Renaissance Italy: "Paganism Everywhere"

In Italy ... the tendency was strong toward everything ancient, whether in art of in books. Whatever was heathenish in painting, in sculpture, in pottery, in books, was welcomed, admired, treasured. More than all his contemporaries, Lorenzo de Medici fostered this taste.

The furor swept into the church. Scarcely a vestige or semblance of Christianity remained in it. Essentially the people were heathen amid all the splendor. "Italy was the darkest spot in all Christendom," remarks one in speaking of that period.

This inclination backward and downward Savonarola clearly saw from the moment he entered Florence. The state of things sorely troubled him. Everywhere he protested against it. As soon as possible he meant to effect a reform, in every line of literature especially. No sooner was he prior of San Marco than he began the work.

Did his condemnation include all ancient literature?— Far from it. Few men were better versed in the classics than Savonarola. But the enthusiastic study of pagan authors and pagan art had corrupted the Christian faith, and displaced the Holy Scriptures. These, and not Greek fables, he believed to be the basis of all true education. Why should Livy and Thucydides engross the whole attention of students, and the historians of the Old Testament be neglected ? he would ask.

The study of the Old Testament was his delight, as has already been remarked. And when he would lead others into its rich fields, his words were spoken with thrilling effect. Often the telling of what he himself had found therein changed the plan and purpose of a human life. To too great an extent, perhaps, he attached a spiritual meaning to everything. But this faculty gave him an immense influence in teaching and preaching, as well as in quiet, earnest talks with friends. Thus, in urging the Florentines to shun intellectual idolatry, his prohibitions were strengthened and supported by text after text of Scripture. From every wandering path he brought them straight back to its lessons.

"Isaac," he said, "commanded not to take a wife of the daughters of Canaan, warned Christians not to seek truth in heathen writings." "The Jews, loathing manna in the wilderness, and sighing for the flesh-pots of Egypt, prefigured those who have the word of God but neglect it for the study of pagan philosophy." To this symbolism he added the noble exhortation to "believe in the all-sufficiency of the word, and in the wisdom of Christ, who has left his precepts so clearly expressed that no human wisdom is required to explain them." How contradictory is this last statement to the teaching of the papal church, which maintains that the common people cannot understand the Scriptures, and should not read them without explanation by the priests.

He exclaimed: "Go into all the schools of Florence, and you will find professors paid to teach logic and philosophy, the arts and sciences, but not one paid to undertake the teaching of Holy Scripture. Dost thou not perceive that faith is degraded by resting it on the profane sciences? Call to mind David going forth to meet Goliath, and, laying aside the armor of pagan study, arm thyself with a lively and simple faith, after the example of the apostles and martyrs."

Prodigious was the evil effect of this exclusive cultivation of classical literature. All branches of education suffered from it. The standard of excellence in art was found in pagan models. Not only so, artists often selected their models from the most unworthy classes. "Madonnas, Magdalens, and saints were picked up anywhere, and under the artist's transforming hand became holy, humble men and women, and even glorified saints." Before such pictures the people paid homage. To Savonarola the thought of all this was torture. At the same time he realized that the mere putting away of impure things wouid not secure purity of heart. So, with all the energy of his soul, he implored his people to strive after inward cleanliness.

As he no doubt anticipated, loud voices were raised in opposition, and perhaps the most hostile were those of the priests, for some of them even refused absolutions to persons who attended the prior's lectures. These things Savonarola well knew, and therefore looked for but little fruit of his labor in his own day. But from the youths and children who heard him, he hoped much. He delighted in filling their minds with his own healthy thoughts, and often tenderly urged them "to remember his words, and to see that they bore fruit when his voice should be heard no more."

Sometimes he told them that in their hands might be placed the guidance and government of their country, the education of children yet unborn. Then, addressing the mothers, he entreated them "to restrain and guide their children as only mothers can. Now he admonished the fathers to secure to their sons the soundest education possible; to assure to them a knowledge of true Christianity, while they acquainted themselves with Virgil, Cicero, and Horace; thus would they acquire both eloquence and the truth."

Great must have been Savonarola's confidence that from his seed-sowing in the hearts of the youthful Florentines a rich harvest would be reaped, for at the close of one of these sermons, we hear him exclaim: "O Florence! deal with me as thou wilt. I have mounted the pulpit this day, to tell thee that thou wilt not destroy my work, because it is the work of Christ. Whether I live or die, the seed I have sown will not the less bear fruit. If my enemies are powerful enough to drive me from thy walls, I shall not be grieved. Some desert I shall find where I can take refuge with my Bible, and enjoy a repose which thy citizens shall not be able to disturb."

Indeed, Savonarola's career proved that with the children his influence was marvelous. Under his gentle, persuasive words and manner, the children of Florence, formerly rude and willful, yielded to his every request. They attended his preaching; joined most heartily with him in the devotional exercises; chanted the sacred songs and hymns which he himself had composed and adapted to music, and which, as he ardently hoped, would induce the older Florentines to discard the pernicious ballads provided by Lorenzo de Medici, to be-sung during the annual carnival.

[Savonarola, the Florentine Martyr, by Emma Hildreth Adams, first published in 1890, from Chapter VIII: "In Italy -- Paganism Everywhere"]

"Should the right to oppose Islam not exist?"

This is why they hate her.

At Taslima Nasreen's website there is a whole page of articles by her that you can download in pdf format. The following is an excerpt from "Homeless Everywhere":

When I was asked to memorize verses from the Qur’an, I first wanted to know what they meant. The Qur’an is in Arabic, whereas I read and speak Bengali. My mother said that it would please Allah if I read the Qur’an in the original Arabic. Merely reading it was one thing - I wished to know its meaning. Even my mother could not tell me what it was saying or meant to say. Eventually, this did not matter very much as at the age of twelve or thirteen. I managed to get hold of Bengali translations of both the Qur’an and the Hadith.

With the exception of my mother, no one at home seemed to be interested in or dabbled in religious affairs. And a great deal of my mother’s religiosity sprang from her disapproval of my father’s activities; also, it kept her mind occupied. Even then, she could never fully immerse herself in religion. I do not think I ever had the slightest belief in religion. My father, my brother, my uncles – those I grew up with – none of them was drawn to religion. I will not say they were all atheists, but they were all opposed to praying. This is the family I was born into and the environment I grew up in. Thus, even in childhood it did not take a major effort or struggle for me to free myself from the shackles of religion. But as a woman I had to struggle greatly to get human rights. One must realize that ours is a patriarchal society.

My father was a physician, a rationalist and man of science. He flouted convention when it came to educating his children. Most other fathers were obsessed about getting their daughters married almost as soon as they reached puberty. My father did nothing of the kind. He wanted me to get an education and be independent. It was my father who made it all possible.

When I first started writing on women’s rights, it was only natural for me to speak out against patriarchy. I strongly believe that patriarchy and religion cannot co-exist with women’s rights. I can’t exploit people. If I could, I would have said that women’s rights and human rights are compatible with religion. This has been said by politicians and the many who have been exploiting humankind for far too long. I had to oppose religion as well as traditions and customs that are based on inequality, for all of these are the very instruments that patriarchy uses to deny the rights of women. I have never believed in the use of force to achieve anything but, if I had, I could have told the world how since time immemorial the institutions of the patriarchal state have oppressed the rights of women. It is not just religious fundamentalists but also society’s women-haters, established institutions, and even governments that have fought against me. It is these very people, these regressive misogynists, who have made it their mission to destroy my life and all that I hold dear.

Most people have no concept whatsoever of human rights. The basic concepts of democracy, human rights, and women’s rights simply do not figure in quite a few nations’ list of priorities.

A sick society is one in which any woman is treated as an inferior being. This transcends mere social laws, mores, and conventions. Be it Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism or Christianity, they are united in their oppression of women. I have opposed this for as long as I can remember. The trouble, however, is that whenever I have spoken out about Islam’s oppression of women, Muslim fundamentalists, or even some non-Muslim secular forces, have branded me a Jewish or Christian or Hindu propagandist. This conspiracy to defame and slander is not new. Naturally, there are those who believe this kind of slander and find it impossible to believe that anything I write could possibly have any nobility of intention. I feel nothing but pity for such people. What such people fail to acknowledge is that without the right to disagree, no society can progress . . . .

By speaking on behalf of justice, do I deserve to be a social pariah on an entire subcontinent? Chased out, made homeless everywhere, this is justice? Are there really multitudes of human beings who approve of such behaviour? Today, I am homeless everywhere. Why? If there is no complete freedom of speech in an Islamic society, is there any hope of progress? Should the right to oppose Islam not exist?

If an Islamic society does not check fundamentalism within itself, are we to assume that the notion of moderate or progressive people in Muslim society is but a pretence? I heard that Islamic fundamentalists are just a minority. Most Muslims are moderate. How many ‘moderate Muslims’ have opposed the numerous fatwas that fundamentalists throughout the world are handing out? How many moderate Muslims have opposed the heinous acts of cruelty being perpetrated on women by fundamentalists? Where are the women – those on whose behalf and for whose sake I am writing – for whom I had to undergo so many traumas? One seldom sees them opposing what is being done to me or taking a stance on my behalf. One wonders if conscience and truth have all but been obliterated.

"Islam means submission" (Geert Wilders addresses House of Lords)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[I certainly don't agree with everything that Dutch political leader Geert Wilders has to say. I wish there were voices on the Left who were standing up against the totalitarian ideology of Islam -- but there are not.

I find it especially damning when Wilders says: "Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote."

And just to emphasize the craven-ness of the Left, specifically with respect to women's rights, I am also separately posting a "statement" from Arundhati Roy on the subject of Taslima Nasreen, along with some commentary by me.

Below is the complete text of the speech that Wilders gave today in London, speaking to the House of Lords. I have added some emphases here and there.]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899. Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be afraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Arundhati Roy on Taslima Nasreen

Taslima Nasreen is an outspoken feminist writer from Bangladesh, where her championing of women's rights and her humanist critique of Islam so enraged the followers of the Religion of Peace that she was forced to flee her homeland in 1994, in fear of her life.

There was a time, and not so long ago, when someone like Taslima would have been feted and showered with honors by secularists, liberals, progressives and leftists the world over. But today she is a nearly friendless fugitive whose quaintly plain-spoken feminism hasn't kept up with the times. Political correctness now demands that the Religion of Peace must be respected, and all its critics silenced for daring to engage in "hate speech."

Two years ago the leftist Indian diva Arudhati Roy released a very revealing "statement" on the subject of "Taslima Nasrin & 'Free Speech'." At the time, Taslima was in the custody of the Indian government, not for any crime she had committed or was even accused of committing, but because she was once again facing mounting death threats, this time from the followers of the Religion of Peace in India, where she had been granted asylum.

But instead of making a clear and unequivocal declaration of support for and solidarity with Taslima, Arudhati Roy hems and haws and lectures her audience about how complicated these things are, how there are many different kinds of fundamentalism, etc, etc. Eventually Roy manages to get around to her real point: she insists on linking Taslima's case with that of several prominent Indian Maoists who had been arrested, accused of being linked to the "Naxalite" terrorists.

The Naxalites are essentially the Indian Maoist equivalent of Al Qaeda. They have been responsible for thousands of deaths over the last two decades. But Roy insists that these murderers "have as much right to the freedom of expression, as much right to place their ideology - however abhorrent the government or anybody else may believe it to be - in the public domain, in the so-called marketplace of ideas as anybody else does."

It is emphatically not "ideology" or "freedom of expression" that is the issue in the case of those whom Roy insists on equating with Taslima. Communists, including Maoists, are major players in India's political scene. The Communist Party of India is one of the most successful parties in the country, and they have a history of cooperating with the Congress Party.

The Naxalites, however, are not interested in election campaigns and parliamentary coalitions. Rather, they are waging a merciless war of terror throughout a region that now includes 40% of India's territory (now known as "The Red Zone").

The point is that even if those named by Arundhati Roy are falsely accused, their cases are completely different from that of a novelist and poet who is targeted only because her outspoken feminism and humanism is unacceptable to the Religion of Peace.

You see, Roy and those like her are not at all interested in defending Taslima. However, Roy's fawning Western admirers falsely believe that she is actually a sincere feminist, rather than just another soft-core Islamist (that is to say, Indian "secularist"). So Roy felt the need to give the appearance of lending her support to Taslima, although she is only willing to do this as an aside, while focusing on her real agenda of appeasing Islam and defending the Naxalites.

Below is the complete text of Roy's "statement." It is interesting to contrast what Roy says below, from February of 2008, to her much more straightforward support for Taslima that she voiced two months earlier in this interview conducted in December of 2007.

. . . . . . . . . .

Taslima Nasrin & "Free Speech"
Arundhati Roy's Statement February 13, 2008, New Delhi, India

By Arundhati Roy

Monday, February 25, 2008

Arundhati Roy's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

I would like to caution us all against looking at this issue, in particular the issue of Taslima Nasrin, through the single lens of a battle between religious fundamentalism and secular liberalism. Taslima Nasrin herself sometimes contributes to that view. On her website, she says: "Humankind is facing an uncertain future.” In particular, the conflict is between two different ideas, secularism and fundamentalism.” To me, this conflict is basically between modern, rational, logical thinking and irrational, blind faith. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not."

How strange it is then, that it was the West Bengal Government - led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a party that sees itself as the vanguard of secularism, modern, logical, and rational thinking - that banned Nasrin's autobiographical novel Dwikhandita, not once, but twice. Twice the ban was successfully challenged in the Calcutta High Court. The book was published, and for four years people in Bengal read it and Taslima Nasrin lived in Calcutta. And there the matter remained - without incident.

Then Nandigram happened. Muslims and Dalits bore the brunt of the government's attack. The CPI(M) began to worry about losing the "Muslim vote." So it played the Taslima card. A report by Mohammed Safi Samsi in the Indian Express (December 1, 2007) tells the story.

The government launched its operation to "recapture" Nandigram at the end of October 2007:

On November 1, Path Sanket a CPI(M) magazine published an anonymous letter supporting Taslima Nasrin, adding some gratuitous insults of its own against Prophet Mohammed. On the November 8, the government banned the magazine and a member of the editorial team called printing the letter a "historic blunder." But, of course, vernacular newspapers republished the letter. Photocopies of the letter were then distributed in Muslim-dominated localities.

On November 21 - a week after more than 60,000 people marched on the streets protesting the government's actions in Nandigram - the little-known All India Minority Forum organized a protest that then "erupted" in violence. The army was called in. The government deported Taslima Nasrin from West Bengal.

And today, on February 13, we are all gathered here to discuss "free speech." Not the recapturing of Nandigram or the continuing terrorizing, humiliation, and rape of the people who live there.

It seems pretty clear that the threat to free speech comes as much from chemical hubs and iron ore mines - and from the project of land grab, enclosure, and mass displacement - as it does from religious fundamentalism. To not see this is to fall into a trap that has been cleverly laid for us.

Religious fundamentalists, especially those from minority communities, are often inadvertently playing out a script that has been written for them. Their outrage, genuine though it may be, has become a dependable, predictable, and an extremely useful political device to further the agendas of others.

The principle of free speech and expression has to negotiate many, many fundamentalisms. Religious fundamentalism, ultranationalist fundamentalism, market fundamentalism, among others. Sometimes they are intertwined in the strangest ways.

Liberals often make the mistake of believing that free speech is a fundamental right given to us by the Indian constitution - and that when it is curbed either by the state or by vigilante militias and thugs, the constitution is being subverted. This is not true. Free speech is not our constitutional right. It is a contained right, beset with caveats, caveats that are always used by the powerful to control and dominate those who are powerless.

Now, we have a slew of new laws that make not just free speech but freedom itself in India a pathetic joke, a distant dream. There is the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), which incorporates some of the worst provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). There is the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, the Madhya Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act, and the utterly draconian Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA). Some of these laws contain provisions whose sole purpose seems to be to criminalize everybody and then leave the government free to decide at leisure whom to imprison. Under the CSPSA and the UAPA, for example, the government is free to arbitrarily ban any organization without giving any specific reason for placing the ban.

Here is how the CSPA defines an organization: " 'Organization' means any combination, body or group of persons whether known by any distinctive name or not and whether registered under any relevant law or not and whether governed by any written constitution or not.

Remember, the vaguer the provisions in the law, the wider the net it casts, the greater the threat to civil and democratic rights.

Here is how the CSPSA defines an "unlawful activity": "Any action taken by such [banned] individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise."

And then there are some sub-clauses that widen the net:


(i) which constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace or tranquility

(ii) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order

And, remarkably

(vi) of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions.


In Section 8(5) it says that "Whoever commits or abets or attempts to commit or abet or plans to commit any unlawful activity shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years."

So now they have mind readers in the Chattisgarh government, as well as seers.

How can there be even the pretense of free speech or freedom under laws like these? All over the country, not just journalists and writers, but anybody who disagrees with the government's plans is being arrested, tortured, and imprisoned. Sometimes murdered.

Govind Kutty, the editor of People's March, a publication banned for being sympathetic to Maoist ideology, has been arrested and imprisoned. The Maoists have as much right to the freedom of expression, as much right to place their ideology - however abhorrent the government or anybody else may believe it to be - in the public domain, in the so-called marketplace of ideas as anybody else does.

I believe that the ban on People's March should be lifted immediately and its editor unconditionally released.

Finally, I would like to say that the battle for free speech must not turn into a battle that limits itself to the freedom of writers, journalists, and artists alone. We are not the only ones who deserve this right. A friend from Chattisgarh recently told me of a doctor who had been arrested because a prescription of his had been found in some "Naxalite kit," whatever that means.

In Chattisgarh, 644 villages have been evacuated of their inhabitants. That's more than 300,000 people - displacement on a mass scale, which is eventually intended to clear space for corporate mining interests. Fifty thousand people have been moved into police camps and have become recruits for the dreaded Salwa Judum (the supposedly anti-Maoist "people's militia" created and funded by the state government). Tens of thousands of people have fled to neighboring states to escape the horror. Nobody is allowed to go back to their villages or to cultivate their land. What is freedom of expression for a farmer? The buzz in town is that a new law is on the anvil which says that if farmland has not been cultivated for two years, it can be diverted for non-agricultural purposes.

Every form of resistance, peaceful or otherwise, is being shut down by the state. Of all the cases on the anvil, the goldfish in a bowl, the dire, menacing warning to us all and to anybody who may be entertaining the idea "of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions" is the continued imprisonment of Dr. Binayak Sen under false charges, underpinned by blatantly fabricated evidence.

Dr. Binayak Sen, who has worked as a civil rights activist with the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and a doctor in the area for more than 30 years, was arrested last May, charged under the CSPSA, the UAPA, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He has been in prison for eight months, denied bail even by the Supreme Court.

By imprisoning someone like Binayak Sen, the government is trying to close out the option of peaceful resistance, of democratic space. It is creating a polarization along the lines of the Bush Doctrine - "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" - in which people only have the choice between succumbing to displacement and destitution or resisting by going underground and taking up arms. This is the beginning of either civil war or the annihilation of the poor. Once that genie is out of the bottle, it won't go back. There are reports that the Chhattisgarh state government has asked for 70 battalions of paramilitary forces beyond the 17 battalions that are already there. A fourfold increase. I fear the worst.

And so, from this platform I would like to ask for the granting of citizenship to Taslima Nasrin, for the immediate and unconditional release of Binayak Sen, Govind Kutty, and the other journalists whose names have been mentioned at this press conference, experienced journalists and peaceful activists who understand that reporting the realities of these situations is the only hope of righting this ship that is tilting dangerously and about to tip over. If it does tip over, everybody will suffer, the poor definitely, but the rich too. There will be no hiding place. I urge those present here to pay keen attention to the specter that is looming before us. And to begin a campaign demanding the repeal of these very frightening new laws that do not merely threaten free speech, but freedom itself.

Savonarola and the Carnival of 1497

First, here are some nice collections of Carnival photos:

Joe Marquez (The Smoking Camera)

Anna Pagnacco

Frantisek Staud

drummergrl1310

Silvano Candeo

Alaskan Dude

Oliver F. Lehmann

[I know, I know. These are all pics from the Venetian Carnival, not the Florentine. If anyone knows of any comparable collections of photos from the Florentine Carnival, please let me know!]

. . . . . . . .

The Carnival of 1497

A little later the carnival of 1497 drew nigh. Savonarola determined to celebrate it in a manner Florence had never witnessed. And to this day she remembers it. Some others also recall it—not with approbation, but with astonishment. At that period, probably no other city excelled Florence in wealth. It was replete with luxury.

Among the carnival customs was the making of bonfires on the plaza in the evening of Shrove Tuesday, and the dancing around them while singing songs. The reader will recall that at the last carnival, a great reform was affected through the children. This year Savonarola determined a more sweeping change should take place. To this end he enlisted, under the generalship of Fra Domenico, a band of youths, who should traverse the city, "dressed as angels, and calling from door to door for whatsoever articles were calculated to minister to luxury, or worldliness, to be consumed upon the bonfire."

Many delivered up their possessions, while others considered these "angels" a most unheavenly order. However, the amount of trinkets, ornaments, money, books of bad tendency, pictures, sculptures, and designs accumulated, was marvelous. An immense scaffolding, pyramidal in form, with fifteen tiers of shelves arranged around it, was erected on the plaza chosen for the grand display. The pyramid was filled with fagots; and the shelves, with the articles to be destroyed. Many of them were the works of famous artists and writers. Bartolommeo and Lorenzo di Credi contributed many of their designs.

Women contributed to the senseless waste, costly India shawls, expensive perfumes, and other articles innumerable. Men increased the flames with chess-boards, cards, card-tables, and instruments of music. Burlamacchi relates that for the collection, before the torch was applied, a merchant of Venice offered nearly twenty thousand pounds sterling. But his offer was rejected, and the man's portrait—placed above the colossal figure intended to personify the carnival—was burned therewith. A wild mob danced around the blazing pile to the music of trumpets.

[Savonarola, the Florentine Martyr, by Emma Hildreth Adams, published in 1890]

Lajja means "Shame"

In 1993 Taslima Nasreen's novel Lajja was published. The word Lajja in the Bengali language means "shame." The novel is a dramatized account of the wave of violence against the Hindu minority in Bangladesh that occurred in 1992-93.

In July of 1994, Barbara Crossette wrote the following for the New York Times under the title "A cry for tolerance brings new hatred down on a writer":

FOR much of the last two weeks, Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, has been the scene of demonstrations over the fate of a 31-year-old writer, Taslima Nasrin. Now in hiding, she has angered Muslim zealots by calling herself a humanist in a country that calls itself Islamic. Worse, she has written an Asian best seller, "Lajja," ("Shame") that tells a story of the intolerance and violence of Bangladeshi Muslims against Hindus and other religious minorities.

With this theme, she has touched a central fact of life on the Indian subcontinent: For 50 years, hatreds between fanatical adherents of Hinduism and Islam have repeatedly provoked slaughter and undermined the principle of secular government. Bangladesh, which is 90 percent Muslim, separated from predominantly Hindu India as East Pakistan when Britain left in 1947, and seceded from Pakistan in 1971.

Militants have variously demanded that Ms. Nasrin, who was born to a Muslim family, be tried for disrupting religious harmony, or killed for heresy. "Lajja" was banned last year in Bangladesh, but was quickly pirated, translated from Bengali and widely circulated in India by militant Hindus; this year it was published in New Delhi by Penguin Books India.

Bangladesh has a secular civil law code, but it is perennially challenged by Islamic fundamentalists and the Government often bows to the pressure. The Islamic crusade, Ms. Nasrin says, has fallen hardest on women.

Ms. Nasrin, a physician who became a columnist, poet and novelist, has been divorced several times. Her books contain erotic passages that Islamic fundamentalists find especially offensive, though Bengali-speaking culture, which Dhaka shares with Calcutta, is known for sensuous poetry and sophistication.

Officials are seeking her arrest on charges of blaspheming the Koran. Meredith Tax, head of International PEN's Women Writers' Committee, says Ms. Nasrin wants to find haven outside Bangladesh but is afraid to emerge from hiding.

The following is a chronology of the events leading up to Taslima's flight from her native Bangladesh in 1994. This timeline is from the website of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

Dec 1992	Muslims attacked and burnt down Hindu temples and shops across Bangladesh and disrupted an India-Bangladesh cricket match following the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India by Hindu fundamentalists. About 5,000 young men with rods and bamboo sticks tried to storm Dhaka National Stadium, but they were beaten back by police firing tear gas and rubber bullets. At least 10 people have died, many Hindu women have been raped, and hundreds of Hindu homes and temples have been destroyed.
Oct 1993	Hindus in Bangladesh have decided to curtail this year's Durga Puja (Hindu religious festival) celebrations beginning on the 21st in view of the "atrocities" committed against them following the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, All-India Radio reported (0245 gmt, 16 Oct. 1993). The Hindus have demanded that damaged and destroyed temples be repaired and that an inquiry be held into the attack on a Hindu religious procession in Dhaka in August.
Nov 1993	Several thousand Muslim radicals marched through the streets of Dhaka to demand the arrest and execution of Taslima Nasrin, a female Muslim author critical of male chauvinism and Islamic fundamentalism. Nasrin, 31, has received death threats for her novel "Lajja" (Shame), which condemns Muslim mobs that attacked Hindus in Bangladesh to avenge the destruction of the Babri Masjid in India. The government banned Lajja last July, six months after it was published. The campaign against Nasrin gained momentum last month after a little known group called the Council of the Soldiers of Islam placed a 50,000 taka price ($1,250) on her head at a public meeting in the conservative north-eastern district of Sylhet. The group claimed that Nasrin's books decried the Koran and the Prophet Mohammad, causing offence to the country's majority Muslim population.
Feb 1994	A 15th century temple housing a priceless record of Hindu history attracts thousands of devotees every year to remote Dinajpur, a town in the northernmost corner of Bangladesh. According to government archeology department records, it was built in 1452 by a Hindu Raja (King), who hired architects and artisans from the Mughal court in Delhi to build the temple. Every autumn, after the rainy season is over, nearly 100,000 Hindus and people from other faiths camp near the temple for a 3-week annual fair. Many also come from India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and other countries.
Jun 1994	The federal government has ordered the arrest of Taslima Nasrin, a feminist writer whose novel, Lajja (Shame), led to a fatwa (death threat) being issued against her by Islamicists. 3000 orthodox Muslims marched in the streets of Dhaka on June 3 to protest against her allegedly "anti-Islamic" remarks (Reuters, 06/04/94).
Aug 1994	Taslima Nasrin, the feminist Bangladeshi writer, has arrived in Sweden. She is in Sweden for a writer’s conference and has gone into hiding following death threats by orthodox Muslims. Nasrin's book, Lajja, describes how Hindu homes and temples were destroyed and Hindu women were raped following the 1992 destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in India (Reuters, 08/10/94).

Islam: The Sacred Cow of Indian "Secularists"

I wonder what Martha Nussbaum will have to say about this? The "secularists" of Nussbaum's beloved Congress Party are now attacking Bangladeshi feminist and secularist Taslima Nasreen. Why? Because Nasreen has offended the sacred cow of Indian "secularists": Islam.

You see, in India "secularism" just means Hindu-bashing. Indian "secularism" has nothing to do with freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, or freedom of any kind. It has everything to do with promoting the agendas of Maoists, Muslims, Christians and anyone else who wants to destroy the ancient indigenous religious traditions of India collectively known as Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism.

But let me back up a moment. A few years ago, Taslima Nasreen wrote a very nice feminist critique of the odious Muslim practice known variously as hijab, chador, burqa or purdah. In it's most unobtrusive form this institutionalized subjugation of women is known innocuously as "the Islamic headscarf." But this "accessory" doesn't look so innocent anymore when you realize that in Iran a woman who refuses to wear the hijab will be hunted down and beaten in public by the same Islamic Stormtroopers who crushed the "Green Revolution" of last year.

Taslima Nasreen is well known in India and throughout the world as an outspoken feminist and critic of Islam. And, as already pointed out, the article in question was written years ago. But this week a newspaper in India decided to publish a translation of the article in the Kannada language. Nasreen had no idea the translation (unauthorized by her, and in a language she does not know) was to be published.

After the article was published the offices of the newspaper in question were attacked and rioting broke out in at least three places in Karnataka state. The violence led to two deaths and dozens of injuries. And today the Congress Party has proposed it's answer to these troubles: revoke Taslima Nasreen's asylum status in India. This is the demand of Congress leader from Mangalore, B Janardhan Poojary.

Oh, I forgot to mention something. Nasreen was forced to flee her native Bangladesh in 1994 and was eventually granted asylum in India. Of course the good Muslims of India also threatened to kill her, and eventually she was reduced to living in hiding, and reportedly left India in 2008, although officially she still has asylum status in India, and this was recently extended (see Taslima's website for a chronology of her "travels" in exile up through 2009 -- she currently lives in the US.)

It is good to see the true face of Indian "secularism" exposed so clearly. Those who are unfamiliar with Indian politics probably find this all very confusing. Even more confused will be those who believe themselves to be familiar with Indian politics by way of the writings of such India "experts" as Martha Nussbaum.

Obviously any true secularist would reflexively defend an outspoken feminist under attack from women-hating religious fanatics. Reflexes are important. When we touch something that is burning hot, we do not cogitate on what to do, rather our arm and hand move before we even feel the heat consciously. But Pavlovian conditioning can create new patterns of automatic responses to stimuli. Leftists have trained themselves to unthinkingly associate Hinduism with oppression, while Islam has been adopted as the Left's favorite pet "minority group" to watch over.

Even when Islamic terrorists gun down innocent people, the Martha Nussbaums of the world can only bring themselves to feel concern for what might happen to Muslims in retribution! That was Nussbaum's response to the carnage in Mumbai on 26/11. And when the anticipated (indeed, in the case of Nussbaum and her ilk, hoped for) retributions by Hindus against Muslims did not occur, Nussbaum clumsily tried to mask her disappointment by congratulating the Muslims of India for successfully avoiding victimhood by virtue of their peacefulness and liberality!

And when Islamic misogynists riot in outrage against the "offensive" idea that women should be free and equal members of society, it is the feminists who must be blamed. Islam must be defended at all costs, and even the evil burqa must be "respected," and any criticism of the burqa or Islam is "unacceptable":

Burqa is a system followed by a community and the views by Nasreen on Prophet Mohammed as well as burqa are unacceptable. As far as Nasreen is concerned, she can go anywhere, but she should not be in India.
Janardhan Poojary

google is still evil

According to a report from Agence France-Presse (AFP), google admits that they are continuing to censor search engine results in the Peoples Republic of China, and that they "have no timetable" for ending their voluntary cooperation in censoring the information available to 1/6 of humanity.

Chinese government regulations require that all companies doing business in China block sites deemed undesirable. These regulations include a list of words that all search engines are required to block.

It has been almost two months since google "boldly" announced, on January 12, that they would stop participating (voluntarily!!) in this censorship. Sources inside the PRC reported at the time of that announcement and immediately following that google.cn's search engine results were intermittently free of censorship for a grand total of less than 48 hours. Since January 14, censorship has been fully restored.

Nicole Wong (Google vice president and deputy general counsel) testified today before a congressional hearing on "Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law." She told the committee that google is "firm in our decision that we will not censor our search results in China and we are working towards that end," but she also said that "We don't have a specific timetable."

Back in January google proved that it was possible for them to simply and quickly remove their filters on search engine results. But then what happened? Who got to google and how did they do it? Who decided what when? As far as anyone knows, no one at google ever so much as received a turd in their mailbox, let alone were subject to any real intimidation or threats of any kind. Except, that is, for the threat of loosing all that busine$$ in China.

['My Little Cthulhu' toy, designed by John Kovalic, is available from dreamlandtoyworks.com. 'Little victims' action figures sold separately.]

Headscarves, Crosses, Yarmulkes, etc.

Geert Wilders is making the issue of the hijab, or Islamic headscarf, a major campaign issue in the upcoming local and national elections in the Netherlands. Hostility to the headscarf as a symbol of totalitarianism in general and the oppression of women in particular is not a new phenomenon either in Europe or elsewhere. Both Turkey and Tunisia have laws against the wearing of the hijab because of it's connection to "political" Islam which seeks to establish totalitarian theocracies in those countries (and everywhere else on earth). Morroco has no such laws, but there is strong social pressure against the hijab in that country.

Some people insist that the headscarf not be singled out, in the belief that it would be more "fair" to ban all overtly religious clothing or symbolism. This would mean prohibiting the wearing of a Christian cross or a Yarmulke, as well as all other religious symbols.

But opposition to the headscarf has nothing to do with "religious symbols" in the abstract. The hijab is seen, and rightly so, as something that is imposed on women, and, thereby, on society as a whole. It is symbolic of the, at best, second class status of women in societes dominated by Islam. In many parts of the Islamic world wearing the hijab is either enforced by law, or there is intense (and often violent) social pressure applied to women to wear it.

Unfortunately, Wilders has chosen to make this a case of "our" religious traditions versus "theirs." He states that the wearing of Christian and Jewish symbols is OK "because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture." In the same breath Wilders says, quite rightly, "get rid of that woman-humiliating Islamic symbol," and also that the headscarf is "a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology."

Why is it that Wilders cannot stick to a principled position of opposing the headscarf as a symbol of oppression? Oppression is not dangerous because it is "foreign." The West also has "our own" home-grown totalitarian ideologies, such as Nazism and Communism, and these should be no more welcome to "us" than Islam. And what about other "foriegn" religions such as Hinduism, or even symbols from "indigenous", but non-"Judeo-Christian" religions, such as Thor's Hammers and Pentagrams (both of which have impeccable European pedigrees)?

The only way to make a consistent and principled argument on this issues is to scrupulously avoid even the hint of the appearance of xenophobia. Wilders proudly claims that he has nothing whatsoever to do with racists like Le Pen and the British National Party. But the fact is that he appears to be appealing to many of the same sentiments that openly xenophobic rightists have relied upon for decades in Europe.

We do not need lists of accepted versus banned religious clothing and symbols. Obviously a truly free society, or even one that honestly aspires to that, cannot engage in such an exercise. The general rule in a free society must be that people are free to wear what they want! Personally I think that the hijab is a special case, and it should be treated as such.

It should be emphasized that the "ban" that Wilders wants to impose only applies to people who are paid with public funds, while they are performing their public duties, and even that is to be left to local governments to decide on their own: "a ban on headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions, foundations, or associations, if they receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality." This is similar to other "headscarf bans" either already enacted or under consideration in other places in Europe.

As a not-so-gentle reminder of why it would be better to restrict "Islamic dress" for women sooner rather than later, two people were killed and dozens were injured when riots broke out in the Indian state of Karnataka earlier this week. The cause? A local magazine published a Kannada language translation of an article by Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, titled Let's Think Again About the Burqa. Nasreen, who describes herself as "a physician, writer, feminist, human rights activist and secular humanist", wrote the following:

The custom of purdah [literally "curtain"] is not new. It dates back to 300 BC. The women of aristocratic Assyrian families used purdah. Ordinary women and prostitutes were not allowed purdah.

In the middle ages, even Anglo-Saxon women used to cover their hair and chin and hide their faces behind a cloth or similar object. This purdah system was obviously not religious. The religious purdah is used by Catholic nuns and Mormons, though for the latter only during religious ceremonies and rituals. For Muslim women, however, such religious purdah is not limited to specific rituals but mandatory for their daily life outside the purview of religion . . . .

If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive . . . .

Covering a woman's head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn't work. If women's brains worked properly, they'd have long ago thrown off these veils and burqas imposed on them by a religious and patriarchal regime.

What should women do? They should protest against this discrimination. They should proclaim a war against the wrongs and ill-treatment meted out to them for hundreds of years. They should snatch from the men their freedom and their rights. They should throw away this apparel of discrimination and burn their burqas.

[This image and the one at the very top of this post are both from stylecovered.com.]