Do you realize how many people out there are way smarter than me? Stupid idiots, being smarter than me. How am I supposed to look smart when all these stupid smart people are being so stupidly smart and making me look like an idiot! What a bunch of idiots! Here's the deal. I am not a huge, big, fancy educated guy with a PhD label or some other kind of little thingy after my name. But, damn it, I want people to just shut up and accept that I am smart and right even though I am not compared to smart people who are more right while I am wrong and are able to show how wrong I am with their smartness. It's not fair I tell you. And why are so many smart people online anyway? How did all these smart people start using the internet to communicate with people who think they are smart but aren't smart at all, like me. Go away smart people so us fake smart people can get back to thinking we are smart, you stupid idiots. You think you are so smart, eh? Okay, you are so smart. But, shut up and stop being a stupid idiot about being so smart.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Troubling Reality of Mo Ansar (with update)
I have been rather drawn into the world of twitter as of late, focused on one individual from the UK who I feel is an interesting subject to focus on. His name is Mo Ansar, a self proclaimed twitter celebrity. You can follow the big guy on twitter here. He is a "commentator" on Muslim issues, which is something that can't be argued. However, he lists off a whole variety of other titles on his website and twitter bio, the vast majority of which are unsubstantiated. Evidence for most of his claims, including visiting lecturer, Imam, and theologian just doesn't seem to exist in the slightest. No evidence. None. Zero. Nada. Complete goose egg.
This bio from his website SOUNDS incredibly impressive. "A theologian, public speaker and visiting lecturer on Islam in contemporary Britain, Theology and Islamophobia; Mohammed is a civil rights activist and legal advocate working with a number of organisations in the fields of politics, diversity and education. With a wealth of experience tackling extremism and radicalisation, Mohammed has lead and delivered cutting-edge local and national initiatives." So, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Civil rights activist? Fine, we'll give him that. Anyone can be a civil rights activist. Legal advocate? Questionable. Theologian? Zero proof of this. Basically, he's good at writing an impressive sounding paragraph. But, as you will see with links to articles below, there is plenty of gaps in some of the claims he makes.
So, why am I so fascinated by this guy? Because he is such an outrageous personality who HAS come up with all of these grand claims of who he is. He has developed this bizarre persona as a grand expert on all issues related to Islam. He wears this utterly pointless outfit all the time to show just how darn Muslim he is, dammit, and it just doesn't make sense. This long thobe, scarf and little hat look like a combined mess of cultural images tossed together to create some kind of official costume. It's mostly Arab in characteristics, which is odd for a Pakistani man who was born in Britain. It's rather farcical, to be quite honest. It smacks of trying too hard. But, it has been very successful and beneficial for him. I think part of the reason that TV stations love to call on Mo at an almost scary level is the fact that he comes out as a prepackaged Muslim complete with costume, who can speak well with no accent, and who can be called at a seconds notice and he will rush down to the TV station and give them exactly what they want. He is an interesting case study that anyone interested in psychology would be fascinated to look at. The type of person he is brings to mind are the ones focused on in John Ronson's brilliantly humorous and interesting "The Psychopath Test". I'm not saying Mo is a psychopath. Not at all. But, just like Ronson meets with these bizarre and interesting characters, I see Mo as a character that is bizarre and interesting that I wish to focus on. What is the point in focusing on a "normal", well adjusted person when you can track down a bizarre and interesting person. Right? Am I right?
I am right, and a number of others seem to be keen on studying him as well. For all intent and purposes, he appears to be nothing but an arrogant fraud as outlined well in this article at a blog called Harry's Place. Mo and his followers have written it off as just some right wing, "neo con" BS smear tactic, but it does raise some important questions that Mo himself doesn't seem willing to come clean about. Another great article questioning his credentials is this one by Adrian Hilton. Someone else, I'm not sure who, has done an excellent job of compiling information about our friend Mo here at Anarchopedia. Basically, we have people across the spectrum, from the left to the right questioning Mo Ansar. Sadly, Mo doesn't seem to want to give many answers, hence his nickname "No Answer". The only people who don't seem to be asking questions about his claims are the media outlets that keep calling on him to be on their shows. Why are they dropping the ball on this? Why are they continually giving a platform to a person, and putting up CG's under his name telling the public about grand titles (like theologian), who has little proof of what he claims to be. What does this say about these news organizations? Can anyone just walk in off the street, claim to be an expert in something and be tossed on air with a list of claims under their name they have no proof of having? It appears this is the way the media is working when it comes to our dearest Mo. How is this helping anyone? It seems like a giant insult to all viewers who depend on the media for truth.
A good insight into the brain of Mo Ansar can be found here in the report and results on a court case he was involved in where he took a former employer, Lloyd's Bank, to court over what he deemed to be discrimination based on race. He lost. Section 14 of the summary is uncannily accurate in it's assessment of the man and is worth reading. The court notices what so many of his critics have also noticed, including his manipulative ways, his lying and his arrogance.
Based on all of this information presented above, it appears that we have a fraud on our hands. "So what?", you may ask. Fair enough, if that doesn't bug you, then that's up to you. But a man who is regularly paraded on the TV as some kind of an expert on Islam and Muslim issues who has got there, not by merit or by proven knowledge or understanding of almost any subject, but by what appears to be lying deserves to be scrutinized. When you turn on your TV and there is Mo giving his views on everything from segregated seating at University lectures (which he is for) and the banning of Halal meat in the Netherlands (which he is against), you would hope that these views were coming from a position of understanding and knowledge. They aren't. They are coming from just another dude on the street who has an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. They are like assholes. Everyone has one. So, why exactly is his opinion worth more than the average layman? It isn't quite frankly. It isn't in the slightest. And, generally speaking, he doesn't just address the issues, he tends to do it in the most dramatic way possible, using over the top, inflammatory rhetoric that easily riles people up. So, that makes it extra concerning. His twitter time line (his main way of interacting with the public) is filled with overly dramatic tweets like this recent one that I randomly selected: "The US funded it, the UK supported it. Innocent people, children, massacred in #Egypt for our coup d'etat. The sheer inhumanity of it all." Wow, not only does this show an extreme lack of understanding of the very complex situation in Egypt and the rock and hard place reality of diplomacy between the West and a country that has had a few massive, bipolar swings in leadership changes in a short amount of time, but it further highlights his ever present contempt of "The West", in particular the US and his own country, Britain. He fails to have paid any attention to the fact that many Egyptians called for the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, and bristled at the very notion it was a military coup, saying that it was the continuation of the revolution that led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarek. A good number of Egyptians even showed up in front of CNN headquarters in New York City to protest the fact that CNN dared use the term "coup" to describe the events of the military overthrowing Morsi. That isn't to say most Egyptians are happy with the results, including the recent death sentences of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters. So, he rejects all this and presents his view, as you can see, in the most dramatic, over the top fashion he could muster in less than 140 characters. And this is but one of thousands upon thousands of examples that he is pumping out to 22,000 followers.To me, this is scary.
What is particularly bothersome about Mo is that he is an utter hypocrite who thinks that people cannot see what he is up to. I think he really looks at people as being stupid. I really believe this. I think he sees us all as too stupid to see through him. Well, maybe some are, but it is clear that many aren't and they are becoming more vocal about it, both on twitter and through blog posts and articles. Here is a man who screams Islamophobia on a daily basis who talks about love, peace, unity and tolerance. Then, he pulls crap like being part of a very public lynch mob against Maajid Nawaz over a tweet by Nawaz featuring Jesus and Mo, (one of my all time favourite web comics). You can read all about the infamous incident here. You can also read about it here. And here. Basically, you can find no shortage of information on this very public spat. But, here is what it boils down to. Mo HATES Maajid Nawaz. All of Mo's great talk about love, peace and unity seems to come completely derailed as soon as the subject of Maajid Nawaz comes up. There is no peace and love from Mo when it comes to Maajid and it renders his grand talks about it impotent. It is clear that he holds a grudge against Maajid. The reasons are many. After Mo Ansar did a documentary where he and EDL leader Tommy Robinson hung out and were little buddies, Mo thought he was the one who drew Tommy away from the EDL. So, when Tommy joined Maajid's controversial Quillium foundation (an anti-extremism think tank) Mo felt pretty slighted, as has been publicly evident. And Mo has held a deep grudge over this (and other things) and constantly runs down Maajid. The fact that Mo was one of those that led the drive to have Maajid removed as a Liberal Democrat candidate (supposedly) over the Jesus and Mo tweet shows just how far Mo is willing to go down a deep, dark path. What is particularly odd is that Mo himself said he wasn't offended by the tweet, yet, he wants to publicly lynch Maajid? I just don't get it. But, that's the mystery of Mo. But beyond Nawaz, he has had very public spats with LBC radio personality Iain Dale, who Mo reported to the police over what was an honest, open tweet asking Mo his views on homosexuality in the wake of Mo supporting an imam at a mosque that refused a BBC show on Free Speech because it discussed homosexuality...basically, homophobia. Why Mo wouldn't answer Iain is beyond me. But, somehow it ended with Mo reporting Iain to the police in a ridiculous fashion. Peace, love and unity? Out the window. Furthermore, his seeming hate of historian Tom Holland, who is, without a doubt, a brilliant and passionate historian, is very public. Again...where is the peace, love and unity? Mo constantly takes shots at Tom, and his most recent disgusting attack came in the form of suggesting that Tom Holland should be put on a poster of people who cause a "clash of cultures" which included famed mass murdering ultra nationalist Anders Breviek. What? Wha? Huh?? Wow. That shows a level of contempt and hate that is head scratchingly bold. And, it is the exact kind of thing that if done to Mo would result in Mo possibly calling the police in. Hypocrisy? Yes. Peace, love and unity? Not in the slightest.
Mo's central focus is his religion. He loves his religion, Islam. Can't fault him on that. He has his religion and it gives him something. Good. Great. Wonderful. Is he an expert in his religion? Hell no. Even though he claims to be a theologian and Imam, (again, no evidence of it), people are often scratching their heads as to what version of Islam he is even following, and what understanding of Islam he actually has. He has gone on the record as saying some bizarre things, like Muslims were the first to discover the "New World" and mingled very peacefully with the native population. What? Seriously? Yes, seriously he seems to believe this. He has gone on the record as saying there is no homophobia in Islam. What? Seriously? Well, depends on your interpretation of Islam, but the way it is too often practised we see no shortage of institutionalized homophobia. Basically, he wants to put Islam in the brightest light possible. He will go to seeming no lengths to point out how great Islam is....while at the same time spending no shortage of time completely running down the UK, and especially the US. His contempt of the US is strong. But, it is his contempt of Britian which raises some hackles. Recently, Al Shabab, the infamous Islam terrorist group, issued credible death threats towards Mo. Britain, his home, offered him police protection. So, Islamic extremists, who he rarely talks about and often downplays, threaten his life and the country he regularly condemns offers him....police protection? Wow. Someone has something backwards.
He recently was in a video put together using Parrell William's song "Happy" featuring British Muslims being, you know, happy. They dance, they sang, they had fun. Mo was in the video for a very short time, yet seems to think the thing revolves around him. He has been lambasted by conservative Muslims who point out in the Quran where it specifically says no dancing or singing. Mo, who says that the Quran is perfect, 100 percent the word of god, not changed, ever, not even a single period or comma seems to have missed this part of it. I do however back him on this one, with the idea that the Quran is open to interpretation and Mo's interpretation allows for dancing in a video...especially if it gives him a few precious seconds on screen. I wonder, however, what he would say if Maajid Nawaz was in the video and faced criticism for it?
So, in almost every context, we are dealing with someone who appears to be a fraud. He can't seem to tell a straight story on who he is, his qualifications or back up the vast majority of his outlandish claims. We have a man who cries Islamophobia, who contacts the police over ridiculous reasons, who stoops low when it comes to attacking his critics and who then turns around and talks about tolerance and love. Basically, we have someone that I cannot figure out how anyone can trust, and who should not be paraded around by the media as some grand expert on Islam and Muslim issues. But, the media insist on calling on him. Again, it's because he is the perfect little package. He has the costume, he is articulate, has a perfect British accent, and can be called on at anytime of the day and night to show up for an interview. He LOVES attention. He thrives on it. This is why I believe that he seems to have created this persona. He wants to be a big shot. He wants to be validated. He wants to by someone. What he doesn't want is to have to actually work to be that someone. This is what I have observed in him. That's what many have observed about him.
It bothers me personally that a man like this gets away with it. No one likes a con. No one likes a fraud. No one likes to be manipulated. I feel that he manipulates. He manipulates the media. He manipulates the public.He manipulates the Quran. He manipulates his religion. His lack of true knowledge and understanding pose a problem on a number of fronts. It means that we really aren't getting the truth. We are getting opinions from a guy who doesn't seem to really have much knowledge of most of the subjects he approaches, which does no one any favours. We have a man that constantly tries to silence criticism of his religion (and himself) by smearing everyone who does as being part of the English Defence League, and being a neo-con Islamaphobe. How is this helping anyone, exactly? What kind of peace, love and unity allows for the silencing of critics of Islam (and himself) by calling everyone who does an Islamophobe? Not helpful. Not useful. It's divisive. It's childish. There is no doubt that Mo has attracted the ire of many nationalists, racists and right wingers, and some of them say some scary things to Mo that are steeped in utter and complete ignorance. But, Mo isn't exactly showing a lack of ignorance himself. With Mo we have a man that is using his religion as a way to fame. He wants to be someone. His Mo Ansar character, which is essentially what he is, is offering him this fame. And people are buying into it. On the surface, he comes across quite charming, nice, kind and intelligent. Scratch the surface and we see a lottery ticket that doesn't pay out. And it is doing no one any good to keep holding on to it.
UPDATE: Iain Dale, who I referred to above, has been cleared by the police saying there was no reason for them to pursue the issue. Tell Mama said the same thing. In response, Iain Dale wrote an excellent blog post talking about this experience. You can read it here. It is an intelligent, interesting and insightful bit of writing that gives a good analysis of how Mo operates.
It is worth challenging Mo, much to Mo's chagrin. Mo wants to be in a position of power, a leader, an authority. Part of his persona revolves around the idea of challenging authority as a "civil rights activist" and "community leader". This also puts him into a position where he needs to be challenged as well. He seems wholly against the idea of being challenged, and resorts to attacks and accusations towards those asking questions, claiming they are merely right wing, neo con Islamophobes. If he wants to be in a position of power and authority, he must understand that people have every right to challenge him and ask questions, and given his dubious record, his shady claims of experience and his over the top rhetoric it is doubly important to challenge him. Iain has done just this. His blog is worth a read.
This bio from his website SOUNDS incredibly impressive. "A theologian, public speaker and visiting lecturer on Islam in contemporary Britain, Theology and Islamophobia; Mohammed is a civil rights activist and legal advocate working with a number of organisations in the fields of politics, diversity and education. With a wealth of experience tackling extremism and radicalisation, Mohammed has lead and delivered cutting-edge local and national initiatives." So, where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Civil rights activist? Fine, we'll give him that. Anyone can be a civil rights activist. Legal advocate? Questionable. Theologian? Zero proof of this. Basically, he's good at writing an impressive sounding paragraph. But, as you will see with links to articles below, there is plenty of gaps in some of the claims he makes.
So, why am I so fascinated by this guy? Because he is such an outrageous personality who HAS come up with all of these grand claims of who he is. He has developed this bizarre persona as a grand expert on all issues related to Islam. He wears this utterly pointless outfit all the time to show just how darn Muslim he is, dammit, and it just doesn't make sense. This long thobe, scarf and little hat look like a combined mess of cultural images tossed together to create some kind of official costume. It's mostly Arab in characteristics, which is odd for a Pakistani man who was born in Britain. It's rather farcical, to be quite honest. It smacks of trying too hard. But, it has been very successful and beneficial for him. I think part of the reason that TV stations love to call on Mo at an almost scary level is the fact that he comes out as a prepackaged Muslim complete with costume, who can speak well with no accent, and who can be called at a seconds notice and he will rush down to the TV station and give them exactly what they want. He is an interesting case study that anyone interested in psychology would be fascinated to look at. The type of person he is brings to mind are the ones focused on in John Ronson's brilliantly humorous and interesting "The Psychopath Test". I'm not saying Mo is a psychopath. Not at all. But, just like Ronson meets with these bizarre and interesting characters, I see Mo as a character that is bizarre and interesting that I wish to focus on. What is the point in focusing on a "normal", well adjusted person when you can track down a bizarre and interesting person. Right? Am I right?
I am right, and a number of others seem to be keen on studying him as well. For all intent and purposes, he appears to be nothing but an arrogant fraud as outlined well in this article at a blog called Harry's Place. Mo and his followers have written it off as just some right wing, "neo con" BS smear tactic, but it does raise some important questions that Mo himself doesn't seem willing to come clean about. Another great article questioning his credentials is this one by Adrian Hilton. Someone else, I'm not sure who, has done an excellent job of compiling information about our friend Mo here at Anarchopedia. Basically, we have people across the spectrum, from the left to the right questioning Mo Ansar. Sadly, Mo doesn't seem to want to give many answers, hence his nickname "No Answer". The only people who don't seem to be asking questions about his claims are the media outlets that keep calling on him to be on their shows. Why are they dropping the ball on this? Why are they continually giving a platform to a person, and putting up CG's under his name telling the public about grand titles (like theologian), who has little proof of what he claims to be. What does this say about these news organizations? Can anyone just walk in off the street, claim to be an expert in something and be tossed on air with a list of claims under their name they have no proof of having? It appears this is the way the media is working when it comes to our dearest Mo. How is this helping anyone? It seems like a giant insult to all viewers who depend on the media for truth.
A good insight into the brain of Mo Ansar can be found here in the report and results on a court case he was involved in where he took a former employer, Lloyd's Bank, to court over what he deemed to be discrimination based on race. He lost. Section 14 of the summary is uncannily accurate in it's assessment of the man and is worth reading. The court notices what so many of his critics have also noticed, including his manipulative ways, his lying and his arrogance.
Based on all of this information presented above, it appears that we have a fraud on our hands. "So what?", you may ask. Fair enough, if that doesn't bug you, then that's up to you. But a man who is regularly paraded on the TV as some kind of an expert on Islam and Muslim issues who has got there, not by merit or by proven knowledge or understanding of almost any subject, but by what appears to be lying deserves to be scrutinized. When you turn on your TV and there is Mo giving his views on everything from segregated seating at University lectures (which he is for) and the banning of Halal meat in the Netherlands (which he is against), you would hope that these views were coming from a position of understanding and knowledge. They aren't. They are coming from just another dude on the street who has an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. They are like assholes. Everyone has one. So, why exactly is his opinion worth more than the average layman? It isn't quite frankly. It isn't in the slightest. And, generally speaking, he doesn't just address the issues, he tends to do it in the most dramatic way possible, using over the top, inflammatory rhetoric that easily riles people up. So, that makes it extra concerning. His twitter time line (his main way of interacting with the public) is filled with overly dramatic tweets like this recent one that I randomly selected: "The US funded it, the UK supported it. Innocent people, children, massacred in #Egypt for our coup d'etat. The sheer inhumanity of it all." Wow, not only does this show an extreme lack of understanding of the very complex situation in Egypt and the rock and hard place reality of diplomacy between the West and a country that has had a few massive, bipolar swings in leadership changes in a short amount of time, but it further highlights his ever present contempt of "The West", in particular the US and his own country, Britain. He fails to have paid any attention to the fact that many Egyptians called for the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, and bristled at the very notion it was a military coup, saying that it was the continuation of the revolution that led to the downfall of Hosni Mubarek. A good number of Egyptians even showed up in front of CNN headquarters in New York City to protest the fact that CNN dared use the term "coup" to describe the events of the military overthrowing Morsi. That isn't to say most Egyptians are happy with the results, including the recent death sentences of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters. So, he rejects all this and presents his view, as you can see, in the most dramatic, over the top fashion he could muster in less than 140 characters. And this is but one of thousands upon thousands of examples that he is pumping out to 22,000 followers.To me, this is scary.
What is particularly bothersome about Mo is that he is an utter hypocrite who thinks that people cannot see what he is up to. I think he really looks at people as being stupid. I really believe this. I think he sees us all as too stupid to see through him. Well, maybe some are, but it is clear that many aren't and they are becoming more vocal about it, both on twitter and through blog posts and articles. Here is a man who screams Islamophobia on a daily basis who talks about love, peace, unity and tolerance. Then, he pulls crap like being part of a very public lynch mob against Maajid Nawaz over a tweet by Nawaz featuring Jesus and Mo, (one of my all time favourite web comics). You can read all about the infamous incident here. You can also read about it here. And here. Basically, you can find no shortage of information on this very public spat. But, here is what it boils down to. Mo HATES Maajid Nawaz. All of Mo's great talk about love, peace and unity seems to come completely derailed as soon as the subject of Maajid Nawaz comes up. There is no peace and love from Mo when it comes to Maajid and it renders his grand talks about it impotent. It is clear that he holds a grudge against Maajid. The reasons are many. After Mo Ansar did a documentary where he and EDL leader Tommy Robinson hung out and were little buddies, Mo thought he was the one who drew Tommy away from the EDL. So, when Tommy joined Maajid's controversial Quillium foundation (an anti-extremism think tank) Mo felt pretty slighted, as has been publicly evident. And Mo has held a deep grudge over this (and other things) and constantly runs down Maajid. The fact that Mo was one of those that led the drive to have Maajid removed as a Liberal Democrat candidate (supposedly) over the Jesus and Mo tweet shows just how far Mo is willing to go down a deep, dark path. What is particularly odd is that Mo himself said he wasn't offended by the tweet, yet, he wants to publicly lynch Maajid? I just don't get it. But, that's the mystery of Mo. But beyond Nawaz, he has had very public spats with LBC radio personality Iain Dale, who Mo reported to the police over what was an honest, open tweet asking Mo his views on homosexuality in the wake of Mo supporting an imam at a mosque that refused a BBC show on Free Speech because it discussed homosexuality...basically, homophobia. Why Mo wouldn't answer Iain is beyond me. But, somehow it ended with Mo reporting Iain to the police in a ridiculous fashion. Peace, love and unity? Out the window. Furthermore, his seeming hate of historian Tom Holland, who is, without a doubt, a brilliant and passionate historian, is very public. Again...where is the peace, love and unity? Mo constantly takes shots at Tom, and his most recent disgusting attack came in the form of suggesting that Tom Holland should be put on a poster of people who cause a "clash of cultures" which included famed mass murdering ultra nationalist Anders Breviek. What? Wha? Huh?? Wow. That shows a level of contempt and hate that is head scratchingly bold. And, it is the exact kind of thing that if done to Mo would result in Mo possibly calling the police in. Hypocrisy? Yes. Peace, love and unity? Not in the slightest.
Mo's central focus is his religion. He loves his religion, Islam. Can't fault him on that. He has his religion and it gives him something. Good. Great. Wonderful. Is he an expert in his religion? Hell no. Even though he claims to be a theologian and Imam, (again, no evidence of it), people are often scratching their heads as to what version of Islam he is even following, and what understanding of Islam he actually has. He has gone on the record as saying some bizarre things, like Muslims were the first to discover the "New World" and mingled very peacefully with the native population. What? Seriously? Yes, seriously he seems to believe this. He has gone on the record as saying there is no homophobia in Islam. What? Seriously? Well, depends on your interpretation of Islam, but the way it is too often practised we see no shortage of institutionalized homophobia. Basically, he wants to put Islam in the brightest light possible. He will go to seeming no lengths to point out how great Islam is....while at the same time spending no shortage of time completely running down the UK, and especially the US. His contempt of the US is strong. But, it is his contempt of Britian which raises some hackles. Recently, Al Shabab, the infamous Islam terrorist group, issued credible death threats towards Mo. Britain, his home, offered him police protection. So, Islamic extremists, who he rarely talks about and often downplays, threaten his life and the country he regularly condemns offers him....police protection? Wow. Someone has something backwards.
He recently was in a video put together using Parrell William's song "Happy" featuring British Muslims being, you know, happy. They dance, they sang, they had fun. Mo was in the video for a very short time, yet seems to think the thing revolves around him. He has been lambasted by conservative Muslims who point out in the Quran where it specifically says no dancing or singing. Mo, who says that the Quran is perfect, 100 percent the word of god, not changed, ever, not even a single period or comma seems to have missed this part of it. I do however back him on this one, with the idea that the Quran is open to interpretation and Mo's interpretation allows for dancing in a video...especially if it gives him a few precious seconds on screen. I wonder, however, what he would say if Maajid Nawaz was in the video and faced criticism for it?
So, in almost every context, we are dealing with someone who appears to be a fraud. He can't seem to tell a straight story on who he is, his qualifications or back up the vast majority of his outlandish claims. We have a man who cries Islamophobia, who contacts the police over ridiculous reasons, who stoops low when it comes to attacking his critics and who then turns around and talks about tolerance and love. Basically, we have someone that I cannot figure out how anyone can trust, and who should not be paraded around by the media as some grand expert on Islam and Muslim issues. But, the media insist on calling on him. Again, it's because he is the perfect little package. He has the costume, he is articulate, has a perfect British accent, and can be called on at anytime of the day and night to show up for an interview. He LOVES attention. He thrives on it. This is why I believe that he seems to have created this persona. He wants to be a big shot. He wants to be validated. He wants to by someone. What he doesn't want is to have to actually work to be that someone. This is what I have observed in him. That's what many have observed about him.
It bothers me personally that a man like this gets away with it. No one likes a con. No one likes a fraud. No one likes to be manipulated. I feel that he manipulates. He manipulates the media. He manipulates the public.He manipulates the Quran. He manipulates his religion. His lack of true knowledge and understanding pose a problem on a number of fronts. It means that we really aren't getting the truth. We are getting opinions from a guy who doesn't seem to really have much knowledge of most of the subjects he approaches, which does no one any favours. We have a man that constantly tries to silence criticism of his religion (and himself) by smearing everyone who does as being part of the English Defence League, and being a neo-con Islamaphobe. How is this helping anyone, exactly? What kind of peace, love and unity allows for the silencing of critics of Islam (and himself) by calling everyone who does an Islamophobe? Not helpful. Not useful. It's divisive. It's childish. There is no doubt that Mo has attracted the ire of many nationalists, racists and right wingers, and some of them say some scary things to Mo that are steeped in utter and complete ignorance. But, Mo isn't exactly showing a lack of ignorance himself. With Mo we have a man that is using his religion as a way to fame. He wants to be someone. His Mo Ansar character, which is essentially what he is, is offering him this fame. And people are buying into it. On the surface, he comes across quite charming, nice, kind and intelligent. Scratch the surface and we see a lottery ticket that doesn't pay out. And it is doing no one any good to keep holding on to it.
UPDATE: Iain Dale, who I referred to above, has been cleared by the police saying there was no reason for them to pursue the issue. Tell Mama said the same thing. In response, Iain Dale wrote an excellent blog post talking about this experience. You can read it here. It is an intelligent, interesting and insightful bit of writing that gives a good analysis of how Mo operates.
It is worth challenging Mo, much to Mo's chagrin. Mo wants to be in a position of power, a leader, an authority. Part of his persona revolves around the idea of challenging authority as a "civil rights activist" and "community leader". This also puts him into a position where he needs to be challenged as well. He seems wholly against the idea of being challenged, and resorts to attacks and accusations towards those asking questions, claiming they are merely right wing, neo con Islamophobes. If he wants to be in a position of power and authority, he must understand that people have every right to challenge him and ask questions, and given his dubious record, his shady claims of experience and his over the top rhetoric it is doubly important to challenge him. Iain has done just this. His blog is worth a read.
Reflections on Comedy (part 1)
Comedy. Oh you are an odd beast, you are. Yes, I do comedy. Am I a comedian? I don't know. At what point can you declare yourself a comedian? I get up on stage every week and I do my little jokes and sometimes people laugh and sometimes people don't. Sometimes I actually remember my jokes. Half the time I don't. There are times when I feel like the audience loves me, and times when the audience wants me dead....if there even is an audience.
It all seems so objective. I've seen some hilarious people get mixed reactions, and some terrible comics get a great reaction. Why? It's all down to the right people being in the right place at the right time in the right frame of mind. All factors have to come together perfectly for a really good night. How often does that happen? Maybe if you are Russell Brand or Louis CK or something it's every night. When it's a guy like me getting stage time here and there at open mics, with the odd contest thrown in and whatever else I can do, it's rare that all those factors come together. But, when they do....it's magical.
It all seems so objective. I've seen some hilarious people get mixed reactions, and some terrible comics get a great reaction. Why? It's all down to the right people being in the right place at the right time in the right frame of mind. All factors have to come together perfectly for a really good night. How often does that happen? Maybe if you are Russell Brand or Louis CK or something it's every night. When it's a guy like me getting stage time here and there at open mics, with the odd contest thrown in and whatever else I can do, it's rare that all those factors come together. But, when they do....it's magical.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Suey Park, Racism, Whiteness, and Colbert
Oh geez. Great. Another twitter trend that leaves me wondering what the hell to actually think when it comes to being someone on the left, and a white male. Yes, this topic is terribly uncomfortable for me as a white male. I cannot lie. I do get defensive. I do feel hurt at times. I do feel like a punching bag. And, once again, this is the case. Yes, I am writing this from my own personal perspective and how it relates to me, my "race", my identity, my feelings, and so on and so forth. Let's make that perfectly clear. Yes, I am a human with feelings.
So, if you don't know the story by now, a new twitter campaign started by someone named Suey Park has emerged (and is subsiding) under the hashtag #CancelCobert. A good rundown of the controversy can be found in this New Yorker article. I'll give you a few minutes to read those before I continue. Done? Okay, good.
Okay, here is the deal. You can't tell someone who believes that something is racist towards them isn't racist. If they feel like it is racist towards them and they feel hurt or bothered by it, who am I or anyone else to tell them that they are wrong. But she is wrong. But it's bad to say that. And maybe she isn't wrong. I have no clue. From my perspective, my opinion, the joke was actually quite good and was also fighting the type of racism that Ms. Park is saying the joke is actually perpetuating. So, it sets off a nuclear explosion in my head. What the hell am I supposed to make of all this?? I'm on the left. How do I process this one. How do I reconcile of the fact that I don't think it's racist and want to call the whole campaign stupid with the fact that I also think racism is stupid. It's all just stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
One of the main arguements is that progressive white people are racist for not seeing the Colbert joke as a racist attack on an oppressed minority, of which Park sees herself. And because I don't see the joke as racist it turns out that I am racist...I think? I don't know. I'm guilty of something, that's for sure. I'm just not one hundred percent sure what I am guilty of. Therefore, I must resign from the whole conversation. But, I want to say a few things before I do. You know this whole fact that I am a white male? Screw it. I'm not. I'm tired of being accused of being a white male, and thusly part of a fascist system that oppresses everyone else. That's why I am not white...I am pink. And I am not male...I am human. So, just leave me out of it. Don't implicate me personally in any of this bullshit. I'm not part of any system. I'm just living my life, okay.
I'm not going to go into some grand thing about reverse racism, because that's stupid. But, I also hate the whole "Check your privilege!" garbage and the demonizing that too often goes with being a white male or whatever I am that I didn't choose to be and have no power over and must take all criticism of white maleness over or I'm not a good left winger that I think I am good at being. In other words, the whole thing is a mess and I have no clue where I fit in here, especially because I feel as rejected from most groups as it is and always have. I look at someone like Park who has more education, power and influence (and probably money and stature, or whatever) than I will ever have and can't help but feel horrible for oppressing her so badly with my whiteness. No, I don't know what it is like to be Asian. Has it been rough for her? Probably. I don't know. I haven't lived her life, just as no one else has lived mine. So, just as generalizations and jokes about her ethnicity can be seen as offensive, I think looking at me as a white male and making generalizations about that is offensive, and no one can tell me how to feel about it. I feel what I feel. And, yes, when it comes to the topic of me being part of a system and race that is the big oppressor, I have to stand up and say it does bother me because that means I am not being looked at for me...but as part of a group that I don't feel any strong association with! But, saying that turns me into someone someone else will say is saying, "Oh, I'm a poor oppressed white guy!" and will be told to check my privilege and shut up or whatever. Well...whatever, indeed. I know I'm not oppressed, although I have faced plenty of realities that have not made life overly easy. I hate the term privilege so much it makes me want to spit so I will just say I absolutely know that I have it better than so many people on this planet for a whole variety of reasons, not just my skin colour OR penis. I know these things. Privilege checked. Done. Complete. I understand this, okay. So, don't start on with that crap. Okay? Point clear? Good.
So, what am I trying to say here. Good question. Basically, I'm trying to say that issues around race, sex, heirarchy, oppression and all that jazz are more complex than sometimes it is made out to be by very academic approaches to these issues that too often want to categorize all this stuff into neat little groups and how certain people are supposed to feel, act and approach the issue, and that just doesn't sit well with me (but run on sentences do.). And I think that this whole #CancelCobert tag shows this once again even though some, including, I believe, Ms Park, want it to be a very cut and dry issue based on race and gender theory or whatever it is that this is all based in . And I refuse to be stuck in any of these categories and want to be able to make my own decisions about who I am and what I am going to think and hope, just hope, to avoid being labelled as something I don't want to be just as anyone else. Is that too much to ask? Probably, yes.
So, if you don't know the story by now, a new twitter campaign started by someone named Suey Park has emerged (and is subsiding) under the hashtag #CancelCobert. A good rundown of the controversy can be found in this New Yorker article. I'll give you a few minutes to read those before I continue. Done? Okay, good.
Okay, here is the deal. You can't tell someone who believes that something is racist towards them isn't racist. If they feel like it is racist towards them and they feel hurt or bothered by it, who am I or anyone else to tell them that they are wrong. But she is wrong. But it's bad to say that. And maybe she isn't wrong. I have no clue. From my perspective, my opinion, the joke was actually quite good and was also fighting the type of racism that Ms. Park is saying the joke is actually perpetuating. So, it sets off a nuclear explosion in my head. What the hell am I supposed to make of all this?? I'm on the left. How do I process this one. How do I reconcile of the fact that I don't think it's racist and want to call the whole campaign stupid with the fact that I also think racism is stupid. It's all just stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
One of the main arguements is that progressive white people are racist for not seeing the Colbert joke as a racist attack on an oppressed minority, of which Park sees herself. And because I don't see the joke as racist it turns out that I am racist...I think? I don't know. I'm guilty of something, that's for sure. I'm just not one hundred percent sure what I am guilty of. Therefore, I must resign from the whole conversation. But, I want to say a few things before I do. You know this whole fact that I am a white male? Screw it. I'm not. I'm tired of being accused of being a white male, and thusly part of a fascist system that oppresses everyone else. That's why I am not white...I am pink. And I am not male...I am human. So, just leave me out of it. Don't implicate me personally in any of this bullshit. I'm not part of any system. I'm just living my life, okay.
I'm not going to go into some grand thing about reverse racism, because that's stupid. But, I also hate the whole "Check your privilege!" garbage and the demonizing that too often goes with being a white male or whatever I am that I didn't choose to be and have no power over and must take all criticism of white maleness over or I'm not a good left winger that I think I am good at being. In other words, the whole thing is a mess and I have no clue where I fit in here, especially because I feel as rejected from most groups as it is and always have. I look at someone like Park who has more education, power and influence (and probably money and stature, or whatever) than I will ever have and can't help but feel horrible for oppressing her so badly with my whiteness. No, I don't know what it is like to be Asian. Has it been rough for her? Probably. I don't know. I haven't lived her life, just as no one else has lived mine. So, just as generalizations and jokes about her ethnicity can be seen as offensive, I think looking at me as a white male and making generalizations about that is offensive, and no one can tell me how to feel about it. I feel what I feel. And, yes, when it comes to the topic of me being part of a system and race that is the big oppressor, I have to stand up and say it does bother me because that means I am not being looked at for me...but as part of a group that I don't feel any strong association with! But, saying that turns me into someone someone else will say is saying, "Oh, I'm a poor oppressed white guy!" and will be told to check my privilege and shut up or whatever. Well...whatever, indeed. I know I'm not oppressed, although I have faced plenty of realities that have not made life overly easy. I hate the term privilege so much it makes me want to spit so I will just say I absolutely know that I have it better than so many people on this planet for a whole variety of reasons, not just my skin colour OR penis. I know these things. Privilege checked. Done. Complete. I understand this, okay. So, don't start on with that crap. Okay? Point clear? Good.
So, what am I trying to say here. Good question. Basically, I'm trying to say that issues around race, sex, heirarchy, oppression and all that jazz are more complex than sometimes it is made out to be by very academic approaches to these issues that too often want to categorize all this stuff into neat little groups and how certain people are supposed to feel, act and approach the issue, and that just doesn't sit well with me (but run on sentences do.). And I think that this whole #CancelCobert tag shows this once again even though some, including, I believe, Ms Park, want it to be a very cut and dry issue based on race and gender theory or whatever it is that this is all based in . And I refuse to be stuck in any of these categories and want to be able to make my own decisions about who I am and what I am going to think and hope, just hope, to avoid being labelled as something I don't want to be just as anyone else. Is that too much to ask? Probably, yes.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Kate Perry vs Islam
Oh dear GOD, spare us all from the ridiculousness of your followers. And when the ridiculousness of your followers collides with the ridiculousness of modern pop music, it just gets doubly ridiculous!
Case in point, the latest thing to piss off some Muslims, the fact that in Katy Perry's new, pathetically bad, ancient Egyptian themed music video for 'Dark Horse'. It shows a man being turned into sand. For some reason, this ancient Egyptian man is wearing a necklace that says 'Allah' in Arabic, even though Islam wasn't invented until centuries later. But, really, it doesn't matter. It's a music video. It's not meant to be a history lesson.
Here's what has some people pissed off. At 1:15 min into the video, the man (I believe it's "rapper" Juicy J?) wearing the necklace is turned into sand. The necklace, as well, is turned into sand. Now, you can't even notice the fact that he is wearing this particular necklace unless you actually pause the video and look for it at that point. Someone apparently did. And, now people are mad saying that Katy Perry has insulted Islam, interpreting the fact that the man turns into sand as him burning and thus the name of Allah being burned.
Now, there are a number of issues here, as far as I am concerned. First off, people are more upset that a necklace is turned into sand than a man turned into sand. Mind you, he isn't really turned into sand, nor is the necklace, it is merely fancy dancy special effects. So, not to worry, the necklace survives in the end. Hate to spoil that bit of music video wizardry for people. I know people know that, and see it as a symbolic 'insult' to Islam as opposed to believing the necklace was turned into sand, but, quite frankly, it's funny. It's funny how the 'symbolic' destruction of a human gets not concern, but the 'symbolic' destruction of a necklace does, merely because of it's shape.
Okay, fine, you know what, we know that some Muslims, and I stress SOME Muslims, get completely bent out of shape over anything perceived as an 'insult' to their religion, no matter how slight it may be. Most will walk away from this feeling possibly a bit mad. Some on social media, however, are demanding YouTube take down the video, ban it, say they hate that 'bitch' (interesting, seeing as swearing is haram in Islam), saying they will never listen to her again and people should boycott her. Now, fine, if you don't want to listen to her again, that's your choice. But, I think calling for an outright ban of a video for something that cannot even be seen without pausing it, or because the perception some have is that it is an 'insult' to Islam is going a bit too far. And, to me, it's all ridiculous.
I do get very tired of this demanding of respect for religion. I believe I have mentioned it before. Demanding respect for a homophobic, genocidal, ego-maniacal, sexist, arrogant, demanding god is a bit rich. Mind you, it's god. It doesn't exist. But, people believe it not only exists but MUST be respected. Well.....no. I don't agree with that. If something does not exist it isn't worthy of ANYTHING. It doesn't exist. Period. But, if we go for some notion that this god does exist, the idea that we should automatically, without question respect it is....well....ridiculous. Now, the demand is to respect the religion and not insult the god, prophet or followers. Welllllll, wait a minute. This is the same religion that says I am going to burn in a fiery hell for eternity for not believing in it. I'm supposed to respect this belief?? It's the same religion that condemns gays for being, you know, gay. I'm supposed to respect this belief?? No. Sorry. I can't do that. And no one should feel obligated to respect something they don't feel respectful of. Now, that doesn't mean I'm running out and burning Qurans on the corner. It just means that when something like this comes up, I want to scream out BULLSHIT, deal with it, when people get bent out of shape over an image that lasts a millisecond! And, the best place to do that, of course, is on social media, where we all scream out everything we want to scream out anyway.
So, here is the deal. If you are mad that Katy Perry's very bad video for a very bad song has a millisecond where Allah's name get's turned into dust because it is on a man who is turned to dust, who isn't actually turned to dust, nor the name, then, fine. It's your prerogative. But, really? Seriously? Honestly? Give me a break. Is it really worth being that upset about? I got it, your ultra sensitive about your religion because imams and scholars keep DRIVING into people's heads that these things are insulting. But, I keep seeing kids, not very old, saying how Katy Perry has disgraced Islam. Well, what? Is it really THAT big of deal in your early teens? Who is instructing you to see this millisecond of video as so highly offensive that it should be banned? It seems to me that the propaganda and dogma within ultra conservative interpretations of the religion is being blasted into the minds of young kids who just repeat what their imams, parents and scholars (a term I use loosely) as opposed to really feeling the deep insult that they report they feel. But, at the same time, who am I to say who should be insulted by what.
But, frankly, if we are talking about banning videos, oh dear GAWD this is no shortage of Islamic assholes attacking the West, atheists, Christians, Jews, Israel, gays and lesbians, and whatever else they can completely lay hate on, and yet it's this Katy Perry video that people want taken down? Give me a break, people. Spare me. It's too rich, to ridiculous, in my view. You don't have to like the video. I don't like the video or the song. But, it is what it is, and the millions of Katy Perry fans out there love it, so more power to them. And, if your god gets angry about a necklace shaped into it's name being turned to dust in a music video, then that is a scary god that I want nothing to do with! That is not a loving god. That is a vengeful, angry, spiteful, self loving, arrogant god that is spending too much time focused on a millisecond of video and not enough time on saving sick children. Please, keep that god away from me, because frankly, that god is an asshole.
Case in point, the latest thing to piss off some Muslims, the fact that in Katy Perry's new, pathetically bad, ancient Egyptian themed music video for 'Dark Horse'. It shows a man being turned into sand. For some reason, this ancient Egyptian man is wearing a necklace that says 'Allah' in Arabic, even though Islam wasn't invented until centuries later. But, really, it doesn't matter. It's a music video. It's not meant to be a history lesson.
Here's what has some people pissed off. At 1:15 min into the video, the man (I believe it's "rapper" Juicy J?) wearing the necklace is turned into sand. The necklace, as well, is turned into sand. Now, you can't even notice the fact that he is wearing this particular necklace unless you actually pause the video and look for it at that point. Someone apparently did. And, now people are mad saying that Katy Perry has insulted Islam, interpreting the fact that the man turns into sand as him burning and thus the name of Allah being burned.
Now, there are a number of issues here, as far as I am concerned. First off, people are more upset that a necklace is turned into sand than a man turned into sand. Mind you, he isn't really turned into sand, nor is the necklace, it is merely fancy dancy special effects. So, not to worry, the necklace survives in the end. Hate to spoil that bit of music video wizardry for people. I know people know that, and see it as a symbolic 'insult' to Islam as opposed to believing the necklace was turned into sand, but, quite frankly, it's funny. It's funny how the 'symbolic' destruction of a human gets not concern, but the 'symbolic' destruction of a necklace does, merely because of it's shape.
Okay, fine, you know what, we know that some Muslims, and I stress SOME Muslims, get completely bent out of shape over anything perceived as an 'insult' to their religion, no matter how slight it may be. Most will walk away from this feeling possibly a bit mad. Some on social media, however, are demanding YouTube take down the video, ban it, say they hate that 'bitch' (interesting, seeing as swearing is haram in Islam), saying they will never listen to her again and people should boycott her. Now, fine, if you don't want to listen to her again, that's your choice. But, I think calling for an outright ban of a video for something that cannot even be seen without pausing it, or because the perception some have is that it is an 'insult' to Islam is going a bit too far. And, to me, it's all ridiculous.
I do get very tired of this demanding of respect for religion. I believe I have mentioned it before. Demanding respect for a homophobic, genocidal, ego-maniacal, sexist, arrogant, demanding god is a bit rich. Mind you, it's god. It doesn't exist. But, people believe it not only exists but MUST be respected. Well.....no. I don't agree with that. If something does not exist it isn't worthy of ANYTHING. It doesn't exist. Period. But, if we go for some notion that this god does exist, the idea that we should automatically, without question respect it is....well....ridiculous. Now, the demand is to respect the religion and not insult the god, prophet or followers. Welllllll, wait a minute. This is the same religion that says I am going to burn in a fiery hell for eternity for not believing in it. I'm supposed to respect this belief?? It's the same religion that condemns gays for being, you know, gay. I'm supposed to respect this belief?? No. Sorry. I can't do that. And no one should feel obligated to respect something they don't feel respectful of. Now, that doesn't mean I'm running out and burning Qurans on the corner. It just means that when something like this comes up, I want to scream out BULLSHIT, deal with it, when people get bent out of shape over an image that lasts a millisecond! And, the best place to do that, of course, is on social media, where we all scream out everything we want to scream out anyway.
So, here is the deal. If you are mad that Katy Perry's very bad video for a very bad song has a millisecond where Allah's name get's turned into dust because it is on a man who is turned to dust, who isn't actually turned to dust, nor the name, then, fine. It's your prerogative. But, really? Seriously? Honestly? Give me a break. Is it really worth being that upset about? I got it, your ultra sensitive about your religion because imams and scholars keep DRIVING into people's heads that these things are insulting. But, I keep seeing kids, not very old, saying how Katy Perry has disgraced Islam. Well, what? Is it really THAT big of deal in your early teens? Who is instructing you to see this millisecond of video as so highly offensive that it should be banned? It seems to me that the propaganda and dogma within ultra conservative interpretations of the religion is being blasted into the minds of young kids who just repeat what their imams, parents and scholars (a term I use loosely) as opposed to really feeling the deep insult that they report they feel. But, at the same time, who am I to say who should be insulted by what.
But, frankly, if we are talking about banning videos, oh dear GAWD this is no shortage of Islamic assholes attacking the West, atheists, Christians, Jews, Israel, gays and lesbians, and whatever else they can completely lay hate on, and yet it's this Katy Perry video that people want taken down? Give me a break, people. Spare me. It's too rich, to ridiculous, in my view. You don't have to like the video. I don't like the video or the song. But, it is what it is, and the millions of Katy Perry fans out there love it, so more power to them. And, if your god gets angry about a necklace shaped into it's name being turned to dust in a music video, then that is a scary god that I want nothing to do with! That is not a loving god. That is a vengeful, angry, spiteful, self loving, arrogant god that is spending too much time focused on a millisecond of video and not enough time on saving sick children. Please, keep that god away from me, because frankly, that god is an asshole.
Friday, February 14, 2014
There is NO Atheist Movement.
Am I an atheist? Ya. It appears that I am. I cannot escape from the idea that I am. Face it, I am. It's not the easiest thing to admit in this religion obsessed world, when so many people you know and love are believers. But, face it, I'm an atheist.
Today, I read, for the first time, about the "atheist movement" and I shuddered. Atheist movement??? What is this! Atheism is NOT a movement. It's not as if it is a religion. There are no popes, priests, imams, or anything of that nature. There is no central spokesperson. It doesn't need a spokesperson of any sort. It is not a movement. It is what it is. It is a natural state of being before indoctrination. It is not an organized belief. The vast majority of atheists prefer the logic of science over the dogma of religion, however, that doesn't define atheism. Atheism is what it is. It is not having a religious belief or affiliation. Organized movement? No way.
There is no need to proselytize atheism. It is not something that needs to be proven to anyone. The proof for atheism lies in the complete absence of proof of any kind of god or gods. It speaks for itself. No atheist speaks for any other atheist. Some people would like to put Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or other famed atheists on top of the heap, as some kinds of leaders. They aren't. They are not leaders. They are atheists. They have their views which are open to like, dislike, challenges, praise or what have you. They don't speak for me. They don't speak for anyone but themselves. They are who they are. We all are who we are. That's it. No leaders. No followers. No churches. No dogma.
So, when I hear someone say "atheist movement", I sort of feel like they are missing the boat and not understanding what atheism is. Mind you, this is my opinion and my opinion only. Like I said, I do not speak for other atheists. I challenge strongly this notion of a movement. I don't see atheism as being a movement nor needing a movement. It does not need leaders or spokespeople. It is not that kind of -ism. It is not a religion. It is not a system of governance or finance. It is not a cohesive belief system. It is not even a belief system, period. So, how can their be a movement?
Some are arguing that because of years of persecution, there is a need to band together to fight religion. Not really. No. I mean, you can stand up against religious superiority and persecution without a cohesive movement. We know persecution is wrong, right? Therefore, we fight persecution because we are humans who know that it is wrong. One does not need to be an atheist to fight against persecution.
Is disagreeing persecution? No. Can people hate, criticize, mock, dislike or laugh at atheism? Of course. Who cares. Go for it. It doesn't change facts that exist that make atheism a logical conclusion. It is not something that has to be fought for. There is no jealous god or hyper sensitive prophet needing defending. Dawkins and Hitch don't need defending. They are grown men who can stand on their own two feet (well, unfortunately, Hitch can't anymore...RIP). They don't need defending. They defend themselves quite nicely, and good on them. They take tons of criticism and they deal with it (must stop using present tense for Hitch) in their own way. So, no, atheism is not some movement. It isn't meant to be on the same plane as religion. There should be no grand fight for followers like the other religions have. We don't have to claim that we are the "fastest growing religion in the world!" because it doesn't matter. You either accept it or don't. There is no number count. You are either with logic, or with a religious belief system. Your choice. Up to you.
To sum up, as if I haven't already....atheism is not and should not be seen as a movement. Again, my opinion. My view. I speak for no other atheists. That's the point. Atheists are atheists. They think for themselves. They represent themselves. They view the world in their own way. Period. Each is responsible for their own beliefs. This is mine.
Today, I read, for the first time, about the "atheist movement" and I shuddered. Atheist movement??? What is this! Atheism is NOT a movement. It's not as if it is a religion. There are no popes, priests, imams, or anything of that nature. There is no central spokesperson. It doesn't need a spokesperson of any sort. It is not a movement. It is what it is. It is a natural state of being before indoctrination. It is not an organized belief. The vast majority of atheists prefer the logic of science over the dogma of religion, however, that doesn't define atheism. Atheism is what it is. It is not having a religious belief or affiliation. Organized movement? No way.
There is no need to proselytize atheism. It is not something that needs to be proven to anyone. The proof for atheism lies in the complete absence of proof of any kind of god or gods. It speaks for itself. No atheist speaks for any other atheist. Some people would like to put Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or other famed atheists on top of the heap, as some kinds of leaders. They aren't. They are not leaders. They are atheists. They have their views which are open to like, dislike, challenges, praise or what have you. They don't speak for me. They don't speak for anyone but themselves. They are who they are. We all are who we are. That's it. No leaders. No followers. No churches. No dogma.
So, when I hear someone say "atheist movement", I sort of feel like they are missing the boat and not understanding what atheism is. Mind you, this is my opinion and my opinion only. Like I said, I do not speak for other atheists. I challenge strongly this notion of a movement. I don't see atheism as being a movement nor needing a movement. It does not need leaders or spokespeople. It is not that kind of -ism. It is not a religion. It is not a system of governance or finance. It is not a cohesive belief system. It is not even a belief system, period. So, how can their be a movement?
Some are arguing that because of years of persecution, there is a need to band together to fight religion. Not really. No. I mean, you can stand up against religious superiority and persecution without a cohesive movement. We know persecution is wrong, right? Therefore, we fight persecution because we are humans who know that it is wrong. One does not need to be an atheist to fight against persecution.
Is disagreeing persecution? No. Can people hate, criticize, mock, dislike or laugh at atheism? Of course. Who cares. Go for it. It doesn't change facts that exist that make atheism a logical conclusion. It is not something that has to be fought for. There is no jealous god or hyper sensitive prophet needing defending. Dawkins and Hitch don't need defending. They are grown men who can stand on their own two feet (well, unfortunately, Hitch can't anymore...RIP). They don't need defending. They defend themselves quite nicely, and good on them. They take tons of criticism and they deal with it (must stop using present tense for Hitch) in their own way. So, no, atheism is not some movement. It isn't meant to be on the same plane as religion. There should be no grand fight for followers like the other religions have. We don't have to claim that we are the "fastest growing religion in the world!" because it doesn't matter. You either accept it or don't. There is no number count. You are either with logic, or with a religious belief system. Your choice. Up to you.
To sum up, as if I haven't already....atheism is not and should not be seen as a movement. Again, my opinion. My view. I speak for no other atheists. That's the point. Atheists are atheists. They think for themselves. They represent themselves. They view the world in their own way. Period. Each is responsible for their own beliefs. This is mine.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The Ups and Downs of World Hijab Day
You know what the world needs? A straight white males perspective on World Hijab Day. That's right. It's the opinion you all have been dying for. I know you have all been clammering, waiting to hear viewpoint from a white man. Sure, there are plenty of, say, Muslim women, who talked about this topic today, but it's really the white guys opinion you want, right? No, you say? Oh.
Well, I'm going to write a blog post about it anyway, because that's just what I do, dammit. I stick my nose in everywhere. I have an opinion about anything, and I have a few things to say about this one.
I spent much of the day following (and sometimes posting to) the twitter hashtag #WorldHijabDay. I knew this day had been coming. I saw the tag days before. I anticipated the excitement. This was going to be awesome. What was going to be said on this hashtag? Gawd only knows.
Here's what I did see. I saw a lot of Muslim girls and women who seem very proud, happy and blessed that they wear a hijab. To them I say, "Kudos!". If you like it, good. Wear the sucker, I don't care. If it gives you a positive feeling, then that's good, right? Of course not everyone is forced to wear the hijab. There are many people who choose it and love it and that point was driven home to excess today. Mind you, this was mostly by Western based Muslim women who have never had to live in a country where they didn't have the choice. But, that's just a small issue....sort of.
Of course, there have been a small number of Western countries, France being the main one that I know of, that has banned face veils although not hijabs. There has been debate and controversy in other places, including here in Canada, in Quebec about bans or restrictions of some sort. Quebec is working on a law that would ban headcoverings and religious wear from provincial government institutions. My feelings on that? Complex. I would need another blog post. And, when I lived in Turkey, women weren't allowed to wear hijabs in government institutions or Universities. That has since been overturned but, there you have it, a country with a 90 percent Muslim population banning hijabs. Doesn't just happen in the West. Doesn't just happen in non-Muslim countries. Actually, for the most part, people are quite free to wear what they want in the vast majority of the West. Not so much in the Muslim world.
Now, there are also many tales of discrimination, dirty looks, and even violence towards women wearing a nijab. What? Come again? WHY??? Why would anyone attack anyone for wearing the hijab. That is appalling and disgusting in so many ways. No way, in any society, should this ever be looked at as acceptable. I am not going to play stupid and naive. I know it has happened. I have read sad, sad news stories about it. I condemn this in the fullest. Attacking another human being for what they are wearing is low, disgusting and wrong. Don't do it! Don't! Just don't. No. Not acceptable. Ever.
Okay, so that is out of the way.
The other major thing I learned today is that not everyone was happy about World Hijab Day. A fresh new hashtag came on the scene: #notohijabappropriation. Oh boy. Just when things seemed simple and straightforward, this one came along.
So, the thrust behind the main campaign, the World Hijab Day, was more of a "Walk a mile in our shoes" sort of thing. Come on, try the hijab for a day, it ain't so bad! You'll like it! See what we go through! Seems innocent and well meaning enough. No. It isn't it turns out. Apparently, all these innocent, well meaning people are guilty of appropriation for taking part in this world wide campaign in 100 countries. This irked me a bit. Here are all these people being stopped in malls and schools and on the street and asked to take part in the event, and then another group comes along and accuses the people of appropriation. Well, that backfired spectacularly. If you took part and didn't get the full Muslim experience, you are screwed, you have appropriated, you evil, evil person (sarcasm).
Now, despite me saying that, the anti-appropriation crowd had the far better argument. You can't understand a culture/religion or the lives of the people living it by putting a scarf on your head for a day. Fair point. Can't argue with that. I agree. It's like someone dropping into Winnipeg in July for a few days, going home and telling everyone who beautiful, warm and friendly it is. Unless you are here year round, when the snow is chin deep and the temperatures will freeze your appendages off, and your car won't start, and you can barely drive on the poorly maintained roads, you don't know what Winnipeg is truly like. Bad analogy? I'm sure someone will think so.
Really, all you are doing by putting on the scarf is....putting on a scarf. That's the argument anyway. Can't argue against it really, unless one really invests the time into finding out the trials and tribulations of those who wear it everyday in the name of their religion, you really can't know what it's like. In others words, if you aren't a Muslim woman who wears the hijab faithfully, you won't get it. The message from these folks? Don't just stick on the scarf....talk to Muslim women, get to know them, get to know what they experience, find out. As was pointed out, the hijab is not the sole defining point of a person. It is an important part, but there is much more. And, the experiences that come with being a Muslim woman and wearing the hijab can't be duplicated unless you are in that position. Makes sense. Can't argue with that. However, it seems that telling other well meaning women off for taking part in a highly publicized campaign is a bit....mean. Maybe break it to them gently? Just a suggestion.
Now, the hijab itself? Honestly, people swear it is not a sign of oppression, it's a sign of freedom. Okay, well, if that's what you feel, good. You can't tell someone who feels free that they are oppressed. That makes no sense. It's hard for me to understand this freedom that is often talked about, but that's okay. It's not up to me to understand. If someone says they feel free, good for them. But then, all of these lovely analogies popped up. Oh, the analogies. "A women in a hijab is like a pearl in a clamshell!" or "Would you rather a peice of unwrapped discarded candy? Or a new, fresh wrapped candy!" Oh dear gawd. I've always hated these analogies. People aren't pearls. They aren't candy. They are people. So, reading these things again was just painful. But, if someone wants to see themselves as a precious piece of candy, that's up to them.
The biggest, biggest problem I have with the whole hijab thing? Along with the defending of the hijab comes the innevitable slut shaming of women who don't wear the hijab. Oh, man, how many times did I read about how a woman in a hijab is far more beautiful than a woman walking around half naked. Of course the hijab means you have more respect for your body (sarcasm). Wearing the hijab means that people look at your mind, not your body (sarcasm). UGH! This makes me want to scream! Basically, the implication is, "What? You don't wear a hijab? What an immoral slut you must be!" Exaggerating? Yes and no. Depends on the person making the comment and the ferocity of their opinion on it. But, come ON! Can't you enjoy the hijab and what it means to you without slut shaming other women or implying they are immoral, indecent or don't have respect for themselves?? That doesn't help the image of the hijab at all. If a person wants to wear a bikini, that isn't saying they are immoral or they don't have respect for themselves. It's saying, "Right now, I've decided to wear a bikini." And there is nothing wrong with that. The thing is, we all have bodies. We are humans. We know what flesh looks like. The vast majority of us can go through life seeing women in bikinis and NOT be driven to rape. Many of us can look at another being with maturity and confidence and not just want to have sex with them. We can do that! So, don't shame us folks who aren't buying into this whole modesty trap as being essential to a well oiled society. Just as you have your views on what you want to wear and want respect, so does everyone else. For that matter, I want to be able to wear a Jesus and Mo t-shirt and not be threatened with death....:) (Sorry, that is in reference to another "scandal" I have been following on twitter lately, the Mo Ansar and Mo Shafiq vs Maajid Nawaz face off over the posting of a Jesus and Mo cartoon)
And for gawd sakes, I wish I could read a tag like this and NOT feel like a dirty rapist. Look, I don't have lustful eyes for every woman on the planet. Please don't look at me or see me as someone who does. More likely than not, if I see a girl in shorts and a tank top at the grocery store, and I go up to her, it's to ask where she found the toilet paper in her basket and how much it costs and not even notice anything else. You know what? A good number of us men really are like that. We just do our thing. Men, just as women, just as Muslims, just as anyone else, are diverse. We are not a homogenized block of humans who all act and think the same. Please, before you say how you are protecting yourself from the lustful gaze of men who sometimes just can't help themselves when they see someones hair from molesting them, count me out of that equation. I'm not part of that. If this is how you see men, then I am not one. I am other than that and don't wish to be put into that category, okay? So, yes, there is an element of this that I do find personally insulting....and insulting to many men.
So, with all that said, everyone go back to wearing whatever suits them best, relax, enjoy, chill out and do your thing. If you are thinking of assaulting anyone for any reason....DON'T! We only have one life to live (despite what religious folks might say). Do we really want to spend the whole thing judging each others clothing choices, and their personal morals and values? No. We don't. Yes. I did just answer that for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
