Yesterday, the organization called Wikileaks released what they are calling the War diaries. It is leaked American military reports the were filed on the ground in Afghanistan.

The collection is massive. It contains 90,000 short reports of incidents that have occurred in the war between 2004-2009. The reports can be a bit cryptic to read since they are written in “military speak”. If you decide to take a look at them, you may want to peek at this tutorial first.

Inconsistencies Exposed:

When looking at these reports, we obviously have to be skeptical. These reports have been leaked, but there is no way to verify them, and the various governments involved are already refuting their legitimacy. This is a situation that skeptics are used to, whether it be conspiracy theories, UFO reports, testimony of divine intervention,etc.

These records are extremely thorough however, and many of the records match up perfectly with well known events. This makes them a little harder than usual to dismiss outright.  Some of these records are even shedding light on inconsistencies that are causing people to ask hard questions.

Consider the following news report in which 4 Canadian troops were killed and 6 were injured in an insurgent attack near kandahar on Sept 3 2006 at 4:30 AM (12:30PM our time):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060902/nato_casualties_060903/20060903?hub=TopStories

This event is listed in the records, and unfortunately, it sheds completely different light on the incident:

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2006/09/AFG20060903n347.html

It is listed as a “Friendly Fire” event. The Ottawa Citizen pointed out this inconsistency in this article last night. This is a big problem, if there is truth to be found in these reports. It would show that we are not getting the full story over here on our end.

PZ Myers posted a reflection on the problem that most media outlets are focused on the question of whether or not it was a good idea to release the reports, rather than asking questions about what is inside of them. I am interested to see which way the momentum swings on this story. Will it be an all out attack on Wikileaks’s legitimacy, or will questions like the above mentioned Canadian soldiers killed continue to pop out?

So who runs this Wikileaks site? How legitimately should we take them?

Well, here’s an interview with Julian Assange who is the person that heads this project. He sits down with Chris Anderson at TED to talk about what he is doing with the project.

Niqab and Burka. Source: BBC website.

Sheila Ayala has posted a rebuttal to the CSA’s “Briefing Note Regarding the Veil” (ie: the niqab and burka, left). While she properly deplores compulsory veiling as a form of oppression, her post repeats standard (but fallacious) talking points of the pro-ban side, fails to address important points raised by the CSA paper, and (like every other argument I have so far heard on this topic) fails to address significant practical issues in implementing a legal ban on public wearing of the veil.

Yes, we all hate it

Just to get it out of the way right at the start, let us begin by stipulating: No one in this conversation disputes that Muslim veiling customs are the product of a patriarchal and misogynistic history, and that compulsory veiling — even if enforced only by social pressure — is a monstrous iniquity. Everyone in this conversation (thoroughly godless humanists all) further abhors the invocation of mythical divine command, with its historical close ties to sexual repression and oppression, to reinforce this tradition. And everyone in this conversation acknowledges that the concept of “free choice” for women within the more conservative Muslim communities is deeply problematic — a sick joke, even. And even in the case of women (many of them Western converts from non-Muslim backgrounds) whose decision to veil may reasonably be construed as voluntary, everyone in this conversation still finds the practice at best, well, a bit silly. (By the way: everything I have just said can be found within the CSA paper. Perhaps they could have worded it more strongly, but the points were made).

So lets take all that as “read”. The question at issue is: Does any of the above justify invoking the criminal law? Can the law, in fact, even be usefully and coherently applied to this situation?

On Sheila’s Rebuttal

I want to begin by addressing a few of Sheila’s specific points which I find fallacious:

The CSA disputes that there are no compelling reasons for a state to ban the veil, and there are no reasons for imposing a dress code.  They are wrong.  There are many cases where the state does impose dress codes.  It forbids anyone from appearing naked in public. In the interest of safety, cyclists must wear a helmet; construction workers must wear protective clothing on building sites.  Banning the veil is also a safety issue.  Wearing the veil while walking and even more while driving, leaves the wearer with minimal peripheral vision.

What the CSA paper actually says is “in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, no person should be forced to comply with a dress code imposed by the state”. And in the case of safety equipment, there is indeed a compelling interest: a clear and present hazard to cyclists and construction workers. Similarly, while I can’t be bothered to search the Highway Traffic Act, I’m pretty certain there are already requirements that the driver be able to see clearly. Fair enough: this would prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle while wearing a burka. But you cannot extend requirements pertaining to specific situations to a more general prohibition.

(Tangentially: I am not convinced that our existing prohibitions on public nudity are strictly justifiable on the basis of compelling state interest. Rather it seems to me that they are rooted in traditional religious notions of bodily shame. The Abrahamic faiths have always had an unhealthy love-hate relationship with the human body; other societies have not been so inhibited).

Thieves and terrorists have been known to cover themselves with a veil to conceal their faces when committing crimes making it difficult for witnesses to identify the offenders.

Thieves we have always had with us, and often they have concealed their faces. So I find it…interesting that it is only now — when we are dealing with a noticable influx of immigrants who bring customs (and ideologies, and geo-political entanglements) we find problematic — that we hear calls for a ban on facial concealment.

Covering the whole body except for the eyes has led to severe health problems among Moslem women.  Such coverings block out sunlight, depriving these women from receiving vitamin D….

Then they should take vitamin D supplements. As I said above, no one disputes that the burka is a stupid idea — but self-inflicted vitamin D deficiency hardly seems sufficient justification for a general public ban on some behaviour.

CSA reveals its naivety when it imagines that any reforms must come from within the Moslem communities.  We know that is not going to happen.  How do we know?  A prime example is the Catholic Church….

I reject the analogy to the Church’s handling of child sex abuse by priests. The Catholic Church is a monolithic institution which (like all such institutions) seeks to protect its power and prestige. And (also in the manner endemic to such institutions) it reacted to the threat of scandal with the disastrously short-sighted strategy of trying to deny and cover up the problem. Islam by contrast is a community which includes (as I discuss in my next point) significant diversity on the very issue under debate.

CSA claims that whether the veil is required by Islam or not is only a question for debate within the Moslem community.  Again, they are wrong. We must examine the reason for such a requirement.  If face covering is not in their scriptures, Moslems can’t hide behind religious freedom.  If it is not a sacred requirement, then it is a cultural one.

This is a distinction without a difference. If someone sincerely says “My god wants me to do this”, then ipso facto that is their religion. As it happens, some Muslim authorities think the veil is optional and some think it is obligatory — there is a historical-theological argument going on among the scholars of Islamic tradition. But (and this is the only question relevant in the context of a legal ban in Canada), do we really want our secular courts trying to parse the distinction between the True Core of  Islam and mere cultural accretions? In fact the the Supreme Court of Canada has rightly declined to get involved in such intra-faith wranglings (emphasis mine):

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials….It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived‑as‑mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.  The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma.

The CSA is not wrong on this point; they are absolutely right.

And as so typically happens in this debate, we wander off into the topic of personal affront:

The veil is also offensive to Western women.  It is a reminder to them that in some parts of the world and in some religions, women are considered possessions and are consigned to second class status.  It is gender apartheid.  It is like a Jewish person seeing a Nazi swastika or a black person seeing a burning cross.  Who wants to be reminded that they are thought of being less than human?

Lots of things are offensive to lots of people, often for very good and just reasons. But (and I keep having to emphasize this rather basic point, because it seems to keep getting forgotten): Are we really proposing calling the cops on someone who offends us? (As an example: do I need to remind readers that public expressions of affection between same-sex couples were, and still are, considered highly offensive by many segments of our society?)

On the long evolutionary road, interpreting facial expressions evolved as an aid to survival skills.  When we meet people for the first time, we automatically judge whether they are friend or foe.  Can they be trusted?  Are they aggressive or submissive?  Do they have a happy or sad disposition?  This is why in a court of law, it is essential for a jury to see the face of a witness in order to decide whether the person is being truthful or lying. They can’t do that if a face is covered by a veil, nor can they hear a witness properly with a piece of cloth covering the mouth.

This relies on the assumption that people can, in fact, judge truthfulness from appearance with reasonable proficiency. To me, this sounds like one of these abilities that everyone thinks they have (like being a better-than-average driver), but which tends not to hold up when tested rigorously. Perhaps I am incorrect to dispute this, but I would really like to see hard data.

Courts are sensitive to the difficulties that rape victims have in testifying which is why they are allowed to give evidence via a video link, still allowing the jury to see her face.

This brings up the recent case of a Muslim woman, known only as N.S., who accused two family members of having sexually assaulted her as a child. She wished to remain veiled while testifying, saying:

“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of … in Islam, we call honour,” she replied. “It’s also about the religious reason is to not show your face to men that you are able to marry. … I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”

Now, I have conflicting feelings myself about this case, but lets be very clear on what happened here: she was testifying about a sexual assault that happened to her — and her alleged assailants (via their legal counsel) demanded that she violate her own standards of modesty to do so. If that doesn’t give you a moment of pause, then you haven’t thought about it hard enough. Not surprisingly, many feminist organizations supported the woman in her desire to remain veiled (apparently, notwithstanding the general anti-feminist significance of the practice). Now, if the reply is made that in our society, face-veiling is considered overkill for modesty purposes, then I have to ask: who are you to tell this woman what should constitute modesty for her. Bodily modesty is a personal and variable thing: many Western women happily go out wearing mini-skirts and showing cleavage. Others prefer to be covered from collar-bone to knees. We would not even dream of demanding that a more-covered woman expose a bit more skin, on the grounds that she would still be within the normal range for our society — we immediately recognize that it’s her own damn business, for her own damn reasons, and no one else’s.

In its zeal to protect individual rights, CSA overlooks the facts that make veiling so undesirable.  Veiling perpetuates mistreatment of women and hinders integration.  Women who are forced to wear the veil are more likely to be subject to other practices that restrict their freedoms.  Woman who choose to wear the veil without any pressure are purposely putting up a barrier between themselves and their surrounding communities.  It is a drawback to integration when people cannot relate to someone who hides her face and is difficult to hear and understand.

The CSA paper does not overlook the downside of veiling; they acknowledge several of them. I can’t do better than reiterate the CSA’s own words on the central issue of this debate:

The CSA does not believe that the law is an instrument that can effectively address [the problems of forced veiling] while respecting Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

I will go one step further: advocates too often talk in vague terms about “banning the veil” without specifying just what they think such a law should say. What, specifically is to be prohibited? How is the law to be framed in a way that it is not either clearly directed against a particular group (ie. xenophobic), or so broad that it prohibits innocuous, even desirable, behaviours by everyone?

I have further thoughts on this topic, but this post has been stuck in the editor long enough; I will continue later if I find the time.

Suggested reading: http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2010/04/whats-wrong-with-banning-the-niqab/

Justin appeared on CBC Morning radio this morning just before the National Prayer Breakfast. He spoke about a variety of things that the Canadian Secular Alliance has been involved in, but primarily focused on our position on the Prayer Breakfast, and why we decided to attend. Below is a link to the audio file:

Justin Trottier on CBC Morning (MP3)

This April 1st, we celebrate by awarding our first annual “FISH OF THE YEAR” award.

Earlier this year we voted on what will hopefully become our annual tradition of “honouring” the Canadian or Canadians who did something foolish, illogical or otherwise crazy prompted by their religion.  Being in Ottawa, we have the privilege  (?) of  being able to approach this at both the municipal and federal level.

We took  nominees at last years Solstice party, and voted at January’s meeting.  The nominees were

1.  Ottawa City councilwoman Marianne Wilkinson:
Argued that not allowing her to censor bus ads she disagreed with violated her free speech.  Voted to censor us anyway even despite being told by her own legal council that censoring us was illegal and would cost the city a lot of money if we sued, as we would almost certainly win.

2. Radio talkshow host John Counsell:
advocate of all sorts of craziness (including creationism)

3. Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren:
Thinks Humanism is “a cult”

4.  Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien:
For saying he supports free speech and that all the major religious leaders he spoke to were in favor of our bus ads, then voting to ban us anyway.

5.  Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Appointed a creationist as science minister, numerous other things

6.  Canadian Minister of Science Gary Goodyear:
Creationist chiropractor, who when asked about evolution said he would not answer questions about his religion, then went on to backtrack and say he supported evolution, while citing several examples to show he has no idea what evolution actually is

And now, the results, by popular vote


OTTAWA – FEDERAL

WINNER – Stephen Harper

Runnerup – Gary Goodyear

OTTAWA – CITY

WINNER –  David Warren

Runnerup – Larry O’Brien

Actually, as an atheist and secularist, I find those numbers very encouraging – let’s keep up the good work.

Some readers will remember the “Bus Stop Bible Studies” that came to light at around the same time as we were running our atheist bus ad campaigns. This is an excerpt from an article on the National Post on-line.

Canada is a nation rooted in faith. The preamble to our Constitution expressly recognizes “the supremacy of God,” and all versions of our national anthem evince a trust in providence. Contrary to public perception, Canada has no laws dictating the separation of church and state. Six in 10 Canadians describe themselves as moderately or highly religious. The very language of everyday life reflects cadences and concepts from scripture.

Comments are open on the National Post blog (though you do need to register and sign in) – let’s speak up for the 40%

I’d like to invite everyone to take a little bit of time and read through the narrative of this website designed to promote an annual event aimed at our political leaders here in Ottawa:

http://www.canadaprayerbreakfast.ca/

A few members of our group have expressed uneasiness with the intentions of this event:

The purpose of the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast is to call men and women to God, and then to entrust them with the application of what it means to live out God’s grace as leaders. The Prayer Breakfast is not a lobby group, which seeks to influence policy even when legislation before Parliament involves very controversial issues. It is not the aim of the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast Group to influence the thinking of others towards any particular political viewpoint, but instead there is a trust in the workings of God, that as we love and pray for one another, the Holy Spirit will work in our lives to help us grow as women and men who love mercy, seek justice and humbly walk with God.

While perusing the photo gallery for this event, it seems as if it is well attended by not only our right wing politicians, but our left wing ones as well.

I’d just like to know how all of you feel about this. I haven’t heard much about it before, until it was mentioned to me by another member. Anyone see this as inappropriate, or is it just me? Not sure at this time if there is actual federal government money going to support this in anyway, but we are looking into it.

A few inspirational words from Simon Parcher, the new president of Humanist Canada as of today:

Fellow HAC Members and all Canadian Humanists,

Today, a new Board of Directors takes responsibility for the Humanist Association of Canada. I first wish to recognize the efforts of the members of the outgoing Board of Directors and to thank them for their contributions to the HAC.

It is an honour and a privilege that I have the opportunity to lead the incoming board as its President. It is with great enthusiasm and anticipation that I welcome my seven fellow directors as they join me in office. These talented and experienced individuals have the potential to become the most outstanding group of Canadian humanist leaders ever assembled and I am confident they will realize that potential.

If you have been asking when the humanist voice would finally begin to make itself heard in Canada in a sustained manner, today is your answer. It is the answer to those who ask when we will stop fencing with one another and turn our swords on ignorance, superstition and injustice.  It is the answer to opinions that we spend too much time on internal politics and governance and not enough time on launching humanism into action. It is the answer for those who ask what Humanists should do, as we will develop programs, campaigns and activities, allowing us to express and publicize our humanist values. The humanist voice will be shouted from the mountain tops and it will fill the valleys below!

And we can be sure that the valleys below are thirsty for what we have to offer. There is a great void being created as many people move away from organized religion and its associated teachings but have nowhere to turn. Many of these newly liberated individuals and families are looking to rediscover a basis for ethics and morality, community among like-minded people, a grounding in reality, a new meaning and purpose in life and peace with the existential questions of life and death. Often, in frustration, they turn to new age groups and other hocus pocus to find the answers they so dearly need. We have an obligation to share the answers we have come to understand and to offer the Philosophy of Humanism to everyone.

I have accepted the role of President of HC so that I might help enable Canadian Humanists to fulfil their potential as humanists. That includes you! Whether you are content being an armchair humanist or you are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to take action, your support and/or participation is needed if Humanism is to become more of a household word. I and the other members of the Board are here to help you work within your local humanist groups and to share your knowledge and expertise with all humanists across Canada. When you are asked if you would like to contribute to humanism in some way, I hope YES will be the answer.

One of the first opportunities to say YES might be in response to an invitation to attend or help organize the Atheist Alliance International and Humanist Canada sponsored International Convention in Montreal on October 1-3. More details will become available in the next few weeks!

My fellow Humanists, I hope we will put our voices together to sing the songs of Humanism in harmony!

Sincerely,
Simon Parcher, President,
Humanist Association of Canada (Humanist Canada)

In yesterday’s Speech From The Throne, the government proposed opening up discussion on changing some of the wording of our national anthem:

Son May Set in O Canada lyrics

This idea has been advanced in light of our Olympic success. Canadian women dominated the podium in Vancouver, and as a result many think it is time to rework this sexist line in the anthem:

“O Canada! Our home and Native land!

True patriot love in all thy sons command.”

I don’t think any Humanist in this country would oppose this change. Others out there may think that changing the anthem is a way of walking away from our heritage, even if it means carrying bigoted messages from the past into the future. Considering that Canada is trying to set an example of freedom and democracy to other nations of the world at international events like the Olympics, I feel that leadership in the present is much more important than words from the past.

Now, while we’re at it, why not address other issues with the anthem. Everyone is obviously familiar with the line:

God keep our land, glorious and free

Do note that this line was added in the 1980 edit of the lyrics, and wasn’t present in the original 1908 version.

As an Atheist and a Humanist, I cringe every time this line approaches. Many people in this country are not religious, and certainly don’t want to leave the glory and the freedom our nation in the hands of a supernatural deity.

Christians seem to get really bent out of shape when the idea of removing “God” from the anthem is raised. They can’t seem to see how anyone could find it uncomfortable to listen to. The way I like to explain it, is to reword the line to be favorable to other faith groups and see how it feels:

  • “Allah keep our land” (Islam)
  • “Odin keep our land” (Norse)
  • “Zeus keep our land” (Ancient Greek)
  • “Xenu keep our land” (Scientology)

If you are from one of the faith groups mentioned above (excluding Norse and Ancient Greek because everyone knows those are just myths…), you probably wouldn’t be bothered by it being worded the way I have done it. If you’re not from one of those groups, the lyrics feel intrusive and divisive; it leaves you feeling excluded from the Canadian identity.

I was listening to conservative radio this morning, and was surprised that many callers didn’t support the “sons” change let alone the “God” change. I also highly doubt that our conservative government would lead a secular initiative to remove “God” as well. But since the issue has been raised, I want to put the question out to all of you:

If we were able to remove the “God” line, what would you like to see it replaced with?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers