UKC

Brunei turns even more medieval. I'd hope the UK government acts swiftly on this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/brunei-brings-in-death-by-sto...

I'm sure the UK government will act swiftly.

Full sycophancy ahead to cause no ructions while a trade deal is sorted.

You may well be right but I sincerely hope not.

I remember meeting a guy who'd walked 20km across the rainforest for a 'beverage' in Sarawak.

Brunei is the least appealing country I ever visited.

Horrifying. But I appreciated Amnesty International's comments, given in the article

(Please, please, no-one mention the stoning scene in Life of Brian, that would be an outrage)

"Sharia law will apply only to Muslims" is possibly the most bizarre statement. How's that going to work?

There we have Offwidth declaring himself to be an Islamophobe. 

A clear breech of demarcation there mate. Get it reported to your shop steward.

😉

What's the joke? 

After all that arguing a couple of weeks ago I'm utterly amazed that you're still missing the point.

What point am I missing? 

Sounds like North Wales

I don't think it's uncommon in countries with mixed religious populations. So theft is illegal for all but a Christian or Buddhist gets a gaol term while a Muslim faces supposedly Sharia sanctioned punishment like amputation of a hand (I say supposedly Sharia, because there is no one Sharia code, interpretations differ, sometimes wildly).

So as an atheist, do I get to choose?

I can't honestly see how a sovereign state could administer a legal system that only applies to one section of the population. Would there be two court systems and how would that work in the event of a mixed "crime"? Say adultery between a Muslim man and a Christian woman. The man gets stoned to death and the woman gets the house and car in the divorce settlement?

When you say "missing the point" is that the same as saying "you still don't agree with me"?

A quick scan down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Islamic_law_by_country shows lots of places where specific laws for Muslims apply only to muslims, normally around family law. Not sure how it works out in all those different places, but it obviously does somehow.

And as an atheist it looks like in many countries you would be dealt with under civil law.

You avoid being stoned to death for the sex, but you get burnt at the stake as a heretic. Firm but fair; that's the ticket.

A clear breach of pedantry there mate. Get it sorted.

Can't see one where the application of Sharia law to criminal law allows a mixed system of enforcement

Perhaps you can see one?

One can see somebody's point and still not agree with it I reckon, or can find it a little bit odd.

Aceh in Indonesia seemed that way round. I know Aceh has a reputation as very conservative, at least to other parts of Indonesia, but no idea how their legal system works!

Jeez we're talking about people being killed by their government. Can you stop being reasonable all the time and have an opinion?

If you're a Muslim it's not possible to be married to a Christian - they have to convert to Islam.

Here in Malaysia there is a dual legal system whereby non Muslims life under non Shariah law and Muslims live with Sharia. Anyone marrying into a Muslim family has to convert and so fall under Shariah law. Sharia law is widely interpreted so that some states here proposed practicing Hudud, though not actually done.

Point of order: it was a "misuse of a homophone"*, not a misuse of pedantry

*no idea what you get for that in Brunei

Clearly some history between the two of you I am unaware of but without knowing what that is you seem to be a dick.

Understand the history and it’s actually worse.

I think its because I regard it as unfair to brand an entire religion due to the appalling excesses of some of its practitioners and for some reason this sends our local atheist moral philosopher into orbit. If I blamed all of Islam for its horrors, like this latest news in Brunei, but said 'I have many secular muslim friends',  we might be pals.

Obviously I'm against people being killed for gay sex, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Jeez to you.  

The history is that Offwidth has repeatedly accused me of "Islamophobia", and has also insisted that the word means "anti-Muslim bigotry", meaning bigotry against *people*.

The problem is that the word has two meanings. According to the OED it means: "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force".

So, "dislike of or prejudice against Musims" is "Islamophobia".  But "Dislike of Islam as a political force" is *also* "Islamophobia".  And under that definition, Offwidth is an Islamophobe. 

Now, if one thinks that it is not sensible to have these two different meanings for the same word, then that's my point. 

The two meanings have been deliberately conflated and promoted by Islamists to try to disallow criticism of Islam.   People who do critique Islam, the idea system, do indeed get called Islamophobes -- ironically, by people such as Offwidth! 

Wrong! As always, Offwidth attempts to conflate ideas and people.  I don't blame "an entire religion" for the actions of a minority of its adherents,  I blame the religion for many of the harmful ideas (the *ideas*) that are part of its mainstream versions.  

Offwidth thinks we all have to pretend that mainstream versions of the religion are always benign and peaceful.

"...The man gets stoned to death and the woman gets the house and car in the divorce settlement?"

I have mates who will tell you that the UK legal system is not a lot fairer

Here we go again. Its not Islamophobic in the way almost anyone understands the word to call out evils done by people or states in the name of Islam. To blame all Islam rather than the medieval practices of some powerful people within it is my concern. Blaming all Islam  is always Islamophobic in the way most people would understand it (and written into policy in many if not most UK organisation views on the subject). So I'm not conflating anything.... it's all in your head (either that or rhetorical word play).  You clearly don't like this is the case in the UK but it most certainly is.  We have to agree to disagree and respect each others rights to say what we say. However our places of work or private web spaces like UKC can chose a different way, that is much tighter than law. I've copied your institutions convoluted weasel advice before to prove it... they absolutely say they defend freedom of speech, as they all do, but yet time and again I and many others end up as a union rep defending people like you, for fairly expressing strong views like yours on Social Media... even where no affilation to your place or subject of work is anywhere to be seen. The serious cases end up being forced to leave with a payoff and gagging orders... which in my view should be way more strictly controlled in University settings, for academic freedom and taxpayer expense reasons.

https://www.macnairswilson.co.uk/Blog/Inquiry-finds-universities-are-gaggin...

I see the reason the west, especially western Europe, is as successful in the way it is, is partly because we are so tolerant... most people in the west are probably religious to some extent (the majority in the US) so we do need to get on. By your focus on absolutism, in attacking Islam and defending full freedom of speech I think we head in the opposite direction that has produced this successful society we currently live in. The recent history of the US, Poland and Hungary shows how society starts to fracture because minorities get labelled unfairly and for the US, in the focus on freedom of speech, common ground gets buried in aggressive oppositional lies and hate. I much prefer the UK way, as our legal limits on freedom of speech are rarely important (although we do need to push back at times). Where people complain in University settings its often looking at tiny issues (like no platforming) and ignoring huge problems (like mass sector use of gagging).

However, your attitude is indeed "Islamophobic" in terms of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word, and their definitions are based on actual usage. 

If that illustrates how dumb the dual-meaning of "Islamophobic" then that is indeed my point. 

You can also be sure that moderate Muslims, protesting about hardline policies in places like Brunei, get told "don't be Islamophobic", coupled with "even the West says it's wrong to be Islamophobic!", neatly conflating the two different meanings of the term. 

I can't think where I have mentioned anything about mixed marriages? I'm still not sure how the application of sharia law to criminal law could be applied separately  with any level of reasonability to people living in the same country.

I accept that placing reasonable  and sharia in the same sentence might be a stretch. 

Why not show us some evidence of large numbers of moderate religious muslims getting unfairly tarred as Islamophobic. Where is the harm other than to a few aggresive media figures? I can assure you when I discuss views like yours with muslim friends they are very worried about them. Their issue is most people don't deal with intellectual philosophy (or swallow dictionaries) and will just misuse such views to further marginalise muslims... giving succour to the extremists in their own community who peddle the lies that the west hates Islam. There is real harm for their community from both sets of views and they say its growing fast. Jewish friends and colleagues say the same thing. Extremism breeds an opposite extremism and the innocent get caught in the middle.

This is the short online definition from the OED

“Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”

Offwidth clearly isn’t doing this.

Oh yes he is.  He dislikes Islam as a political force. 

(And quite right too, any sensible person would be opposed to Islam as a political force; the whole idea of freedom of religion is based on secular politics being distinct from religion, and on religion then being a personal decision to opt in if desired.)

It is one of the standard taunts that reformers in the Islamic world face.   That's why many secular-minded reformist moderates from Muslim backgrounds regard the term "Islamophobia" as a problem. 

(I can point to many of them saying that, Maajid Nawaz, Ali Rivzi, Maryam Namazie, Kenan Malik, etc ...  here for example is a link to Nawaz https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1110571187267125249 )

Similarly, when Western politicians wear a hijab to show solidarity with Christchurch victims, it makes it much harder for secular-minded women in places like Iran to protest against laws that make the hijab compulsory. 

That's why Nawaz has compared the hijab to the confederate flag, he doesn't want it banned, but he thinks we should disapprove -- and disapprove because for the majority of wearers it is not a choice. 

I think I can speak for myself. There is no single Islam so I simply cannot morally 'dislike Islam as a political force' . Some forms are so extreme they are rightly regarded as proscribed terrorist ideology, whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum I have almost no issues with some of the more secular forms in the west (Sunni or Shia), and there is plenty of variation in between. I continue to be amazed and depressed that you can regard Islam as some kind of singular entity in the face of the reality of the huge range of belief, especially in the west.

All those names are media stars with political agendas. In the meantime in real communities of ordinary people fear and concern is increasing. Partly because clever poeple who should know better demonise their religion (rather than stick to calling out the crimes commited in its name) and right wing thugs take that as a rallying call.

But in some countries you can't BE an atheist. Eg the visa application for Saudi requires you to state your religion. Putting  "none" or "atheist" is not acceptable. 

Saudi as a country is far more worrying than Brunei. Both countries are our firm allies. The medievalism they display is more about politics than about all of Islam. The liberal west formed, supported and armed these regimes to protect our oil supply.

Why of course there are many variants of Islam! 

But would you also say that "cannot morally 'dislike fascism as a political force'" because there are many variants of fascism? 

Would you consider it "phobic" to "dislike communism as a political force" because there are different variants of communism?

It's interesting that you have no problem with those forms "in the West", where there are sufficiently few adherents that the religion cannot impose itself as a political force. 

And yet, much of the religion is still much the same as it is Muslim-majority nations.   So, if you had any sort of intellectual integrity, you would either make the statement that you have no problem with the forms of Islam in most Muslim-majority nations, or you would accept that many of the ideas in mainstream Islam are bad ideas (and thus are still bad ideas even where they have fewer adherents).

I don't regard Islam as a singular entity!  This is just your silly strawman, twisting what I say in order to try to discredit it. 

There is no variant of facisim I can see in history that is moderate. That they gained so much ground in the west last century is frightening and Im scared it could happen again. Communism does exist in the west in forms that function but it still a revolutionary ideology that is incompatible with the social democratic capitalism most common in current western governments.

How did the west "form" Saudi Arabia? Of course the Allies played a role in the peninsula during WW1, but I suggest Ibn Saud brought the country into being. Can always be debated

Note how Offwidth excuses the religion of any blame at all for acts that are merely "committed in its name".  The religion itself is entirely benign and impotent,  nothing about the religion or its ideas has any capability at all to lead to harmful acts. 

Every other ideology and belief system does, but if it's Islam then it doesn't. Amazing!

Oh right, but now, all of a sudden, ideas *do* have the capability to lead to harmful acts! 

Offwidth, if you had any degree of intellectual integrity, you would try to be less hypocritically inconsistent.

There are indeed some variants of Islam -- such as Amaddiya and Sufi versions -- that are reasonably moderate (by Islamic standards, anyhow).  But those are minority versions and are often regarded as heretical by the mainstream versions.

The dominant, mainstream versions of Islam are not moderate, in the same way that mainstream versions of fascism are not moderate.  You can see that by looking at nations where they dominate.   (Trying to judge them by looking at places where adherents are a small fraction of the population is just evasive.)

Islam does exist in the west in forms that function but it is still a totalitarian ideology that is incompatible with the liberal, pluralistic democracies  most common in current western nations.

In Brunei they aren't as dogmatic as this.  Apparently there's also an option of being flogged to death.

So that's all right then.

Meanwhile a military court in Lebanon has ruled that homosexuality is not illegal. So yes, Islam comes in many forms. Unfortunately the UK has a tendency to support the most extreme 

 www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2019/Mar-30/480036-military-judge-rules-homosexuality-not-a-crime-in-landmark-case.ashx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=transactional&utm_campaign=Newsletter

The British had an internationally recognised mandate to govern the region after the 1st World War. They used this to help the Saud dynasty overthrow the Hashemite dynasty (because the latter opposed the Balfour treaty) leading to the creation of Saudi Arabia. 

Greetings from Jordan where I've yet to meet anyone with views as intolerant as your own. 

 Brunei turns even more medieval. I'd hope the UK government acts swiftly on this.

There we have Offwidth declaring himself to be an Islamophobe. 

 Nothing to do with Islamaphobia. Such archaic laws belong in the dark ages mate. This is the 21st century. There's no place for such laws in any society anywhere in the world.  

Criticism is not intolerance.  The whole basis of a pluralistic democracy is that we can criticise each others' ideas. 

I agree, but you just continually churn out the same old blanket anti-Islam stereotypes which have little grounding in reality. This does not help create conditions for a healthy pluralistic democracy, rather the opposite  Criticize by all means but make it about specific issues. Most people who follow Islam are moderate.

Which Muslim-majority countries have you visited? I'm intrigued where you get your views from.

Thanks but that's not how I read the creation of modern Saudi Arabia, which is dated to 1932 and is far more to be credited to Ibn Saud than to any western actions after WW1 - in my opinion!

Jordan might well be relatively tolerant compared to its neighbours, but where would you rather live if you were female or LGBT? Jordan or UK?

Another question: If you were a female visitor, would you feel comfortable wearing clothing based on comfort as opposed to modesty?

That amounts to saying that one is not allowed to criticise Islam per se -- it must remain inviolate -- one can only criticise particular policies of particular nations.  To have a proper discussion we need to be allowed to regard Islam itself -- the mainstream ideas -- as harmful.

Many of them are, yes, and many people are far better than their religions.  Many people rightly reject many of the bad parts of their religion.   None of that alters the fact that the religion itself is harmful and should be criticised. 

Not sure what you and Coel imagine the Middle East to be like. Just spent my evening in a shisha bar then a hummus/falafel restaurant in Amman. Almost half the customers in each place were women. Only a very few were wearing headscarves and most of those were in skinny jeans. One woman was in a T-shirt but this was only weird because it's bloody freezing (I'm in a duvet jacket!). Some of the women were hanging out with girlfriends but most were in mixed groups. All the local women in the shisha  bar were smoking.

As for homosexuality, it was illegal under British rule, but was legalised in 1951 when Jordan became free to make its own laws!

 I'm sitting in my room now drinking a beer which I bought in an off-licence. There's practically one on every street.

Now I've never been to a Gulf state, but this is what life is like in a city in the Levant.

Interesting. 

Probably no different to Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Turkey, Egypt etc

Of course Libya used to be like this before the western Liberals with their bombs of peace and love turned it into a hell hole.

Iraq to. 

I'm not imagining anything (and yes I've been to the Middle East).

That's good to hear. Have you met any openly gay people while spending time there too?

I don't know why Coel couldn't take an approach on this thread which was just about the facts, rather than one which seemed to be about scoring a point at Offwidth's expense a little bit too, it's sometimes unhelpful when talking about things I've found, but I think he possibly does have a point about the influence of Islam (or any religion) needing to be 'kept within the sphere of the personal' when it comes to civil rights and wider society. The recent protests about LGBT relationships in Birmingham are plain illogical (and encroach upon the freedom of others to choose their own faith or lack of), if these parents have a problem with LGBT relationships being presented as being equally valid as straight ones, they can explain where the immorality lies in logical steps, ie 'X action causes harm in this way - which is why I find it immoral.', rather than 'It's against my religion and I am a Muslim', that's no reason at all when two women or two men loving one another is harmless. That approach is the best way a society where everybody can live can be built, and these parents undermine(d) it.

Do you and Offwidth actually get any climbing done?🙂

I'll re ask the question:
Where would you rather be if you were a woman or someone that was LGBT - Jordan or UK?
Jordan might well be relatively tolerant compared to some other Islamic states, but it's nowhere near as tolerant as the UK when it comes to women and LGBT rights. 

Official statistics suggest that a women is 10 times more likely to be raped in the U.K. Compared to Jordan. Whilst official statistics with crimes of this sort can be misleading, this is a huge differential, and probably shouldn't be totally ignored.

I might disagree. I think it should be totally ignored.

Jordan, no the UK. Jordan on weekdays, the UK at the weekends. No... Jordan in winter, the UK in summer. 

Your question is nonsensical. Unless they are being persecuted or in extreme poverty most people prefer to live in familiar surroundings with friends and family that accept them. Your suggestion that more than 50% of the Jordanian population would be happier living in the UK is simply outrageous. Do you honestly believe that the UK is some kind of Nirvana for Middle-Eastern women and homosexuals?

Now that's what I call constructive criticism of Islam that helps to foster a tolerant, pluralistic society. 

Compared to Jordan?
Yes.

Are you on the ground doing research, or have you got a host of other sources?

I managed to sneak in 10 routes in a couple of hours in perfect conditions at Stanage before sunset on Friday. Saturday I promised to go on an organised walk but I pointed out various obscure gems on Coombe Moss and the edge of the Goyt. Sunday was the BMC AGM.  My tick list of both routes and boulder problems are into 5 figures and, unlike my debating partner, less than 5% of my posts are on Islam

Back on subject the Birmingham LGBT school situation seemed to me more about conservative trouble makers than the average muslim. I think the law should force such lessons.

As ever, you attempt to minimise the issue.  Boycotts by not sending kids to school only work if a wide swathe of parents join in. 

And has anyone noticed how few politicians are speaking out to criticise the protestors?    (Yes, I do realise that politicians have another issue on their minds at the moment.)

Such conservative activists happily lie and intimidate. The lessons were set up with local muslim community input.

As for local Labour MPs here is the view from  one.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/03/08/labour-mp-jess-phillips-heartbroken-s...

Sure, and the point is that they are succeeding in being influential.

A bit like anti PC and anti SJW and anti EU obsessives on the right on social media and in the right wing press.

Why not start in our own country first? :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality 

You're ducking the point of the question.

Women have freer lives in Europe than they do in North African/Middle Eastern countries.

Homosexuals are not discriminated against in Europe as they are in North African/ Middle Eastern countries.

Do you disagree with the above?

This takes us back to history. From 1000 to 500 years ago muslim countries were more enlightened than Christian europe ... and some were barely different until the start of the 20th century. Modern muslim state histories have faced huge political distortion by western powers for their own political ends,  such that any muslim state is a developing nation with many operating as kingdoms and none fully functioning in democratic terms (Malaysia, the best example, is still fighting massive political corruption).  In particular the US and UK governments have consistently backed the house of Saud to this day, who with all that oil money have been spreading medieval Wahabist attitudes across the world and done way too little to punish those rich citizens funding terrorism. 

With respect, I suggest it is hardly possible to say what the Middle East is "like", because of great differences between the different countries - let's say the countries are Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

I suggest Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen are not at all similar to Jordan

PS I spent 4 years in the Middle East in various countries

The West prefer extremist Muslims to secular one's for many reasons. Ranging from their use by the ruling class of the west to attack secular organised progressive Muslim movements and countries to ruling over extremist dominated countries being easier as it keeps the people dumbed down and easier to exploit and rob. 

It's a capitalists dream made reality. 

 Modern muslim state histories have faced huge political distortion by western powers for their own political ends,  such that any muslim state is a developing nation with many operating as kingdoms and none fully functioning in democratic terms (Malaysia, the best example, is still fighting massive political corruption).  In particular the US and UK governments have consistently backed the house of Saud to this day, who with all that oil money have been spreading medieval Wahabist attitudes across the world and done way too little to punish those rich citizens funding terrorism. 

Whether these countries were or weren't more enlightened than Europe in the past I don't know. What I do know is that they aren't now.

I don't buy the "it's all our fault" position. These countries have ruled themselves for decades and blaming their shortcomings today on our involvement in their history decades ago is in my view an excuse to avoid pointing out that they have some serious issues with the way their countries are governed. I never hear anyone blaming the West for S. Korea's transformation from one of the world's poorest to one of the world's richest in half a century even though it has many thousands of US troops garrisoned on its soil.

They have ruled themselves with often despotic traits after having been gifted their power by the west and any political alternative stomped on with full support from the west ... with the exception of the Arab spring. If you compare the situation with other developing countries they are not so different. Comparing life in muslim states with that in fully developed states is comparing butterflies with caterpillars.

South Korea... from Amnesty.... note in particular the LGBTI comment

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/south-korea/

Ok, so its your belief that if they had been left alone for the last 60, 70 or 80 years they would have transformed into liberal democracies, yes? Their inability to move on from the middle ages has nothing to do with the cultures of nepotism and corruption that existed before and after the West was interfering in their affairs?

I didn't say South Korea was perfect but significantly more enlightened than North African and Middle Eastern countries.

I not ducking FactorX's question. He wants to know if I would rather be a woman/homosexual in the UK or Jordan? It's a super complex question for which he wants a binary answer.

Your question is clearer! Same sex marriage is not recognised in Jordan and ostentatious acts of affection between people of the same sex can be ruled unlawful (although physical contact between people of the same sex is much more common in the Middle East than in the UK). So in these two areas the UK has recently legislated to provide more rights to homosexuals than Jordan has. But let's not forget the UK was still chemically castrating and imprisoning homosexuals years after Jordan had legalised homosexuality. 

In Europe only 16 nations recognise same-sex marriage. As recently as 2014 two homosexuals were charged with breach of the peace in Italy for kissing in public.

That's a fair enough generalisation. I'd say that women generally have more opportunities in Europe than in the Middle East/North Africa. Are European women happier and more fulfilled? Not so sure.

For the record I spent yesterday with Jordanian government officials (male and female) to discuss mountain guide training in Jordan. One of the key points was about the best way to encourage women to become mountain guides in the country. 

Salam !

I think one could need to look into things quite carefully before drawing any conclusions, it was only in 2017 that the law in Jordan allowing a man to escape charges of rape if he married his victim was repealed. Reading your post reminded me of a poster called gingerkate talking about the law in the UK not recognising rape within marriage until relatively recently, so I googled it and was surprised to find that it only became recognised in 1991 here. One would need to look into whether it's recognised there, and how likely women say they would be to report a rape and other variables.

I've been to Algeria and Iraq from that list. Both were similar to Jordan. I suspect Syria is (or at least was) much the same. I've also visited Iran which was also similar apart from the fact that alcohol was not readily available and women did all wear headscarves (although often very minimally). I was surprised in Iran that random women would sit down with me in cafés and chat. Never happens in Europe!

In all these countries however there is a big difference between cosmopolitan city life and much more traditional village life.

But I've honestly never seen anywhere near as many Burqas in any of these countries as I have in a London university!

"But I've honestly never seen anywhere near as many Burqas in any of these countries as I have in a London university!"

Well that's comforting 

Or at least thought-provoking! Many Muslim women who study in London wear burqas while those in god-forsaken Iranian villages choose to leave their faces uncovered. Doesn't fit the accepted narrative.

The women in London choose to wear a burqa and could remove them at any time to reveal their crop tops and shorty short shorts.
The women in Iran have to wear a hijab. 
Subtle difference.

This would suggest that some people are seeking out and reporting anti-Islamic views to the university as a form of witch hunt, and that the university is acting upon that information by punishing the 'guilty'.  Or have I misunderstood?

You have misunderstood. The cases involved various types of alledged misuse of social media according to a policy. 

A few more questions, if I may.  Has the alleged misuse included expressing criticism of Islam on social media?  (Your previous comments indicate that it has, but I may be wrong). And how does the university discover the 'misuse' when those accused don't have any obvious affiliation with their employer - does it police social media itself to uncover their identities, or does it act on reports from outside the administration?

"Head teachers who spoke after the meeting expressed their frustration over a lack of clarity and support for equality teaching. One head, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "We feel completely alone here and feel as if we're getting no overt support whatsoever from the government."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47776736

Usually discovered based on (normally malicious) complaints from students or from discoveries from management investigations. I'm aware of cases involving religion elsewhere but have never dealt with any myself. The key issues I am concerned with are around academic freedom, freedom of staff to use social media as lawful individuals in a private capacity and fairness of process (there is too often a tendancy to assume guilt before proving innocence and in that being very strict in applying rules that often breach the first two issues). I'm not aware of any university actively policing in anything other than a responsive mode (except the usual IT monitoring tools), but investigations have included what has been evidenced to having been liked/linked/viewed privately and even what linked 'friends' have said and done. My advice to academics is have no attachment to your institution on any private social media accounts (treat it as work related or remain completely detached  or if you have need for both, have both). Also be aware any email you have sent on the University system can be read (use private emails for sensitive communication).

Thanks for the clarification, it's much appreciated.  And I share your concerns about privacy, fairness of process, and academic freedom - these are vitally important.

It's very sad to hear about malicious complaints from students. 

It's what happens when you force a consumer focus on an educational activity. The customer obviously isn't always right when being assessed in HE. A small minority from those who sulk when they don't get the grade they want then use dishonest methods to cause trouble in response. I'd add that a complaints process is important and in my experience most student complaints are not malicious but the proportion that are have risen significantly since the new marketised ideas came in with the 9k fees. Fairness in treatment of staff who are the subjects of complaints has in my experience noticably declined in this time.

The problem is, that one doesn't actually know. Incidentally, according to polls, Asians in the UK are approx twice as likely to have a dim view of homosexuality than wider society - leading onto the question of whether it's cultural or religious in root.

What we do actually know is how poorly the government and anybody in authority seems to have stood up for logic and reason, and said there's nothing immoral about LGTB inclusiveness being taught in schools, and that parents can like it or lump it. 

If you adjust for how long various religious communities have been in the UK I'm not so sure those numbers are so extreme.

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/

I couldn't agree more.

More bad behaviour from the Saudis now:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/05/us-saudi-dual-citizens-among-...

Islamophobia = antisemitism, but for Muslims

Hopefully that’s simple enough for you.

Simple, and wrong.  "Muslims" are not even a racial grouping, no matter how far you try to stretch the concept.  Try again. 

Jews are not a « racial grouping ». This was a nazi invention. Easy to prove via negativa. But never mind. Try again. In any case, irrelevant.

If we define antisemitism as hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews,  islamophobia is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Muslims.

They are to quite an extent, and certainly a lot more so than "Muslims".

That simply does not follow.  The two terms have different origins and intents. 

"Islamophobia" actually has two definitions. One is, as you say, hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Muslims.  The other is being critical of the doctrines of the Islamic religion, especially as they relate to politics and wider society.   (See, e.g., https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islamophobia )

The two definitions are why the term is problematic, and why Islamists deliberately promote it in order to conflate the two.    Thus people are playing the Islamists' game by using the term.

There are of course large and rather diverse subgroups, but overall Jews can easily be identified genetically, and are in almost all cases much more similar to each other than to their host populations (not surprising following 2000 years of exclusion and persecution)*! In fact, there is even a Y haplotype associated with the last name Cohen, suggesting that the women of the priestly tribe Cohanim were surprisingly faithful over the last few of millennia 

I appreciate your motivations, but similar to the people claiming that there is "only one human race" I believe you are doing the cause of nondiscrimination a huge disfavour. It would be much better to argue that the clear and present differences do not justify any discrimination. It makes much more sense to attack the bad "science" behind the Bell curve arguments than to ideologically bark up the wrong tree: Give me a genome sequence, and it is laughably trivial to identify the donor's racial background. Deduce intelligence from that? Not yet, would be my guess. 

CB

* the biggest outlier is of course Palestinians, suggesting that a significant fraction of Jews converted multiple times rather than leaving, making the current Middle East conflict even more irrational!

Completely wrong. You need only one Jew that  doesn’t conform to your Jewish « racial profile » to prove that there isn’t such a thing as a Jewish race.

You have just provided a counter example invalidating your own theory.

Absolute, utter, bollocks. 

Anti-Semitic is even more of a mis-nomer. The biggest Semetic group are Arabs and the vast majority of Arabs are not Jews. Anti-Jewish and Anti-Islamic seem the most appropriate terms.

You have a very absolutest, black--white view of the world.  Categories either have to be clear, absolute and discrete, or they don't exist. 

The world is not like that. Categories can be fuzzy edged and yet still be real and significant.

It is you who have a simplistic view of the world. You can’t put people in “racial” categories simply because such a simplistic model doesn’t work.

What you have is highly dimensional overlapping clusters, which are way too complex to map or make sense of.

there is in fact absolutely no point doing it unless what you want is put people in little boxes to satisfy whatever prejudices you have. In that regard, there is absolutely no difference between you and the SJW you keep ranting about.

You don’t understand dimensionality. I can make a category of people with big feet and people with small feet. Even if you are not sure what shoe size constitutes the boundary, you can still use it. I can make a category of people with white skin or black skin, even if you can disagree with the shade.

This is not the case with something like ”Jewish” there are thousands of dimensions to being “Jewish”, and in most of them you have no measure. To then pretend you can associate a genetic or “racial” profile to it is an insult to common sense  (and, incidentally, is just racist).

There are as many 'dimensions' to being Jewish as there are Jews, however there are only 2 routes to becoming Jewish. One is to convert, which is very difficult and rare, the other is to have a Jewish mother ie. is genetic.

https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/New-law-says-genetic...

Irrelevant. You can have a Jewish mother and not be Jewish. In fact there must be a lot more non-Jewish people with a Jewish mother at some point in their ancestry than there are Jews in the world.

Strict conditions of entry does not make it a “race”, it just introduces a bias.

I give up. I assume you have studied humanities or such and are thus genetically incapable of understanding genetics!

CB

Lots of women renounce their Jewishness but their children will still be considered Jews if they wish. However if a non-Jew wants to become Jewish it's a long, arduous process to convert and you need to demonstrate faith in Judaism. Even adopted children must convert, although the process is often facilitated. 

Ethnicity is certainly a better term than 'race', but you cannot deny the genetic basis of Jewish identity in the vast majority of cases.

So you don't use a "simplistic" model, in which racial categories are separate and discrete, you adopt a sensible account in which they are fuzzy edged.    Fuzzy-edged clusterings are a common feature of the real world.

And yes, racial clusterings are real ones (as stated above, they can be readily discerned in genetic analysis; companies such as 23andme do that, and their results match with people's self reports of their ancestry).

Yes.

No.  Sorry, but some of us can cope with complexity!

Actually I can and just did. Not only there are plenty counter example proving that it isn’t the case via negativa.

But it is also pretty obvious that there are a lot more non-Jewish people with Jewish ancestry in their lineage than there are Jewish people in the world. So what is fooling you there is yuuuuuge survivorship bias.

Fuzzy edges clustering is simplistic. Fractal hierarchies is more realistic. Unfortunately the complexity and dimensionality is very high and doesn’t lend itself to statistics or modelling.

Actually most of the time these services give you completely different results...

But never mind. It doesn’t mean there is a Jewish “race”. There are so many combination of genes  possible, I could take a completely random group of people and find a combination that differentiate them from the rest and pretend they form a “race”.

Coping with complexity is not the same as deluding yourself in thinking that you can make a statistical statement about the system when you can’t.

Point is, is if I give you the DNA of a Muslim Palestinian there is a very high chance that the DNA would be flagged up as “Jewish” in your shit model. It does not work.

It is still entirely meaningful and valid to distinguish between, for example, those Australians who are descended from waves of migration about 40,000 years ago from Asia and those Australians who are descended from waves of migration in the last few hundred years from Europe.  

Can you please give me your definition of Jewishness. Genuinely interested.

That is obviously going to be the case given that half the Jewish population (men) do not pass on their Jewishness, and many of these have children with non-Jewish women. 

Point is it's very difficult to become Jewish if you don't have the genes. This is contrary to other commonly accepted identities such as religions, nationalities, football supporters etc...

There isn’t one definition. Anybody can identify or not identify as Jewish for many different reasons.

Yes, all it means is that there is a yuuuuge selection bias. Which explains why you can predict with moderate accuracy that someone who is Jewish is likely to have  a certain gene (and even that I doubt, despite massaging of the data and huge publication bias, most of the genetic studies on Jews are contradicting each other and/or are not reproducible), but cannot predict with any sort of accuracy that someone with that gene is Jewish.

If I take a random sample of 2000 Muslims Palestinians, and take their DNA, and most come up as Jewish in a genetic test, it’s pretty clear that your racial model doesn’t work.

If I'm following your argument correctly, there is effectively no such thing as race.  But Muslims are a race, and if you don't like Islam you're being racist against them.  Because religion is a race, but only if you're a Muslim.  If you're some other religion, it's not.  So, there are no races, except there's two: Muslims and non-Muslims. 

Or perhaps it's a little more nuanced than that.  Perhaps there's only one race - Muslims, whom many people are racist against - and everyone else doesn't have a race.  Yes, I think I've got it....

You are not following correctly. You may be able to make statements about race based on low dimensional attributes that you know.

For example, I can construct a race of people called big endians, and another race little endian, based on whether they like to eat an egg from the  narrow or the wide end. 

I cannot however, measure the existence of a race on such complex ethnocultural factors such as Jewishness. The dimensions to Jewishness are numerous, unknown, and every Jew gives you a different answer.

What I can do however is prove via negativa that the genetic dimension is not enough to characterise Jewishness. 

Which we have done conclusively.

Wrong.

You obviously did not.

So can someone with no Jewish ancestry identify as Jewish?

Hey, there's more to understanding than just knowing things, you know.  If you feel that Muslim is a race, then it is.  And if you feel that Jew isn't, then it isn't.  Stop being so racist and join in with the angry sad frustrated people who are going to warp reality by sheer power of emotion.  Come on CB, hold my hand and sing with me:

youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ&

That seems pretty obvious that this is the case and one is bound to find many examples. But As i have explained it tells you nothing.

The interesting question is whether having “Jewish ancestry” (whatever that is) makes you automatically a “Jew” and part of the Jewish “race”. It is pretty obvious that it is not the case.

It’s not about feelings. It’s about basic statistics.