Richard Dawkins’ forums suspended

It’s hardly the biggest news in the world. Given some of the panic on the web one would think whole of the Internet was due to be shut down. Richard Dawkins’ web forums have been suspended pending an overdue clean up. I’ve been commenting at length on this here.

My original article critical of his forums has been receiving a massive amount of traffic, mainly from a cesspit of substandard debate which makes the Dawkins forums look as if they were frequented exclusively by leading intellectuals.

I have been called “an absolute f**king c**t” on this forum, as they flounder to find some fault in my argument. Finding nothing it can criticise validly, the inferior mind resorts to vulgarity. This is nothing, though, compared with what technical admin Josh has been receiving over at RD.net – an avalanche of despicable abuse which has motivated Richard Dawkins himself to make a statement.

What truly, utterly pathetic people these are who have nothing better to do than mail abuse to people because their crutch (an Internet forum not even on their own site) has been taken away (because of misbehaviour of contributors and moderators, mind you). If ever the phrase “Get a life” was relevant, it’s now.

Richard Dawkins has certainly received a wake up call as to what was going on at his forum, as he says himself above. This, despite him having said this previously, when writing of the marvels of the Internet:

“Of course there are negative aspects, but they are easily forgiven. I’ve already referred to the lamentable content of many chat room conversations without editorial control.

The tendency to flaming rudeness is fostered by the convention — whose sociological provenance we might discuss one day — of anonymity.

Insults and obscenities, to which you would not dream of signing your real name, flow gleefully from the keyboard when you are masquerading online as ‘TinkyWinky’ or ‘FlubPoodle’ or ‘ArchWeasel’.”

Richard Dawkins

To people who have not connected the dots yet, I don’t publish intellectually substandard comments on my site here, so don’t be surprised if your comment isn’t turning up. Don’t even waste your time posting it. That’s one of the benefits of having your own website: you can run it however you like, as you are finding out as Prof Dawkins exercises his executive control. Tough.

I’m going to e-mail some support to Josh now, and then probably have nothing more to do with this debate. It’s just not important enough. If you have any kind of life at all you’ll do the same.

NSS Secularist of the Year award

I’m touching on an issue that is very taboo here: race. While criticism of religion is now fairly passé, if you dare to even remotely question anything to do with perceived wisdom on race you will instantly be branded racist. Oh well, that’s the point here, to challenge the dogmas of political correctness, so here goes.

I recommended Pat Condell for the NSS Secularist of the Year award this year, for having  risked his life in promoting reason and secular values across the world for several years now. I recommended him last year too, but he didn’t win it. He didn’t win it this year either. The award went to The Southall Black Sisters.

Have you heard of them? Me neither. I don’t have time to write a lot on this but I must say there seems only to be a tenuous link with secularism in the work of the “Sisters”. This seems a rather politically correct decision. I would also add that (despite the good work they undoubtedly do) the name “Southall Black Sisters” smacks to me of racism. They say on their site:

“Southall Black Sisters, a not-for-profit organisation, was established in 1979 to meet the needs of black (Asian and African-Caribbean) women. Our aims are to highlight and challenge violence against women; empower them to gain more control over their lives.”

But there is arguably no real need for the emphasis on the “black”. All women should be entitled to fair treatment regardless of colour. If the organisation’s stated mission was to “oppose violence against women” this would of course include black women too. How about standing against domestic violence, full stop? That would be even better and even less biased. (The SBS are “right on the forefront of the feminist struggle in this country”.)

Likewise consider the “Black Police Association”, which Peter Hitchens interestingly referred to as a “grotesque, indefensible body” (read the article). It certainly seems to me very divisive and perhaps even racist. Ask yourself what would happen if some officers decided to form a “White Police Association”.

There is no need to invoke colour in these matters. People can’t have it both ways – they want complete inclusion and yet also insist on delineating themselves by their colour.

This certainly seems a PC decision regarding the award, because Pat Condell has obviously had far more influence in the secular field, and at far more personal risk to himself.

Sadiq Khan MP replies on ritual animal slaughter

I have finally received a reply from Sadiq Khan, my local MP, to my report detailing government appeasement on ritual animal slaughter.

It took Mr Khan six months to reply. It seems he “overlooked” the report when it arrived, but my December letter has prompted him to finally respond. Maybe Pat Condell’s latest link, increasing its profile, helped prompt some action too.

You can see Mr Khan’s reply and an attachment enclosed, here:

Response from Sadiq Khan MP (PDF, 540.52 KB) — Downloaded 17 times

This is, predictably, a very mealy-mouthed non-reply. Mr Khan is at pains to disagree with me while at the same time trying to make it look as though he agrees with me. Let’s have a look in detail at what he says:

“I appreciate the points you raise.”

“Appreciate” is an an ambiguous word. It can mean “understand”, but it doesn’t necessarily mean “agree”. He does go on to say:

“I agree it may be preferable to [sic] for all animals to be stunned before slaughter to avoid their suffering…”

This essentially says nothing. He might as well have said “may not be preferable”.

“..yet I also accept that religious groups have a right to eat meat in accordance with their beliefs.”

“Accept” is a much stronger word, of course. And indeed they have a “right”? This is a strong assertion indeed. Anyway, Khan’s point here is called begging the question (in the old, correct use of the phrase): he is taking for granted exactly what my report, with bountiful evidence, is questioning, and he is refusing to address the arguments brought to the table.

Mr Khan then says something about a loosely proposed labelling system and has the cheek to enclose the government’s stock response to this matter, photocopied. I have already been sent this by DEFRA, as is everyone who writes to them on this matter. It is a non-reply again.

He then proceeds to tell me some basic information which I have already told him in much greater detail in my report.

At this point it becomes obvious he has probably not even read the report. In fact I’d put money on it (after all he says himself that merely “looked at” it).

Mr Khan next says:

“Please don’t hesitate to make contact if there are any other concerns that you would like to raise with me on this or any other matter, or if you would like me to make further representations to the Government on your behalf.”

This stock sentence is inserted (in a slightly different font size) despite the fact I had specifically asked him in my letter to:

1. Clearly state his position on the topic of ritual animal slaughter
2. Raise the topic in parliament on my behalf

He has done neither of these things.

What I would like him to do (as I have already told him) is point out that the law is inconsistent on this matter, and that the lack of labelling is an urgent problem which needs addressing immediately. How dare he, you might well wonder, ask if he can be of any more help when he as pointedly been of no help at all in the first place?

Well, of course, Sadiq Khan’s seat in parliament is safe. Just take a drive down Tooting High Street to see why. He doesn’t want to rock the boat. But what he should do is stand up for what is right: a consistent law for all, with no exemptions for ritual slaughter which causes animals unnecessary pain. Also labelling clearly showing whether animals have been barbarically butchered. Indeed, you might just not want to eat meat that an imam has been praying over – at the moment you don’t even have the right to know about it.

Our society is changing around us. It’s fragmenting. Civilisation seems in many ways to be going into reverse.

What can you do about this?

• Read my report
• Write to Mr Khan
• Write to your own MP
• Vote Labour out

If you live in the Tooting area this means you vote for Mark Clarke or anyone else but Mr Khan. I’m not to the point of voting for the BNP, though Labour seem hell-bent on pushing everyone in that direction. I will probably vote UKIP or Conservative. I suggest you do the same.

Welcome to Malmø

We’re having a lot of trouble from Islamisation in the UK, in France, in the Netherlands and in most European countries. But Sweden’s okay, isn’t it?

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Letter to the NSS

Dear Sir,

This week sees two notable British people proclaiming that the most important thing to them in their lives is their religion. The first is Rizwan Ditta, who has just finished serving a very short prison sentence for possessing material likely to be useful to terrorists. True to the Qur’an, he states “I believe that my loyalties and priorities, even though I’ve been born and bred in England, lie with the Muslims”.

Hot on his heels is Sir Mota Singh QC who is arguing for children (Sikhs) to be allowed to take knives into schools. “The fact that I’m a Sikh matters more to me than anything else,” he said – which would show contempt for the law were it not for the fact that the law allows an exemption in this case for Sikhs, as it does for Muslims and Jews when it comes to ritual animal slaughter. So much for one law for all.

Best regards,

Gavin Orland

Mark Steyn writes…

Mark Steyn has posted up some fascinating photos showing that more women wear the hijab in Cairo now than they did in the 1970s. Obviously the number has greatly increased in London too – to the point that I can hardly set foot outside my door without seeing anti-social face coverings and emblems or religious irrationality within seconds. Indicators of the Islamisation of the UK.

Steyn’s experience of liberals matches my own:

“Whenever I give a speech on Islam, some or other complacenik always says, “Oh, but they haven’t had time to Westernize. Just you wait and see. Give it another 20 years, and the siren song of Westernization will work its magic.”

This argument isn’t merely speculative, it’s already been proved wrong by what’s happened over the last 20 years. Compare the Cairo University class of 1959 with those of the 21st century, and then see if you can recite your inevitablist theories of social evolution with a straight face.

The idea that social progress is like the wheel or the internal combustion engine — once invented, it can never be uninvented — is one of the laziest assumptions of the Western Left.”

Pat Condell on Geert Wilders’ trial

Pat says it all, as usual, and very well indeed:

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Quick letter to NSS

“Geert Wilders (currently on trial for telling the truth in the Netherlands) has again been invited by members of the House of Lords to come and show his short film Fitna there.

The Telegraph reports here that Lord Ahmed has again threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to block Mr Wilders from entering the House of Lords. If this is true then Lord Ahmed should be arrested for breach of the peace. I’m tired of this man’s threats.

Best regards,

Gavin Orland”

Letting the side down

“If people who are highly educated are going to turn anti-social behaviour into a kind of joke, and make of antisocial people heroes for the entire country, you can hardly be surprised when public behaviour deteriorates.”

- Theodore Dalrymple

Again I preface an article with a quotation from Theodore Dalrymple – because the man speaks such sense.

This article is about the place, the company, in which I find myself being an atheist. Recently I attended a secularist social evening. I should first of all say that people cannot really be defined by a negative, but their not believing in God – that is true. I agree with Sam Harris’ concerns about the very term “atheist”. Nonetheless one often notices an apparent moral apathy among non-believers. This is not a necessary connection of course, but a noticeable one nonetheless.

Religious people at least have a book from which they cherry pick the good bits as a moral guide. At least this is typical of Type 1 Christians. Non-believers have no such book. The fact they do not believe says nothing about their morality. Very often they are the kind of atheist who just doesn’t care about anything very much, and is not against religion on intellectual grounds or moral grounds. Its just all too much trouble. Other times, and this is what I think I have noticed in some, especially younger, people in the secular movement, they are against religion mainly because it is seen by them to impose rules. Just to impose rules, which may or may not restrict them.

Liberals, leftists, radicals, these people, it seems to me, are often against religion not because it contains certain inconsistencies or is metaphysically unsound, but actually because it might limit the complete abandon and laissez faire morality so beloved by many liberals. This is unfortunate.

Here is a definition of Humanism found on the British Humanist Association’s website:

“Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason – humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone and that the aims of morality should be human welfare, happiness and fulfillment.”

This is all very well, excellent.. there is more like it on the same page. The funny thing is, one can often observe high profile humanists drinking liberally and smoking habitually. Smoking is of course extremely anti-social and harmful to the individual. I need surely not produce studies to show this. Likewise excessive use of alcohol is very damaging, the UK currently being the binge drinking capital of Europe. Not such good examples to be setting, perhaps.

Not to miss out, leading “Humanists” can also be found getting themselves tattooed. Even asking for sponsorship to do so. But aside from the fact that tattoos are arguably vulgar:

“A study of “at-risk” (as defined by school absenteeism and truancy) adolescent girls showed a positive correlation between body-modification and negative feelings towards the body and self-esteem.”

Source

There can be health risks associated with getting tattoos and of course they hardly teach the lesson of thinking in the long term and not acting only for the present moment – one of the problems of our age.

I might add it is not in fact “radical” to be tattooed now. It is following the herd. In Britain, by contrast, it has now only become truly radical to assert any views which are not liberal.

Anyway, these things, especially the smoking, surprise me in many high profile Humanists, and they remind me that nothing necessarily unites non-believers. I believe such behaviour though provides an open goal to religious people who can then point to “atheist” decadence.

Meanwhile, this decadence is laughed about by the “Humanists” themselves. At the aforementioned social event, the argument was even propounded by a comedian that Islam could never succeed in a country where the official response to a terrorist threat was to drink beer. Funny, sure, but only perhaps in an embarrassing way – because, in fact, the precise opposite is the truth. If we were serious, we would admit that.

We’re fiddling, with our multicultural naivete, our moral relativism and our decadence, while Rome burns. Meanwhile, many Muslim women who are not being converted to modern, fashionable, nihilism, are at home having children. Islam has its values very clear, and respect for us doesn’t feature in them. Sometimes you can see why.

One of the greatest Humanist lectures I have ever heard took place, actually, here. At the Grace Fellowship church in Brevard County, Florida. It was a year or so ago now. The “preacher” made good point after good point, it has to be said. He spoke for example about the importance of being a good husband and father, the importance of the family unit, the importance of self control. He said “When someone asks you what you do, tell them your interests. Don’t allow yourself to be defined only by your job”. He made many very sound, Humanist points. He was confident of his values, and they were good values, which make a mockery of the nihilism, or the “protest for protest’s sake” commonly found here in the UK. He tacked Jesus on at the end now and then, of course, but this actually wasn’t necssary – the points stood up on their own.

Often religious people seem, at least overtly, to value decent behaviour more then non-religious people do. Some (even non-believers) therefore argue that religion is indeed desirable in society, on balance, the reason being that it is necessary as a guide for those who otherwise would be unable to live morally. Of course, not all of the advice in religious books is moral, but believers tend to turn a blind eye to the bad parts. Perhaps some do indeed need the threat of a God. I am undecided about this argument, the “Argument from Utility”. I know I do not need religion, but perhaps I should not judge everybody as I judge myself.

In any case, I find that sadly I do not often share the values of my fellow “Humanists”. I am more likely to share the values of Type 1 Christians, even though I do not share their metaphysical beliefs. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Geert Wilders coming to London again

Breaking news: Geert Wilders MP, currently being tried for speaking the truth in the Netherlands, has announced his intention to travel to the UK again to screen his short film Fitna.

Mr Wilders has again been invited by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and will travel to London to show the film in the House of Lords on 5th March.

Dr Goebbels describes propaganda

Joseph Goebbels understood propaganda. Here he describes propaganda methodology in a way that seems also to describe the policy of the government and the BBC here in the UK. For example, they are both devoted to the ideology of multiculturalism despite mounting evidence of its inherent problems, and both repeatedly tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

- Joseph Goebbels, Reichsminister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

This is an extremely interesting quotation at this point in time, because right now the political, economic and military consequences of various leftist ideological “lies” are now indeed becoming undeniable. The topsy-turvy case of Geert Wilders being tried for speaking the truth in his own country. One law for Muslims, another for non-Muslims. High indigenous unemployment. People like Pat Condell scoring over 1 million hits on his videos (well, there is no-one else like Pat). Commenters on the BBC’s “Have Your Say” near-unanimously contradicting politically correct news articles. Judges saying they think the maximum sentences they can impose are ludicrously lenient. You can find links for all of these on my site. The lie’s coming undone in all sorts of directions.

I await now, of course, accusations of Nazism from brainwashed liberals, who fail to see that it is the Left who have embraced Dr Goebbels’ rules of propaganda to wholeheartedly, silencing any dissent from the from “allowed” PC views, and therefore in many cases silencing the speaking of truths.

Douglas Murray: speaking truth

Douglas Murray, Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, has been turning out some great articles for The Telegraph recently. They’re remarkable because they are bereft of political correctness and instead full of truth. I just commented under this one as follows:

“Great article, Douglas. Please keep it up. Few in the media even dare to speak up against the PC craziness that has taken over the country, so your voice is needed. It’s about time we said a resounding “No” to Islam and re-asserted our own values in the UK.

Also high time people stopped hating our allies the Americans and reminded themselves where the true threats to society lie: from the religion of peace and institutional political correctness.”

Geert Wilders’ opening speech

Here’s is Geert Wilders’ excellent opening speech at his disgraceful trial in the Netherlands:

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

I believe this is a win/win situation for Wilders and whatever the outcome he will win more support.

I have written to the National Secular Society as follows:

“This week, the principle of freedom of speech while not inciting violence has gone on trial in the Netherlands, in the form of MP Geert Wilders being tried by his own government.

I want to note first of all that the start of this very significant trial has so far gone completely unreported by the BBC. (Of course, the Today Programme did instead run a feature on the “triumphs of Muslim science“. That’s “triumphs” of several hundred years ago, mind you. The bias of the BBC is embarrassingly transparent now).

It will be interesting to see how this trial proceeds. If Wilders is found guilty, then telling the truth, even while not inciting violence, will be seen to be illegal in the Netherlands. The Dutch government particularly disliked Wilders’ film Fitna, but in that film he hardly said anything at all, and merely quoted from the Qur’an.

This brings me onto my next point, which is that Islam itself is effectively also on trial. If Wilders can show with reference to his witnesses and to the text that the Qur’an is indeed hateful towards unbelievers, then Islam is guilty. Whether the court would ever honour such a finding, however, is of course another matter entirely.”

Ethnic profiling

Let’s imagine there was a killer at large, who it was known resembled me. I don’t identify with any particular religious or ethnic group, but let’s say I did, and it was known that this killer also belonged to my group. He looks like me, he’s killing in the name of my group. He’s bringing it a bad name.

Should I co-operate with the police in this matter? According to Andy Choudary, of course, no. But I surely should. There are so many reasons why I should:

1. I should want this killer caught, whatever group he is from.
2. I should want him to stop tarnishing the reputation of my group.
3. I should want myself eliminated from enquiries.

I should be the first person stepping up to help in any way I can, and I should understand, obviously, if the police are particularly interested in me rather than in little old ladies of a different ethnic group.

The major threat in terms of terrorism these days comes from Muslims. There are white Muslims and black Muslims, however it is fair to say that most Muslims are of Arab or Indian descent. The would-be killers are a scurge on the reputation of innocent Muslims; one would think they would want them rooted out as soon as possible. But are they so “innocent” while they deny, or remain silent about, the problem in their midst?

Is it reasonable of them to object to some degree of ethnic profiling at airports? I think not. This is only normal policing (profiling of any kind) but it faces great opposition from liberals of many backgrounds. It thereby risks lives.

Here is a very interesting article someone has sent me which explains that exactly this kind of politically correct thinking allowed September 11th to happen.

The vulgarity of Richard Dawkins’ forums

“Moral values are easily reversed: what was formally thought good becomes evil, and vice-versa. This has certainly happened in my own country, Britain, and moreover it has happened as a mass phenomenon which I think, if you visited Britain, you would see on the streets every day.”

- Theodore Dalrymple

I am very disappointed to have to write this article because I have had respect for Richard Dawkins since well before he became a high profile atheist. Ever since, actually, The Blind Watchmaker was published. I’ve supported his clear reasoning and atheism and continue to do so, but I have to say I’m appalled at the standard of debate he permits – and therefore allows to inevitably flourish – on his web forums.

If you take a look at this thread you’ll see what I mean. I suggest you read it all, and follow links providing evidence (which is certainly more than most “contributors” did).

Not only is there is a very low level of intellectual debate exhibited here, with frequent use of logical fallacies (for example the Argument from Tradition and the Argument from Authority) but there is also a distinct and unpleasant pack mentality of bullying and of glorifying the gratuitous use of foul language and general apathy. People here shout others down without evidence but with the fully sanctioned use of vulgarity, obscenity and profanity instead.

When such language is permitted (i.e. when almost no standards are required) scum inevitably rises to the surface and the intellectual level of debate plummets. That’s why it is not allowed in journals, in university departments or indeed on many web forums. Such low-level discussion very probably puts many capable contributors off having anything to do with the forums. It certainly puts me off (as it does other people whom I know and esteem).

It would be hard to ban intellectual inadequacy, I grant, but gratuitous use of foul language is not banned on Richard Dawkins’ forums. Since the forums are a public place, and such anti-social, uncultured behaviour is hardly typical of the man himself, I find this surprising.

The forum terms specify only that certain kinds of “hatred” are disallowed, as follows:

“Richarddawkins.net will not foster or support racist, homophobic or sexist bigotry. Therefore, you may not post hateful, abusive or disparaging content about people’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.”

This suggests a distinct political correctness which potentially even restricts free evidence-based discussion – because the above issues are hardly cut and dried. It also implies that other kinds of abusive content are fine.  Contrast it, for example, with the terms found at Sam Harris’ forums. These do not restrict themselves to PC areas but are instead all-encompassing and non-specific:

“By registering at this site you agree not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws.  We will permanently ban all users who do so.”

As such these are surely better terms (and far more succinct than those found at Richard Dawkins’ forums, which are several screens long going into other topics). Unfortunately these are not properly enforced at Sam Harris’ site, but at least they’re there should recourse be required.

Without quality control, debates will gravitate downwards. Forum posters who evidently have very little life outside the forum – extremely prolific “contributors” who have chosen names such as “Half_Cut”, “Fallible” and “Im_With_Stupid” for themselves – can barge out more occasional posters who do have lives, by insisting on very low standards in their clique. Other posters, rude, coarse individuals, the “voluntarily unemployed” are also free to unload streams of f-words for no good reason except that they feel it makes them look clever – and they will find themselves in majority company.

I have been told by a forum administrator that Richard Dawkins himself has no problem with the kind of excessive foul language (not to mention the low intellectual standard of debate and the apathy and nihilism) exhibited in the thread above, but I cannot help finding this very sad, and feeling this reflects very badly on him. I would certainly not allow this extremely low level of content on my site, and I doubt that he would have allowed such people in his lecture theatres. But on his personal website, setting the standard of debate, that’s fine. Surprising, to say the very least.