: As a man, I'm never going to be a mother, so I can only really guess. But it does anger me that this sect of Christianity, with its well-documented problems of child abuse, and the covering-up of child abuse, thinks it's the perfect body to speak about family values - and, worse than that, it angers me that the BBC should think they are the voice of the family either.
The BBC skivvy who cobbled together the article will say to me, "ah Anton, but look it's balanced isn't it? I've got Stonewall's view on the subject as well as the mad old fool in silks. So that makes it all right, doesn't it?" No, it doesn't. Why put the barmy old twat's views first? Who made them more important? Why did you decide that they were more important? Why didn't you ask the cardinal about why, if the Catholic church is so in favour of family values, it covers up child abuse committed by its own priests? It's not a question that is strictly relevant to this article - but it is one of moral relativity. Let's see what the cardinal thinks is more important: saving a priest from being rightly punished by the law for unspeakable crimes against children; or stopping loving parents of the same sex from bringing up a child together. I, for one, would be very interested to hear the response.
Do you remember the other week when I uncovered the bizarre situation of Iain Duncan Smith pretending to be the voice of liberalism when it suited him? Guess what, he's back to form on the issue of same-sex parents and IVF. That's more like it! Forget the centre for social justice, let's just appease the rabid elements of the Tory grass roots. And that's what Duncan Donuts does here:
“Another nail will have been hammered into the coffin of the traditional family,” he wrote. “And another blow will have been struck against fatherhood.
“This move could not have come at a worse time. Just as we are beginning to appreciate the vital role fathers play in the successful upbringing of children, Labour ministers are sending out the utterly wrong signal that fathers don’t matter.”
Does it really send out that signal, do you think? Do you think that the government sat around a table and decided how they could send out the signal that fathers don't matter? Or have New Labour actually done something decent for once and tried to enact a liberal piece of legislation that brings equality to same-sex couples?
I must admit I'm surprised that such a shower of tabloid-fearing shit as New Labour should be able to do something so dangerously, how shall I put this, liberal. Left-wing, even. But right. Now let's see if they'll actually go through with something that will upset the Daily Mail and the usual suspects. For an issue surrounding fatherhood, it will be interesting to see if Labour has the balls to carry this through.
Sunday bollocks
It's a small point really, but I find it hard to understand this story about the discovery of two dead bodies in a house in Margate.
People said prayers for the dead girls after they died. I'm tempted to say: "So what?" - no amount of prayers stopped them from dying in the first place.
At times like this, churches are portrayed by the media as a community focus where people attempt to come to terms with the horror of what's happened. But are they really any more so than a pub, a social club, a sports club? And why don't we hear about Margate's mosques, synagogues or temples praying for the victims as well? Didn't they do any praying - or did they decide that the victims were unlikely to be from their faiths, so they welcomed them to hell as infidels? Does the Christian church accept praying responsibility for dead people who might possibly have been of their faith? What if the victims were atheists? What if the victims were Jews, or agnostics brought up in a Muslim background? What then?
What I'm getting at is that I wonder what relevance the church can have to these events in the first place. I tend to think it's just a lazy bit of journalistic scripting to pop down the church, seeing as it's a Sunday, and hear a few special prayers. Did the sermon even offer any answers? What does the Bible have to say about these things? Can scripture really explain why such horrendous things happen to ordinary folk, when they've done nothing wrong? What comfort can really be offered?
I think it's something a little more than laziness. It's a false ascribing of respect and emotional value to a church - how many people really turned up and looked to the church for answers? - and journalists might do well to try and think of something a bit more original when it comes to looking for a fresh angle when it's the weekend. For all we know, the reason for the women's deaths might be some bizarre Peter Sutcliffe-style 'voices from Jesus'. What then? All of a sudden, that kind of religion is bad; the other kind, the good kind, is mild and sensible. But is it really the journalist's place to decide that? Aren't they supposed to be impartial observers?
You'll get a similar thing the next time suicide bombers try and blow somewhere up in Britain, especially if they succeed. The press will find out where they come from. There will be photos of them looking normal. And then, from nowhere, will come an interview with a local imam, explaining that they were normal boys and the community is in shock. But why? Given that this disgusting crime will in all probability have been committed in the name of Islam, why then go to a representative of that religion? Why not find out stuff from their workmates, friends, relatives?
Why a church leader at a time when religion has been the cause of the carnage? There may be all sorts of other reasons - but we usually can be sure of one thing; there would have been no such crime of 'martyrdom' without religion promising the perpetrators a lifetime in paradise.
I think it is time journalists stopped giving undue weight to the views of
these religions. They offer few answers and little comfort. And far from
being help in these circumstances, they are often the problem.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.