the greycat blog

The very welcome news of Gillian Gibbons’s release has fed the light of tolerance and fair-mindedness that ever burns on BBC News ‘Have Your Say’ pages.

‘She should have served her sentance’ scrawls Mike from Colwyn Bay. ‘If you break the law you should expect to be punished’, he goes on, apparently thinking this both clever and relevant, and ends with a point that obviously weighs very heavily with him (heavier than ‘justice’ or ‘humanity’ for example): ’This must have cost a small fortune. She was only jailed for 15 days - she should have served her time (its not like it was 15 years!!)’.

An idiot from Edgware opines that ‘She deserves two or three lashes - if just for her naivéty’. ‘Common sense has prevailed’ says Chris W, ‘but had it been used in the first place and the teddy bear not been named it would never of happened in the first place.’ Never of happened? By your clueless illiteracy shall the value of your comment be judged, Chris.

Of course, in the end these things are all our fault, as MisterXY of Leeds reminds us: ‘Have you forgotten that we once rulled these countries and sucked out their resources? Or went into countries and bombed them to oblivion?’

Then there is Carla, from Norwich. Words fail one when confronted with the likes of Carla, from Norwich. Carla, from Norwich, is the sort of person who leaves one questioning whether all the effort that went into human evolution was really worth it. Here’s what she says, in full:

I am horrified that Ms. Gibbons has been let off so lightly. Even I, an average white Brit know that it is blasphemy in the eyes of Muslims to name something like a Teddy after their Great Prophet. I would NEVER disrepect another person’s belief’s in this awful way. Surely it is clear that it could be and would be seen as offensive. Ms. Gibbons claims to know about Sudanese culture and to respect it but she has committed an offence in their eyes - one that surely she must have been aware of. I say she should shut up and serve her 15 days then lead a quiet life elsewhere. We need to respect and understand the faiths of others if we want our own to be respected!

Where does one start? It’s very difficult to engage meaningfully with someone who thinks being dragged through the courts for a non-existent crime, threatened with public lashing, deprived of liberty, and having mobs calling for your execution, counts as ‘being let off so lightly’. As for all this respect Carla is so keen on, if respect is to be worth having it has to be earned; simply having it demanded of one is not sufficient. If those Muslims who think Gillian Gibbons’s treatment was justified (and many, many Muslims fervently disagree with them) want respect they have hardly gone the right way about earning it. Fortunately I do not judge Islam by the standards of the bigots of Khartoum, any more than I would wish others to judge Great Britain by the standards of an idiot in Norwich. 

It seems Gillian Gibbons, the Sudan Teddy Bear Teacher, is to be freed. This something about which we should be very glad, but it is not something for which we should be grateful.

Apparently she has been ‘pardoned’ by the Sudanese president. That can hardly be the case; only someone who was guilty would need a pardon.

What do caring environmental campaigners do at Christmas? Frighten and intimidate children, of course:

A grim Christmas message for kids from the mayor of Seattle. Greg Nickels told small children he’s launching ‘Operation Save Santa’ to protect the big guy from global warming. At a Christmas tree lighting, Nickels warned the kids they had to use energy efficient light bulbs, or climate change could melt the North Pole — and drown Santa, his elves and all his reindeer.

Find out more about the kind of man who is capable of telling children not only that Santa, his elves and all his reindeer are going to drown but that it is all their fault by wallowing in his smugness here.

Found via Tim Blair.

The Oxford Union’s folly continues to bring out the best in everyone, with the unholy Griffin/Irving double-act delayed by protests and a sit-in. The juvenile antics of the Union itself have been paralleled by the immature posturing of the protestors outside, whose definition of free speech means shutting up anyone you don’t agree with. Thus:

Martin Mcluskey, from the Oxford University Students’ Union, said: ‘What we are doing here tonight at the Oxford Union is putting them on a platform that will give them legitimacy and credibility. It is as if we are saying that we agree with what they are saying and that we think it is valid.’

News for you, Martin: freedom of speech means listening to people you don’t necessarily agree with and ideas you don’t necessarily think are valid. And anyone who believes an appearance at the Oxford Union carries an implication of ‘legitimacy and credibility’ is seriously out of touch with reality (even for Oxford).

The BBC rolling headline thing referred this evening to a report about an apparent ‘friendly fire’ incident in Afghanistan with these words: MoD investigating claim UK ‘friendly fire’ killed two Danish troops.

If one individual had been reported dead, would the headline have referred to the killing of ‘one Danish troop’? In the report itself the casualties are described, quite accurately, as ‘Danish soldiers’.

More BBC misuse of the term ‘troops’ here (’eight Turkish troops’) and here (’six US soldiers and three Afghan troops’ - ludicrous).

For more on what the term ‘troops’ means and how it should and should not be used, see this NPR article by linguist John McWhorter. He spoils his case somewhat by politicizing the issue, writing in a rather hand-wringing way that ‘Using a name for soldiers that has no singular form [i.e. troops] grants us a certain cozy distance from the grievous reality of war’. I don’t agree: it’s not politics, it’s just ignorance.

When I was a student at the University of Oxford in the 1990s I did not join the Oxford Union Society. It seemed to me self-important, self-indulgent, smug, juvenile, stupid, and irrelevant. How right I was. Just after I left Oxford the Union got itself into a mess over an invitation to National Front and later British National Party leader and would-be British führer John Tyndall; ‘free speech’ was the justification. The Tyndall debate was only cancelled after a series of nazi nail-bombings in London in 1999, killing three people and injuring over 100, reminded everyone just how far the extreme right’s commitment to free speech actually extends.

Well, they are doing it again: two prize peddlers of lies and hate, pseudo-historian David Irving and pseudo-politician Nick Griffin, have been invited by the Union to take part in a debate about - guess what - free speech. Both these individuals have a right to state their views (within the law) and the Union has the right to invite whoever it wishes to take part in its activities, but let’s not pretend the invitation has anything to do with great issues of free speech. It’s just another example of Oxford Union immaturity, equivalent to a toddler throwing his breakfast on the floor out of fear of being ignored. The Oxford Union should be ignored. It is a pointless, self-indulgent attention-seeking freak show.

Sadly, it isn’t ignored, however; here I am writing a blog post about it, for instance. Lots of people are fooled by the presence of the name ‘Oxford’ into thinking that it must be something important, like the boat race or that fancy marmalade that isn’t made there any more. People who should know better think it’s in some way an official part of Oxford University (example here). Others have some vague idea that there must be something fine, admirable and even inherently democratic about the place. Alas, no: healthier and better-informed debate, with a much wider and nicer range of people taking part in it, can be found any night of the week in my local pub.

There’s little chance that the Oxford Union will stop playing its silly games, but I live in hope that the world will at least stop paying any attention to them.

Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year (gosh), is constantly on the look-out for signs of global warming’s terrible effects. As a result he finds them, all the time, and sometimes in the most surprising places:

The Samburu circumcise their youths in grand ceremonies, which are held every seven years or so, when enough cattle and other foods have accumulated to support such celebrations. Circumcision represents a transition to manhood, and until a youth has passed it he can’t marry. But it’s been 14 years since a circumcision ceremony has been held here. There are now 40,000 uncircumcised young men, some in their late 20s, waiting their turn. All of the eligible young women, tired of waiting, have married older men (multiple wives are allowed), so there are no wives for the new initiates.

I could never have imagined that climate change would have such an effect on an entire society. On reflection though, cultures such as the Samburu are intimately linked to their environment, so as these pressures increase it becomes more difficult to maintain long-held traditions.

I can’t sleep for thinking about those 40,000 foreskins, just left hanging around. For more on the Flannery phenomenon, Tim Blair is your man: try this Google search of his blog.

The Edward Said mural at San Francisco State University (see earlier post) has been unveiled. Apparently this crass piece of kitsch with its clutter of leadenly literal imagery ‘honors Palestine’ and ‘celebrates the struggles of the Palestinian people’. The Party for Socialism and Liberation says so, anyway. Cinnamon Stillwell begs to differ: read her critique at Campus Watch.

A detailed description of the mural can be found here, at this likeable blog. Marvel at how the artists have cleverly symbolized Said’s contribution to learning through his books by depicting … his books.

[UPDATE 9 November 2007: Cinnamon Stillwell further considers the Edward Said mural, and the Said phenomenon more generally, here. Highly recommended reading.]

The unhinged ravings of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists may be contemptible by any standard of rational and moral human conduct, but they nonetheless constitute a serious and disturbing phenomenon and need serious study. Dr Richard Landes, eminent historian of millennialism, has made a start.

9-11 Conspiracy constitutes the most powerful conspiracy theory in the brief history of the internet age. Within hours of the attacks, accusations that the Israeli Mossad had planned and executed the attacks while “4000 Jews stayed at home,” appeared, particularly in the Arab world, a textbook case of internet conspiracy mongering. In the Muslim world these theories became the dominant public voice. There, traditional conspiracy operated: We are innocent, our enemies are guilty.

[…]

Many Americans still prefer not to even discuss this matter: the owl’s first line of defense is to ignore the roosters. The necessary disproofs, including a new, peer-reviewed Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories (2006-) — are available online for all to consult; what more need be said? That, as in so many cases of conspiracism, reasoning takes a back seat to desire? That people can visit a site with good evidence for a plane crash, and still believe the conspiracy. That the consequences of not thinking clearly about this may be very serious?

An excellent piece of work. Read the whole thing at Professor Landes’s blog, Augean Stables.

[Found via Screw Loose Change.]

Homeopathy is dangerous rubbish. When someone points this out, complete with evidence to support the claim, the Society of Homeopaths (’representing professional homeopaths’) shuts them up with legal bullying. This is what happened to Dr Andy Lewis, who runs an excellent site called The Quackometer. He published an article called ‘The gentle art of homeopathic killing’, which told the truth about the ludicruous and sometimes lethal nonsense that is homeopathy. The Society of Homeopaths responded by sending threatening letters to his hosting company until the page containing the article was taken down. Ben Goldacre has a full account here.

The internet being what it is, this kind of censorship tends to be counter-productive for those who engage in it. That is certainly the case with this attempt to muzzle the truth. You can now read the full text of the suppressed Quackometer article here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and in a whole lot more places, number increasing by the minute; or find it by carrying out this Google search, which reveals that the Society of Homeopaths have managed to get their own name inextricably associated with the article they tried to eliminate.

Truth will out.