Last night, Michael Shermer spoke on the topic of “Why People Believe Weird Things”, at the University of Toronto. I had a fantastic time hosting the event, and it was an amazing experience to finally meet one of my favourite celebrity skeptics face-to-face.
I did a larger write-up of the event on the Skeptic North blog, here: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2009/10/michael-shermer-in-toronto.html. You should go check it out!
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of twelve editorial cartoons, some of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which sparked one of the largest collective shit-storms of censorship and free speech rights the world has seen to date. There were riots, threats of violence, death threats, front-page headlines, rallies, counter-rallies, and everything in between. This event served as the proverbial “shot heard around the world” for the present day dialogue on free speech, culminating in discussion of a non-binding “anti-blasphemy” resolution at the United Nations.
Blasphemy day, which takes place on September 30 to commemorate the publication of these cartoons, is a celebration of our right to free speech, and a reminder that there is still a very real threat in this world to people being able to express their ideas freely, and without fear of reprisal. It is my firm belief that all ideologies should be subjected to fair and open criticism, and that laws should exist to protect the rights of people — not sacred cows. Does that mean some people will get offended? Sure. However, the minute you step into a free and democratic society, based on the notion that not everybody does (or wants to) live their life in the same way that you do, you forfeit your right to not be offended.
With this in mind, the University of Toronto Secular Alliance, joined by the Centre for Inquiry, took to the streets yesterday to create a “free speech zone” on the University of Toronto’s campus. We set up an information booth, showed “blasphemous” videos, allowed people to write blasphemous messages on a public notice board, and generally allowed people to speak their mind. I am happy to say that we had a wide spectrum of people show up — not just atheists and agnostics. People chose to express their opinions in different ways — from shouting matches to quiet conversations — and it was all done in the spirit of free speech and diversity of opinions. The event was a huge success, and I am proud to have been able to take part.
Below are some of the photos from the event:
The full set can be found on Flickr, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgerskup/sets/72157622490928466/
—
Also, while we’re on the issue of free expression, I’m happy to announce that I will be contributing to a new Canadian Skeptic’s blog called Skeptic North. The site just launched today, and I’ll be submitting my first contribution this weekend. There are some very talented people contributing to this blog, so why not go check it out?
Tags:blasphemy·blasphemy day·censorship·danish cartoons·free speech·Jyllands-Posten·Muhammad·religion
Today was the first “official” day of The Amazing Meeting 7. So far, I’ve managed to meet, and get my photo taken with: Phil Plait, Penn Jillette, and Yau-Man Chan.
There was a live recording of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe during breakfast, and the talks ranged from subjects on Big Foot and UFO Abductions to developments in the Anti-Anti-Vaccination movement.
I was especially glad to see that James Randi is not just still alive, but seems to be doing rather well, despite recent health problems.
And that’s not all! There are more talks to come tomorrow from Penn & Teller, Adam Savage, and Michael Shermer all giving talks, among many others.
A complete set of photos (so far) can be found below:
Tags:skepticism·TAM
I had always heard, and thus assumed, that Pringles were not classified as potato chips because they were prohibited from doing so due to their mostly non-potato make-up. It’s well known that Pringles are not manufactured like ordinary chips. As opposed to being made from whole potatoes, they are formed from a type of potato dough containing less than 50% potato content and then baked.
However, it turns out that the truth is somewhat different from popular belief (imagine that!). According to this article by the BBC, the fight to have Pringles classified as a “cake or biscuit” was led by Procter & Gamble (the parent company of Pringles). The reason? Potato crisps (chips) are subject to a 17.5% value added tax (VAT) in the UK, whereas cakes and biscuits are not. By having the snack food de-classified as a crisp/chip, they were exempt from paying the tax. This just goes to show that often times the truth is much more straightforward than people make it out to be and reinforces the notion that if you want to find the underlying cause of an issue, you should “follow the money”.
Also of interest, according to a more recent article, the decision has been reversed on the grounds that the 42% of Pringles batter made from potatoes “is more than enough potato content for it to be a reasonable view that [Pringles are] made from potato”.
So what should we conclude from all this? No matter what you thought you knew about Pringles, you were probably wrong.
Even though I’m not religious, it doesn’t mean that I don’t find religion interesting. This BBC interview of Hanif Kureishi echoes a lot of the sentiment I feel towards religion. It’s a fun, and short, read.
—
Tags:
Despite successfully running in several cities in Canada, including London, Calgary, and Toronto, the Atheist Bus Campaign was blocked from running in Ottawa (Link). Despite the city staff’s approval of similar Christian bible study advertisements, the ads were disallowed from being placed on Ottawa buses with no obvious explanation.
Despite this seeming like a gross violation of the Freethought Association of Canada’s freedom of speech, it’s troubling that the city government in our Nation’s capital would so blatantly apply a double standard to religious and non-religious messages. This would be less troubling if the city had a policy against religious messages of any sort, but this is simply not the case.
“I don’t follow the logic,” said Bus Stop Bible Studies founder David Harrison. “Why would they approve ours and not theirs? If we don’t stand up for (the atheists’) rights, ours will be trampled too.”
Hell, even the other side is sticking up for the rights of the non-believers. To say that I am ashamed in the City of Ottawa would be a gross understatement.
Now, if somebody really wanted to spice this debate up, they would try to get Qur’an verses displayed on the buses.
Tags:advertising·atheism·religion
Here’s an interesting perspective on the debate about violence in media.
The media likes to run stories linking violent behavior to video games, but a new book is offering up the theory that fantasy violence is actually good for children’s development.
On one hand, this goes hand-in-hand with the concern that modern culture places too much of an emphasis on non-competitiveness in school and the workplace. On the other hand, it seems to clash with the idea that things like anger therapy (dealing with aggression by “letting it out”) doesn’t really work — and can have the opposite of the intended consequences.
Either way, this is an interesting article.
These somewhat-mysterious posters have been popping up around the University of Toronto campus lately. So far, I have no information about who’s putting them up, or why. More information to follow.
Tags:
Professor Charles Nesson wants to broadcast his upcoming trial against the RIAA on the internet, according to this article. While this is all fine and dandy, I couldn’t help but notice one of the paragraphs near the bottom of the article. Professor Nelson, a Harvard law professor, had this to say about the RIAA’s lawsuit:
The counterclaim he is making is that these lawsuits blur the distinction between civil law which is design to compensate for losses, and criminal law which seeks to punish and deter.
Now, I’m no expert in law (US or otherwise), but this statement seems to be a tad problematic. The US legal system does not have a clear distinction between civil and criminal law, which is why juries can elect to award punitive as well as compensatory damages in a civil case. As the names would imply, punitive damages are not meant to compensate for losses (unlike compensatory damages), but can be used as a monetary incentive for inducing a change in the behavior of the party found to be at fault (in other words: punish and deter). I know of some legal theorists who disagree with the idea of punitive damages, but that does not change the fact that they exist, and are a part of the legal system.
Whereas the compensatory damages are still quite excessive, this argument might not be the silver bullet for which Professor Nesson was hoping.
One would think that when your legal counsel can be defeated by a cursory check of Wikipedia, it’s time to find new counsel.
Science Daily has an article talking about how researchers at Sydney’s Centenary Institute in Australia have managed to view (in real time) and film the process of a parasite infecting an immune cell. Click here to read the article, and see some photos of the process.
—
© 2005–2009 That’s the Way the Banana Crumbles — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License