The travesty of fundamentalism

[bkkguy]

So surprise, surprise, a Jewish lady writing a biography of Muhammad comes to a conclusion as to who the true infidels are, but have a listen, you may be more more surprised than you think, though it is not to everyone's taste - as one of her detractors said "She might as well have told the story of Harry Potter and how Voldemort is a fundamentalist...", and while I am not a big fan of TED another protagonist claimed the talk was not "TED-worthy"!

 

http://on.ted.com/Hazleton

On Muhammad, the relationship between faith and doubt, and the travesty of fundamentalism

 

for some background, her blog:

 

The Accidental Theologist - an agnostic eye on religion, politics and existence

 

and the New York Times review of her biography of Muhammad - "The First Muslim"

 

The Messenger and the Message - ‘The First Muslim,’ by Lesley Hazleton

 

And just remember "TED talks are there to make you think about things that you haven't thought of before" - or perhaps discussed on a gay forum before!

 

and yes I do have a spare grain of salt and a truck if you feel the need!

 

bkkguy

[Rogie]

and yes I do have a spare grain of salt and a truck if you feel the need!

 

No need. An interesting post which hopefully will provoke a healthy response, albeit I doubt anyone would swallow all this hook line and sinker.

 

Unfortunately I am very poorly versed in Islam - perhaps like many I have harboured noble ideas of rectifying my ignorance over the years but done nothing about it. I did buy a paperback Koran a very long time ago, so my intentions were good but my resolve proved of little worth.

 

Taken from the concluding paragraph of Bkk Guy's third link in his post:

 

However accurate her book, however laudable her intention to bridge the chasm between believers and unbelievers, Hazleton still has to confront the question of the authenticity of religious revelation. Respect is not the same as belief: her interpretation of “whatever happened up there on Mount Hira” is to stress Muhammad’s “experience” of revelation while sidestepping its objective existence. In various places, she hints that the Koran and the Hadith, like other holy books, have a textual history and that certain events in the life of Muhammad are best considered tropes. A fuller examination of these points would have been fascinating, but it would have forced her to embrace the perilous notion that the Koran, instead of being the revealed word of God, might be a text like any other. In evading such material Hazleton clearly hopes to avoid giving offense, but try as she might, she cannot escape the fact that in our time even a well-meaning and fundamentally decent book such as this can never be innocent, because it cannot stand outside our violent recent history.

 

 

That's certainly something that I can't fathom, why so much rhetoric, why so much violence. Why so little sympathy for those of a different belief or persuasion ( Including sexual orientation )?

[Guest fountainhall]

I listened to that talk with interest. She is an impressive speaker and I think she makes her points well. I especially like the passage near the end –
 

Real faith has no easy answers. It’s difficult and stubborn. It involves and on-going struggle, a continuing questioning of what we think we know, a wrestling with issues and ideas. It goes hand in hand with doubt - a never-ending conversation with it and sometimes in conscious defiance of it . . . Despair is self-fulfilling. If we call something impossible, we act in such a way that we make it so . . . What drives us is that despite our doubts – and even because of our doubts – we reject the nihilism of despair. We insist on faith in the future and each other.

Could Mohammed have so radically changed the world without . . . the refusal to cede to the arrogance of closed-minded certainties? . . . I can’t see that he’d be anything but utterly outraged at the militant fundamentalists who claim to speak and act in his name . . . he’d be appalled at the repression of half the population because of their gender . . . he’d call out terrorism for what it is – not only criminal, but an obscene travesty of everything he believed in and struggled for.

 

Some years ago I read Karen Armstrong’s perceptive book “Mohammed: A Prophet for Our Time”. Ms. Armstrong was a Catholic nun who left holy orders and eventually became a writer and television presenter. Her books include “A History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths” and “A History of God” in which she examines in more detail the three monotheistic faiths.

Her book on Mohammed does an excellent job of putting his revelations into the context of the period. A nomadic world of competing tribal rivalries, peoples finding life in new cities difficult and full of strife, of lawlessness and constant fighting over the wealth being created by the development of new trade routes passing through that part of the world. It was almost as if there was a need for a form of spirituality to unify the many different factions.

But back to Ms. Hazleton. I agree entirely with what she says above, which surely applies to all fanatics and fundamentalists of whatever religion or faction. The fact surely is that for most of the history of Christianity, few have expressed the questioning and doubts Ms. Hazleton believes necessary. Those who dared express them were summarily dealt with, in many cases by death. “The word was with God and the word was God.”

Long after the Great Schism set Catholic against Catholic, Luther’s rebellion, for that is what it was to the keepers of the “word”, was heresy and was to lead to fanaticism and hundreds of years of war. In partly the same way, although it has always had more to do with politics than religious dogma, the Sunni/Shia split in the Islamic world continues to be played out to this day in a more bloody manner. And all because some 80% of Muslims believe Mohammed’s father-in-law was his true successorm whilst the remaining 20% revere his son-in-law.

Ms. Hazleton is largely correct in her comments about the repression of half the population. From the little I know, Mohammed was very much a defender of women’s rights, something that seems to have got lost somewhere along the line of history. But it all surely boils down to the arrogance of “I’m right, and I know I am right,” when in fact no-one has the right to such certainty – not in the name of ‘God’.

[KhorTose]

You are both being too serious.  Maybe the only problem with religion  is how we interpet what are suppose to be the messages from God.

Maybe time will bring new answers.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

New interpretations is perhaps more accurate. And isn't that the problem with fundamentalism? It is racked with interpretations that may - or in may instances may not - be accurate. I know precious little of the Koran, but we know that much of the New Testament was in effect cobbled together by a bunch of scholars and clerics at Nicea in 325 AD. Bits that did not accord with the beliefs of that day were not included. If anyone in 2338 AD can remember anything that was written in gaythailand.com in 2013, I'll eat my hat - wherever my soul or I may be at the time! 

[bkkguy]

to be less serious KhorTose I think the ultimate response to both religion generally and fundamentalism specifically is the famous quote (source unknown):

 

 

 

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

 

which lead on one discussion forum to John Lennon turning in his grave to the tune of "Imagine there's no penis...it's easy if you try"

 

and yes fountainhall I agree - "fundamentalism ...is racked with interpretations that may - or in may instances may not - be accurate". Both the Bible and the Koran must top the list of books that get selectively and deceptively quoted from, using whatever translation suits one's purpose at the time and to hell with context

 

and Rogie the sentence that struck me most in the your quote from the NYT review was "her interpretation of 'whatever happened up there on Mount Hira' is to stress Muhammad’s 'experience' of revelation while sidestepping its objective existence". Even if you are not an agnostic (as she is) how does one objectively "prove" the existence of a higher being let alone objectively "prove" that a text is a revelation from that higher being? surely it takes faith, and as she so eloquently points out, doubt. and I doubt "it would have forced her to embrace the perilous notion that the Koran, instead of being the revealed word of God, might be a text like any other"!

 

and what conclusions should we draw from the fact that our best guides to Islam seem to be an agnostic Jew and a Catholic nun who left holy orders!

 

bkkguy

[Rogie]

Agnostics are lucky! A believer can only doubt so much, question so much, before his head goes into a spin and he either falls to the ground stronger and more convinced about his faith, or he disengages and maybe slowly but surely senses his faith slipping away. (I do not refer here to a practicing individual who's a member of what one might call an extremist sect or fundamentalist religious faith. . .if he 'sees the light' it is most likely any intelligent outsider, agnostic or whatever, could have seen it straightaway, but the believer had been blinded by the overall folly). Such an individual may well fit the penis quote above. He's quite happy with his faith and isn't in any way evangelical about it, although he's in no way ashamed or secretive and when questioned will readily account for his faith. So yes, probably proud as well.

 

Sometimes doubts and questioning can have dramatic repercussions:

 

The recent instance of the group called Exodus International comes to mind.

 

Exodus Presdient Alan Chambers posted an apology on their website “for the harm that he had caused LGBT people and their families in his quest to make them match an anti-gay view of God.”

 

I am sorry for the pain and hurt that many of you have experienced. I am sorry some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.

I am sorry I didn’t stand up to people publicly ‘on my side’ who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know.

I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him, I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/20/exodus_international_an_ex_gay_ministry_apologizes_for_the_harm_it_s_done.html

 

I read recently that many Thai families with gay sons pack them off to a monastery. Some may genuinely believe it is for the benefit of the boy but others are simply unhappy to have a gay son and 'exiling' to a monastery is their way of washing their hands of him. As an outsider looking in, whatever the motives and whatever the sincerity or otherwise of the boy's parents, this to me is a recipe for disaster, or at the very least confusion and unhappiness on the part of the boy. But then Thailand's like that, many things Thais do or say don't make sense to outsiders/non-Thais. It seems to me, religion in general is somewhat similar, an atheist or agnostic looking in will feel bemusement and be tempted to scoff - the object of their scorn will carry on regardless quite unpeturbed, unless he's already harbouring any of those nasty doubts .  .  .

[Guest fountainhall]

It's perhaps a mere coincidence that this thread was begun as the History Channel has been airing a new 4-hour documentary on the first Three Crusades - the ones ostensibly to take back Jerusalem from the infidel. (The Fourth Crusade was not covered, but that was the one that ended up farcically pitting Christians from Europe against the Christians in Constantinople!)

As has been discussed before, children in the west were taught until recently that the Crusades were a noble and just cause. We now know that is an utter sham. The Byzantine Emperor had requested merely a force of knights. Pope Urban instead called for a mass Crusade as a means of increasing his power in the region and reducing Byzantium’s. Many of the knights and noblemen on the First Crusade, far from being fuelled by religious zeal, were there for profit and land. Some indeed were to go on to become immensely rich. The multitudes of poor were ‘persuaded ‘ by their lords and masters to join, in part also because Urban had promised participants their sins would be pardoned and a guaranteed ‘pass go’ into heaven! So much for a Church which preached pacificism – turning the other cheek and so on – taking up arms to slaughter other human beings.

And slaughter they did – on an unimaginable scale. When they overtook the ancient city of Antioch, there was a bloodbath which included its Christian population. Soon afterwards, the Crusaders stormed the small town of Maarat-an-Numan. All the inhabitants, Muslim and Christian, were ordered into the Palace grounds to avoid being killed. Once the town had been pillaged, the Christians entered the Palace and slaughtered everyone – Muslims, Christians, men, women, children. Somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 people. They then committed what is still regarded in Muslim eyes as the worst of all atrocities. They started to eat human flesh. Dead children were roasted on spits . . . I need not go on. This event was a war crime on a huge scale. It is still talked about today when Muslims refer to the jihad waged by the Christians at that time.

When the infidel had taken Jerusalem some 400 years earlier, it was a peaceful take-over. Throughout the history of Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and Muslims had lived side by side in relative peace and harmony in the new Islamic world. But when the Christians on that First Crusade re-took the city, the blood flowed for three days. 70,000 or more Muslims were killed. Jews sheltering in the synagogue were slaughtered.

As Raymond d’ Aguilers, a Christian chronicler of the First Crusade, later wrote –
 

If I tell the truth, you would not believe it. Suffice to say that, in the Temple and Porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood.

But then Jerusalem was back in the hands of the faithful. That was all that mattered.

In the Third Crusade around 100 years later, Richard King of England laid siege to the seaport of Acre. After two long years, it was captured and more than 2,500 Muslims taken prisoner and found themselves in Richard’s care. Richard negotiated a ransom with Saladin for their release. The negotiations took too long. So Richard had all the prisoners executed. Another war crime.

Religious fanaticism (fundamentalism) gave birth to the Crusades. It was one of the maddest episodes in history in which every imaginable atrocity disgraced the so-called warriors of the Cross.

[Rogie]

That's certainly something that I can't fathom, why so much rhetoric, why so much violence. Why so little sympathy for those of a different belief or persuasion ( Including sexual orientation )?

 

 

But it all surely boils down to the arrogance of “I’m right, and I know I am right,” when in fact no-one has the right to such certainty – not in the name of ‘God’.

 

 

Religious fanaticism (fundamentalism) gave birth to the Crusades. It was one of the maddest episodes in history in which every imaginable atrocity disgraced the so-called warriors of the Cross.

 

Reading and thinking about the Crusades, all Christians should feel ashamed. Yes, memories are long and I am sure many devout Muslims who study that time in history will shake their heads in disbelief too. I also wonder how Muslims, unaware of that shameful episode in the history of their faith, feel when they learn about it for the first time on television? Then look around and, perhaps if they are living in Britain or another nominally Christian country, begin to feel differently to their non-Muslim neighbours when before they never gave it a thought. Maybe it's no wonder some go down the fundamentalist route - maybe influenced by a zealous cleric, maybe their thoughts of their own making. On the other hand, I doubt few intelligent non-Muslim 'native inhabitants' Christian or atheist or whatever, feel threatened by a Muslim in their midst because they practice their faith quietly and don't in any way interfere adversely in an orderly multicultural and multi-faith society. Unfortunately, there's always somebody has to ruin things, and take things too far. Whereas there are extremists in every faith, in Christianity an example being the Exodus group I referred to earlier, not many advocate or encourage violence. Violence was part and parcel of life at one time and was seldom a respecter of another person's religious beliefs. In the 21st century we like to think all that's behind us and that these days we're civilised. We've still got a long way to go.

 

That brings me back to 'doubt. I'm in no doubt doubt's a good thing, on balance. I wonder how many of those Crusaders doubted they were 'in the right'? I would imagine many did, although the mind can play cruel tricks so that you can be convinced it's a legitimate means to an end. It doesn't have to involve religion - did those Japanese soldiers doubt the so-called Rape of Nanking was a necessary means to an end? I have no idea, it seems they had been brain-washed into regarding those they slaughtered as being less than human. Perhaps the Crusaders thought likewise. It's a terrible thing to ponder - sometimes I despair at mankind. We are born with wondeful brains, but so many times that brain is contaminated by evil and malign influences. The term free-thinker comes to mind. It ought to be easier to be one in 2013 than in 1213, but how many of us are the true article?

[bkkguy]

Agnostics are lucky!

 

but an Agnostic Jew - oy vey, what a mother to have - as I am sure Woody Allen would sympathise ;-)

 

Violence was part and parcel of life at one time and was seldom a respecter of another person's religious beliefs. In the 21st century we like to think all that's behind us and that these days we're civilised. We've still got a long way to go.

 

Who is "we" - I have heard  more than one western commentator opine that Christianity has "developed" to its current "civilized" state but the Muslim world is still centuries behind in its progress to being "civilized"!

 

 

They then committed what is still regarded in Muslim eyes as the worst of all atrocities. They started to eat human flesh. Dead children were roasted on spits . . . I need not go on. This event was a war crime on a huge scale. It is still talked about today when Muslims refer to the jihad waged by the Christians at that time.

 

The Crusades where how many centuries ago? do we perhaps need a statute of limitations on atrocities? or is that just a cop out? 

 

in Australia we have a very tawdry history of how we have treated the Aboriginal people who inhabited the continent before the arrival of British settlers/invaders, and until fairly recently we were still debating whether the current  government should accept responsibility for, and apologize for, the actions of 50, 100, 150 years ago or do we just need to move on and address the results of these actions - I lean towards the latter and was disappointed with the government's apology but lack of real action on the current issues facing Aborigines in Australia today!

 

I know this is not the point you were trying to make, and I know every time a US drone strike kills civilians in Pakistan or  Afghanistan it breeds another generation of jihadists, but when do we -  Lesley Hazleton's silent majority - get to call foul on the fundamentalists? and the politicians?

 

bkkguy

[Guest fountainhall]

do we perhaps need a statute of limitations on atrocities?

Yes, I think we have to. We ought not go back many centuries to keep reminding ourselves of who did what to whom. Some Christian fanatics still blame the Jews for murdering Jesus. Where would it end? There has to be a time when old warring factions set aside ancient animosities and live and let live.

 

Yet “we” as a human race seem incapable of that – at least in respect of organized religion. After all, it was only about 30 or so years ago that Catholics were murdering Protestants in Northern Ireland and vice versa. Catholics died in hunger strikes and English were bombed and murdered in their own cities. Yet, if that was a religious fanatical struggle, surely it was in name only. Surely that was little more than surface pretense. The origins of that conflict were far deeper – territory, land, politics and colonialism. And are not these still to be found somewhere at the root of much fanatical strife?

 

Now that the peace pipe has been smoked in Northern Ireland, perhaps that is one conflict laid to rest. More recently, the world has all but forgiven present day Germany for the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Is that because of German actions since those days – the formal apologies, acceptance of guilt, reparations and so on, a course of action that the Japanese right wing adamantly refuse to allow their country to copy?

 

As you rightly point out, though, laying one old ghost to rest still leaves us with plenty more to deal with. What about the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger? Why is no-one calling him to justice for the rape of Cambodia that directly led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the genocide that killed over 2 million souls; the nods and winks given literally hours beforehand to Indonesia prior to the massacre of 60,000 in East Timor; or to Pakistan prior to the mass slaughter of up to 3 million in what us now Bangladesh; or the murder of Allende in Chile, to name a few? Bush adamantly stated that no American would ever be allowed to be brought to War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. So the powerful will always get away with such crimes against humanity. But only as long as they remain in power. History is a tale of the rise and fall of great powers. Will Kissinger and his cohorts eventually get their comeuppance long after they are dead? Will humanity’s desire for culprits wait that long? Should it?

 

To return to fanaticism, in one of her books The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, Karen Armstrong claims that fear is the root cause of fundamentalism. She writes –

 

Fundamentalisms are embattled forms of spirituality, which have emerged as a response to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secularist policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between the forces of good and evil. They fear annihilation. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture; yet fundamentalists are not impractical dreamers. They have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of charismatic leaders, they refine those fundamentals so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacralize an increasingly skeptical world.

 

 

When do we get to call foul? I haven’t the faintest idea. Perhaps mankind as a whole needs a common enemy before the fanatics will join the mainstream. Anyone see any flying saucers recently?

 

Excerpt from The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism

by Karen Armstrong

Published by Ballantine Books

[Rogie]

Who is "we" - I have heard  more than one western commentator opine that Christianity has "developed" to its current "civilized" state but the Muslim world is still centuries behind in its progress to being "civilized"!

 

 

Yet “we” as a human race seem incapable of that – at least in respect of organized religion. 

 

 

 

Yes, that's the 'we' I meant.

[Rogie]

. . .but when do we -  Lesley Hazleton's silent majority - get to call foul on the fundamentalists? and the politicians?

 

When do we get to call foul? I haven’t the faintest idea. Perhaps mankind as a whole needs a common enemy before the fanatics will join the mainstream. Anyone see any flying saucers recently?

 

 

 

Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacralize an increasingly skeptical world. {quoted from Karen Armstrong}

 

 

'Getting to call foul' is certainly plausible. Is the world more sceptical? Quite possibly, and building on my comments about doubt, probably a good and healthy thing. To take politics as an example, at least in the UK (I don't know enough about the history of American or Australian politics to extrapolate to them). Political parties in the UK were traditionally 'left wing' and 'right wing'. They each had their own dyed-in-the-wool committed groups of voters. Over the past 20 years the two largest political parties have come a lot closer together - squabbling over each other in their attempt to claim the centre ground. That's largely because the voting public in Britain are sick and tired of extremist politics. Most voters now are very sceptical. I think that extends to religion and almost everything else. Here, in addition to politicians, we may as well trot out the usual whipping boys . . .  bankers, the food industry, Big Pharma, lawyers, solicitors, estate agents, the travel industry, etc. To a large extend religion has 'gone quiet' in Britain (as FH says the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland weren't an old-fashioned religious war). That extends to all religions practiced in Britain - Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists just get along fine with each other, or did until the almighty shock of the news that some of 'our people' were religious fanatics. The fight back will come from people shunning anything perceived as extremist / fundamentalist. Unfortunately that may mean political parties that appeal to people's sense of grievance will capitalise on that, so in Britain at least, the necessity for a political party to capture the centre ground may itself be on shaky ground - a worrying thought!

[Guest fountainhall]

How much, I wonder, are fanaticism and fundamentalism a result of the lack of freedom, especially the lack of freedom of thought? People in many countries fought for such freedom. Those in the west certainly think they now have that right. But in many parts of the world, peoples are only starting that struggle, relatively speaking.

But what is freedom? Are we truly ‘free’? Surely when living in any group or society our freedoms are constrained by the need to follow the group’s own rules. So we abrogate some of our freedom to the greater ‘good’. And unless the majority is on its guard, does that not open the door to the rise of fanatics and fundamentalists?

It seems to me that somehow humankind has gradually forgotten about the doubt, the questioning, the wrestling with ideas which Ms. Hazleton considers essential to faith and belief. We now believe what we believe – as fact, whether or not we have truly thought positions through. The Tea Party membership knows it is right (pardon the pun)! The NRA knows it is right! The world’s bankers knew they were right, even though they also knew they were pushing the boundaries of the regulations beyond the limit. After all, everyone else was in the same boat. Few thought, questioned or considered baling out.

The Taliban know they are right! Unlike their western counterparts, though, they have been narrowly educated in a system which all but guarantees there is absolutely no room for doubt – only absolute certainty.

And to return to the themes of power and land, for centuries their land has been conquered, fought over, raped and bombed, its citizens killed and massacred by countless outside nations pursuing their own strategic interests. If the so-called free thinkers of the west had not pursued their own murderous self-serving course, no matter what Mohammed might have thought about it, would that particular brand of fundamentalism exist today?

[Rogie]

But what is freedom? Are we truly ‘free’? Surely when living in any group or society our freedoms are constrained by the need to follow the group’s own rules. So we abrogate some of our freedom to the greater ‘good’. And unless the majority is on its guard, does that not open the door to the rise of fanatics and fundamentalists?

 

It seems to me that somehow humankind has gradually forgotten about the doubt, the questioning, the wrestling with ideas which Ms. Hazleton considers essential to faith and belief.

 

 

 

In an excellent comment piece in Britain's Telegraph newspaper yesterday (which coincidentally just got around to reading this morning before catching up on this thread), Allison Pearson in an article headed . . .

 

Can the state be trusted to do anything right?

 

. . . ah, the dreaded 'state'! . . .in a week that has already been a bad one for Britain's much-cherished health service, she goes on to lambast the police.

 

 

Have you ever been to bed with a sleeping policeman? Think hard before you answer. Could the lovely new Bill you snogged at that Cyclists Against the Bomb rally in 1980 turn out to have been, well, the Old Bill? Women of Britain, it seems Big Brother isn’t just watching you; the sly devil may be bonking you as well.

 

On Tuesday, Big Brother’s creator would have celebrated his 110th birthday. The name George Orwell not only lives on, it feels like he becomes more prophetic by the day. No wonder sales of Nineteen Eighty-Four are rocketing 60 years after it was first published. “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act,” said Orwell. With his perfect pitch for official cant, he would have picked apart the new mantra of our public services: Openness ’n’ Transparency!

 

We must be more “open and transparent”, say the Metropolitan Police. The same Met whose undercover officer acted as a spy among Stephen Lawrence’s (*) grieving family, a story that has been hidden for 20 years. The mole’s mission: to gather information to discredit the stricken Lawrences and thereby cover up an inept police inquiry.

 

Peter Francis, a former Special Branch covert agent – they were known as “hairies” for their hippy appearance – bravely spoke out this week. He told Channel 4’s Dispatches that his job had been to “dig dirt” on Stephen’s best friend, Duwayne Brooks. Francis also seduced female members of the anti-racist groups he joined.

 

 

She goes on to further cite Orwell:

 

In the past week, it has become clear that such monstrous abuses of power are not rogue blemishes on an otherwise healthy system. Our public services are riddled with this cancer. Speaking out about the crisis in the East of England Ambulance Service, health minister Anna Soubry castigated the “mates culture” in which the priority is to “protect your mates, systems and structures”, instead of protecting the patient. She is so right.

 

This is what Orwell called Groupthink, a phenomenon in which the dysfunctional dynamics of the “ingroup” creates an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made. Thus the “ingroup” – police officers, hospital managers, social workers – refuses to admit mistakes and stamps out dissent in the “outgroup”. That’s you and me, folks, plus anyone from the ingroup who has the guts to protest.

 

More Orwellian stuff:

 

When Kay Sheldon, a board member of the Care and Quality Commission, warned the Mid Staffordshire (**) inquiry that the CQC was failing to spot bad treatment of patients, Dame Jo Williams, then the head of the regulator, claimed that Sheldon was mentally ill. She tried to have Sheldon sacked and actually ordered a psychiatrist’s report.

 

This is truly Orwellian. If you point out that the ingroup is wrong, you must be mad. If not, they will make you mad by telling everyone you are a paranoid schizophrenic . . .

 

 

And a reminder of how the media, and in particular certain elements in the press, really cocked things up, but also a plea for the 'media' not to let us down:

 

Television programmes such as Dispatches and newspapers such as this one have given support to whistleblowers. They have embarrassed politicians and dodgy NHS executives and exposed lies, damned lies and collusion. If we can’t trust the state on surveillance, how the hell can we possibly trust it to guarantee a free press?

 

Ninety Met police officers are presently investigating tabloid journalists who hacked people’s phones. How many will investigate the Met undercover police who took similar liberties, or worse?

 

“Freedom,” said George Orwell, “is the right to hear what the state doesn’t want us to know.” Today, we face an unprecedented culture of institutionalised lying. Without an untrammelled press, Openness ’n’ Transparency is just another Big Brother slogan, and freedom itself is under threat.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10143713/Can-the-state-be-trusted-to-do-anything-right.html

 

(*) Stephen Lawrence: see

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence

 

(**) Mid Staffordshire: see

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal

[Guest fountainhall]

Today, we face an unprecedented culture of institutionalised lying 

 

But of course, the powers-that-be have a much more unassuming name for it - SPIN!

 

Without an untrammelled press, Openness ’n’ Transparency is just another Big Brother slogan, and freedom itself is under threat.

 

Ah, yes! The Press. Now aren't these the guys who bribed police and hacked into hundreds of mobile phones in the UK - even one of a murdered schoolgirl? The pursuit of "truth" is also open to the travesty of fanaticism.

[Rogie]

Yes, of course powerful people have spin in their armoury. They'd feel naked without it. Not much likelihood of transparency 'for all to see'. Those who are inarticulate or who can't afford to have their own spin-doctor, flock together for mutual protection just like the proverbial birds.

 

As for the press, it's either going to be subject to severe restrictions on what it can and cannot do and say, or we go for the 'untrammelled' kind. The latter will encompass the sort of low-life that hacked into people's mobile phones and the case of the undercover coppers (one woman who was involved with one had this to say "I feel like my body's been hacked") and many others. You can call them fanatics if you like. I certainly won't dispute that. They are desperate people, working for desperate bosses - I don't need to mention them, there's a long-running thread in the Beer Bar.

 

I'd prefer to take our chances and stick to the untrammelled version, despite the price that has to be paid for press freedom, namely the risks. Bad apples exist in every barrel of fermenting farmyard scrumpy (cider) but the result is usually pleasantly drinkable. Put 'vetted' apples in stainless steel vats in a modern cider factory ruled by computers and nerds with clipboards and all you get is a bland 'samey' beverage.

[bkkguy]

Ah, yes! The Press. Now aren't these the guys who bribed police and hacked into hundreds of mobile phones in the UK - even one of a murdered schoolgirl? The pursuit of "truth" is also open to the travesty of fanaticism.

 

 

absolutely!

 

As for the press, it's either going to be subject to severe restrictions on what it can and cannot do and say, or we go for the 'untrammelled' kind

 

freedom of the press surely is about its right to "say" or report, not about its right to "do" - and like freedom of speech it comes with responsibility

 

the gutter press may feel they "need" to hack into a missing girl's mobile phone message bank to get a sensational headline or pay paparazzi photographers with telephoto lenses to get compromising images of royalty or celebrities but this is just crass commercialism and lowest common denominator journalism -  a responsible free press needs no such "freedom" to achieve their objectives

 

a responsible free press need journalistic and editorial integrity and a respect for the rights of others and in a free democratic society they would have the right to voice their opinion on any issue - the same as citizens with free speech are entitled too - but I must admit that until I can find a place where such ideals actually exist I choose live in Thailand where the need for things like a responsible free press, freedom of speech and democracy are so easily overshadowed by the great food and the great sex!

 

one thing a free press does need is sources and informants, and I have been very interested in the recent debate about Edward Snowden - is he guilty of "treason" or a hero? and what about the right of the government to run programs like Prism ...

 

I grew up in Australia where our constitution is more about delimiting state and federal government rights and our rights as individual citizens are ill-defined and often abused, but it depresses me that increasingly in Oz and even more depressingly in the USA with its very strong constitution and in the UK and Europe you only need to mention a few key words like "terrorists" and "pedophiles"  and so many people seem willing to throw their legs in the air and say fuck me and my rights to privacy and fall for the fallacy that "if you have nothing to hide ..."

 

bkkguy