Bulgarian police intimidating a blogger, again

The title reminds my 2007 post Bulgarian police intimidating a blogger, and the two cases are distressingly similar. Now, however, we are not seeing the wide publicity and the blogger solidarity we saw in 2007. It seems that Bulgarians are in apathy after seeing in more and more detail the logical consequences of electing a cop to the position of Prime Minister, and after losing hope that EU would not tolerate a Third World situation in a member state. I learned about the present case from Svetla Encheva's blog.
The air of the Bulgarian city of Stara Zagora has been regularly polluted with high doses of sulphur dioxide for years. This pollution even has its own article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. The presumed pollution sources are two large old-fashioned power stations located nearby. Some people, including blogger Genadi Mihaylov from Stara Zagora, also suspect a local military training square. Residents of the city have protested many times, to no avail.
Below, I am translating Genadi's Jan. 21 post Come to talk at the police station:

"'Hello, Mr. Mihaylov?'
'Yes, I am.'
'Good morning, I am calling you from the Stara Zagora Police Department.'
'Oooo...'
'I am calling you in relation to something that happened. Can you come to us to talk today?'
'Has something serious happened?'
'No, nothing, I just want to talk with you. When can you come here?
'In an hour or two, I suppose.'
(...)
When such a gentleman with extremely polite voice wakes you up, the wake-up is truly effective - like a laxative.
(...)
'Have you used Internet to announce the date of the protest?'
'Yes, in several Web forums.'
'And you have mentioned the word 'eggs'?'
'Yes, but I meant something entirely different. I have not appealed to anybody to spit on the minister...'
'This turned out to be a media speculation... You have attended the (Jan.) 18 protest (for clean air), haven't you?'
'Yes, I have.'
'And you haven't thrown eggs, have you?'
'No, I haven't.'
'And you do not know who has?'
'I only heard about it later from the news. I have no idea.'
'Have you seen any masked boys?'
'Yes, there were some.'
'Do you know who they were?'
'No, I don't. They were masked, how could I recognize them, even if I knew them?'
'Oh... One egg was thrown and the media reported it was raining eggs... so (superiors) called from (the capital) Sofia (emphasis by Genadi - M.M.)... anyway. Write down your full name and what we talked here...'
At that point, that uncle policeman (who was quite heavily built) opened at his computer a folder named 'eggs'. There were two my photos, this and this one. The next file was a text downloaded from the Web. Everything was of course absolutely serious.
I guarantee with my honour that everything I have written above is true.
...
Gas pollution poisoning hundreds of thousands of human beings vs. a bird embryo thrown at the local authorities by a gang of teenagers - nice, really nice.
Welcome to Absurdistan.
********
Of course that was not the entire conversation. In reality, it lasted half an hour, possibly an hour. The reason they called me to the police station was that I had posted the subject (on the forum) by copying the announcement for the protest which was already distributed all around the Web. Apart from the announcement, I really mentioned taking eggs (to the protest), but how could I know that someone would really take (and use) them? The basic idea was whether I could name the culprits. The policeman told me that at least several more people from the same forum had been called for questioning the previous day..."

"Accused stabs witness to death in courtroom"

The late Marwa El-Sherbini with her husband and son. Photo copied from Europe-Turkmen Friendships, original source unknown.

This post is a tribute to an opponent - a Muslim woman killed in Germany. Different sources give slight variations in the details of the case. The large quote below is from Wikipedia:

"Marwa Ali El-Sherbini (October 7, 1977 – July 1, 2009) was an Egyptian pharmacist... She was killed during a hearing at a court of law in Dresden, Germany, by a man against whom she had testified after being insulted for wearing an Islamic headscarf.

El-Sherbini was... daughter of chemists... In 1995 she graduated from the El Nasr Girls' College, where she also acted as a student speaker. She was a member of the Egyptian national handball team from 1992 to 1999. From 2000 to 2005 she studied pharmacy at the Faculty of Pharmacy of Alexandria University, obtaining a bachelor's degree.

In 2005, El-Sherbini moved with her husband to Bremen in Germany. In 2008, the couple and their two year old son moved to Dresden, where her husband Elwi Ali-Okaz, a lecturer at Minufiya University, obtained a doctoral research position at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics. At the same time, El-Sherbini worked at the University Hospital Dresden and at a local pharmacy, as a part of an accreditation scheme to practice pharmacy in Germany. Together with others, El-Sherbini founded an association (Eingetragener Verein) with the aim to establish an Islamic cultural and education centre in Dresden. At the time of her death El-Sherbini was three months pregnant with her second child.

In August 2008, Alex W. (a German citizen, born in Perm, Russia of German ethnic origin) shouted abuse at El-Sherbini in a public playground for children in Dresden, in a quarrel over the use of a swing by his niece and El-Sherbini's son. El-Sherbini, wearing an Islamic headscarf, was called an "Islamist", "terrorist" and "slut". Others present tried to intervene, but Alex W. continued the verbal abuse for several minutes until the police arrived at the scene...

Alex W. was charged with defamation, pressed by El-Sherbini, and found guilty by the district court of Dresden, issuing a fine of 780 Euro. During the trial Alex W. claimed mitigating circumstances for the act of insulting El-Sherbini, suggesting that "people like her" were not real humans and therefore cannot be insulted. The Public Prosecutor successfully appealed the verdict to achieve a higher conviction due to the openly xenophobic character of the incident.

At the appeal hearing at the regional court in Dresden, 1 July 2009, eight persons were present in the courtroom: a panel of one professional and two lay judges, the prosecutor, Alex W. as the defendant, his defence counsel, El-Sherbini as witness for the prosecution, and her husband and son as members of the public. No security personnel was present and no security searches of individuals and their possessions were carried out, common in cases without anticipated security concerns and with no persons under arrest present.

After El-Sherbini had testified, Alex W. strode across the courtroom and attacked her with a knife, by stabbing her 18 times while allegedly shouting "You don't deserve to live!". El-Sherbini's husband, Elwi Ali-Okaz, attempting to protect his wife was stabbed to the lung and hip area. A police officer, who was in the court building testifying in an unrelated case was called to the scene to intervene, but mistook Elwi Ali-Okaz for the attacker and shot him in the leg. Elwi Ali-Okaz... was in a coma for two days... El-Sherbini died on the scene... Alex W. is currently held... on suspicion of murder of Marwa El-Sherbini and attempted murder of Elwi Ali Okaz...

The killing was reported on 1 July 2009 in German radio and television and in print media on the following day. In line with common media practice regarding crime victims, due to stringent privacy laws in Germany, El-Sherbini was in the initial media reports only referred to as "a 32-year old witness". The Minister of Justice for Saxony... who had visited the crime scene on the same day, publicly expressed condolence to the "young woman and her family"... The Association of Judges in Saxony (Sächsischer Richterbund) demanded a review of security procedures in court buildings. According to the British media, the German media initially reported on the case at "the back page", and only in the light of the vociferous protests by thousands of Egyptians in Cairo against an apparent "Islamophobia", the German federal government, which had kept silent for nearly a week, issued words of sorrow...

On 6 July 2009, at El-Sherbini's funeral, in Alexandria, mourners referred to her as a "martyr of the head scarf"... Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the German goverment for El-Sherbini's murder and called for international condemnation of Germany.In a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded firm action against Germany and stated that "there is a strong view that the crime was a pre-planned attempt engineered by the judicial system and security forces"."

Now, my thoughts about the case.

In line with the good tradition not to criticize the dead (especially if they have suffered a horrible and violent death), I won't comment on Ms. El-Sherbini - not in this post at least. However, while I may disapprove the victim's behaviour, I am utterly disgusted by the murderer. (May I omit the mandatory "alleged"? Thank you.) Not only because he is a murderer, and motivated by hate, but also because he is a narcissistic psychopath feeling entitled to decide who deserves to live and who doesn't. And what disgusts me even more (though I may show sexism here) is that he is a man and he chose a woman as his victim. I strongly hope and expect him to receive the maximum sentence existing in German law.

From the reactions to the murder, most impressive is the grotesque cynicism of the Iranian regime and its leader Ahmadinejad. Apart from the above mentioned official letter to the UN, Iranian authorities allowed and encouraged (if not ordered) public events to commemorate El-Sherbini and progest against Germany. You can see e.g. a photo of a symbolic funeral of Marwa El-Sherbini in Tehran on a post by German immigrant blogger Rose-Anne Clermont. In other words, anti-government protests are banned, but if you folk still feel like protesting, you are welcome to rally in front of the German embassy... I wonder, do Ahmadinejad's thugs really think that if they shed crocodile tears about Marwa, this will make their people forget Neda and all other innocent, freedom-loving Iranian women and men murdered by the regime? I fully agree with Azarmehr that this is hypocrisy beyond belief.

Most of the reactions in Egypt were also, to my opinion, far-fetched (to say the least). However, I prefer not to report them here. I hope that Egyptian people were just venting their shock, grief and anger in words without contemplating any actions. And as days are passing and we aren't hearing of any revenge against Germans, this explanations seems more and more probable. I hope also that I won't have to correct myself here.

Briefly, the weird accusations and conspiracy theories rotate around two facts - that nobody stopped Alex W. from stabbing Marwa 18 times and that the policeman shot Marwa's husband instead of the attacker. I would ask Muslims and their Western leftist friends (e.g. at the Guardian) to lighten up a little and call their common sense. Few are the heroes who, seeing an armed homicidal maniac in action, would rush to stop him and risk becoming his next victim. And it is so natural for police to make mistakes in disastrous, split-second situations. I have heard of quite a few hostage release operations where police have shot bystanders and hostages instead of the kidnappers.

However, there is a point where I fully agree with my Muslim opponents and wish to give them a shoulder. This is the way the crime was initially reported - at the back pages of newspapers, with headlines that didn't mention a word that it was a hate crime and the victim was a Muslim. I borrowed such a headline from Die Welt, Accused stabs witness to death in courtroom, as a title for this post. Doesn't it sound absurd? I found it in a post by a blogger trying to prove that German media did report the case timely and properly. If you are defending the wrong opinion, the usual result is that the more you put "arguments" for it, the more its wrongness is exposed.

Muslims and Leftists were quick to say that the murder of a Westerner by a Muslim would receive far more publicity, and cited the case of Theo van Gogh. To me, this example is irrelevant because van Gogh was already a celebrity when he was murdered. When the Western or "Western wannabe" victim has been an ordinary person, I have observed absolutely the same pattern of ignoring the case and its hate motivation, sweeping it under the carpet and reporting it in the back pages with the smallest font available. Just remember Kriss Donald, Ilan Halimi and Aqsa Parvez. In fact, the headline from Die Welt immediately brought to my memory the (in)famous Washington Post headline about Aqsa Parvez's murder: Canadian teen dies; father is charged.

Hate crimes are an important thing, especially during a global war. And they must be reported. At least I think so. One can say that straight reporting of hate crimes may perpetuate the hard feelings, trigger revenge actions or make some people emulate the culprit. All this may be true, but still I think that sweeping such cases under the carpet does more harm. And I would appeal to all my opponents to defend free speech and honest reporting. Because you never know when you will be the person needing it.

Be careful with dates

In a follow-up to my March 12 post, I am copy-pasting a yesterday report from the Cambridge News site without any modification or comment.

"Trial moved due to anniversary
A STUDENT accused of throwing a shoe at the Chinese prime minister has had the date of his trial moved because it clashed with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Martin Jahnke, a 27-year-old Cambridge University student, was due to stand trial between June 2 and June 4, on charges of causing harassment, alarm, or distress to Wen Jiabao.
But magistrates in Cambridge today agreed to change the date of the trial after hearing that June 4 is the anniversary of the massacre, when Chinese soldiers killed hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing.
The trial will be held from June 1-3."

NATO countries bullied by their "ally" Turkey

Image: a cartoon of Prophet Mohamed, by Kurt Westergaard, downloaded from the Mohammed Image Archive, originally published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. It is inserted in this post as blog action against Islamism. I intended to abstain from publishing Mohamed cartoons out of respect to Anglo-Libyan, but an event of these days became the straw breaking the camel's back.

First, let me quote a report from Independent:

"Danish Prime Minister elected secretary-general
By Brian Brady, Sunday, 5 April 2009

One of the most troubling disagreements of the two-day summit was finally resolved towards the end of the gathering, when the Danish Prime Minister overcame Turkish opposition to become Nato's new secretary-general. Anders Fogh Rasmussen (pictured) was heavily backed by the biggest European powers, but his campaign to succeed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was threatened when Turkey objected over his failure to ban Denmark-based Roj-TV, seen as the mouthpiece of the Kurdistan Workers' Party. The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also complained that Mr Rasmussen had failed to sanction those responsible for a Danish newspaper's publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohamed in 2005 (emphasis mine - M.M.). However, Turkish officials said Ankara dropped its objection after the US President Barack Obama answered Mr Erdogan's "objections" during a private meeting. Mr Erdogan told Turkish television that he had received "guarantees" from Mr Obama that one of Mr Rasmussen's deputies would be a Turk – and that Turkish commanders would be present at the alliance's command."

Daniel Pipes is more open about the concessions: "The Dane won the job only after engaging in intensive negotiations with Turkish president Abdullah Gül hosted by Barack Obama. Fogh Rasmussen promised to appoint at least two Turks and publicly to address Muslim concerns about his response to the cartoons. More broadly, Erdogan announced. Obama "gave us guarantees" concerning Turkish reservations about Fogh Rasmussen. The hoops that Fogh Rasmussen had to jump through to win Ankara's support can be inferred from his cringe-inducing, dhimmi-like remarks on winning the appointment: "As secretary general of NATO, I will make a very clear outreach to the Muslim world to ensure cooperation and intensify dialogue with the Muslim world. I consider Turkey a very important ally and strategic partner and I will cooperate with them in our endeavors to ensure the best cooperation with Muslim world." "

So much about the "secular", "civilized", "model", "democratic", "Westernized" etc. Turkey - as soon as you get down to real business, you find yourself confronting the ugly face of Islamism.

Nizo once commented on my blog that what is important is not the type of the dominating religion but the separation of religious institutions from the state, which has been achieved in the West but not yet in most Muslim countries. This is a serious opinion, but I think recent events prove it wrong and show that as long as you have Islamic background, you can separate as much as you wish and still, when the moment of truth comes, it will be to no avail.

When I ask what the hell is the benefit of having Turkey in NATO, people keep telling me that "it has the 2nd largest army in the alliance (after USA)". In my humble opinion, this is nonsense. What is the use of an army, big or small, if you aren't sure whether it is with you or with the enemy?

Now, what to do with NATO? Change its decision-making process from consensus to majority? Good idea, but it is exactly Turkey that would oppose and prevent it from happening. Dismantle it altogether? Maybe we'll have to, who knows... My sympathy to the people of Denmark, and also to the decent people of Turkey.

Prostituting with dictators and prosecuting people of science: Reflections on Martin Jahnke's case

On Feb. 3, I wrote a post about the personality cult that formed around Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi after the latter threw his shoes at then-US Pres. Bush. At the end of the post, I mentioned that the previous day, "as Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao was delivering a lecture at the Cambridge University, an unidentified 27-year-old man called him a "dictator" and threw at him a shoe, which landed a meter away."
The protester was soon identified as German postgraduate life sciences student Martin Jahnke. He is listed on the Cambridge Department of Pathology page as a member of Prof. John Trowsdale's group researching genetic and functional relationships between immune receptors. He is a co-author of a very recent article on HLA-DR polyubiquitination published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The quote below is from the Feb. 7 Telegraph report Cambridge shoe protester is German pathology research student, by Richard Edwards:
"Martin Jahnke.. has been at the university for several years, tutoring undergraduates and presenting lunchtime seminars... The "out of character" stunt has left the quiet and diligent student in deep trouble – facing the prospect of a criminal record and possible suspension or rustication from the university... Gordon Brown expressed his personal regret to Mr Wen in a letter. Cambridge's vice chancellor, Professor Alison Richard, also "sincerely apologised" for the episode. The university attracts more than 600 Chinese students a year and are currently engaged in a recruitment drive from Hong Kong. Officials said that they are taking the matter "very, very seriously". A formal, internal complaint is expected will be heard by the Cambridge University Advocate, Professor Christopher Forsyth, who is a crown court judge, barrister and chair of Public Law and Private International Law at Cambridge. Sanctions include a fine, suspension or rustication from Cambridge. As part of a study group of graduates under Professor John Trowsdale, which includes two Chinese students, Mr Jahnke carries out important genetic research into debilitating diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and arthritis. He has had his work published in the Journal of Biochemistry (the author seems to mean the Journal of Biological Chemistry - M.M.) and has delivered lunchtime seminars to other graduate students. The 27-year-old is also a leading member of the university caving club and takes part in regular expeditions in Wales, the south west and north of England... The (Chinese) prime minister had spoken for 40 minutes and was five minutes from finishing his speech when the protester stood and shouted: "How can the University prostitute itself with this dictator here?" and "How can you listen to the lies he's telling?" He threw the shoe as he was bundled out of the lecture hall and missed the prime minister by ten feet."
Of course Jahnke's act did not trigger a massive wave of sympathy as we saw earlier in al-Zaidi's case. The only statement of support I found is on the Countdown for China blog by dissident Chinese expatriot Shao Jiang. In his Open Letter to European Parliament on the Case of Martin Jahnke, Jiang writes, "Jahnke did nothing but criticize a dictator, using no violence whatsoever. How can he be accused of any crime? We are appalled to see that an EU country is on its way to carrying out a political trial against an EU citizen... We admire his courage and owe him a debt of gratitude for speaking out for those in China who have never had the chance to express their despair. His action has greatly inspired an oppressed people to continue their fight for freedom, democracy and human rights.We urge an independent body to investigate the University of Cambridge for its breach of academic freedom and suppression of dissident opinions during Wen Jiabao’s visit. We would urge the same body to investigate some European governments for their abuse of police powers, out of shameful deference to the CCP, and for violating the rights of peaceful demonstrators during Wen’s visit to the EU.China is still a totalitarian state... We wish to draw the attention of the Committee on Human Rights to the fact that in this period of economic crisis, some European governments are abandoning the sanctity of human rights for the sake of doing business with the Chinese Communist regime. In so doing, they have not only given up on human rights in China, but also betrayed human rights in the EU..." A number of people, among whom Chinese prevail, have signed the letter.
I must state in the beginning that I, personally, do not find throwing objects at people an acceptable way of expressing one's opinion. I suggest leaving acts of this sort to members of the enemy camp, such as the above mentioned al-Zaidi or the terrorism supporters who on Feb. 4 threw a shoe and other objects at Israeli ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan. And if some "Western hotheads" (as Highlander would call them) are still tempted to follow Jahnke's example, I wish to point to them that the damn bastard (I mean Wen of course) seems to have benefited from the incident. Indeed, immediately after it he showed his true colours and no sense of humour, calling the protester's behaviour "despicable". However, after receiving a letter of apology from Jahnke (and possibly also after consulting some PR experts), Wen called for leniency , appealing to the University of Cambridge to let the young man continue his study. So now, to the unsophisticated observer, the Chinese dictator came out of this affair victorious on a white horse.
Disclaimer in place, now I can proceed. I wish to share my thoughts about Jahnke's case and try to defend him, because I sympathize with him very much. We both share the belief that all people are important and should live in freedom, democracy and prosperity. Also, we both belong to the community of university students, teachers and researchers that I'll call "people of science". We have even shared a research topic - my Master thesis was about immune phenomena in diabetes, on which Jahnke is working now (with incomparably higher quality of work, of course).
While I agree that the shoe-throwing was a mistake, I don't think Jahnke alone should be blamed for this mistake. If I go to visit a synagogue with a swastica attached to my coat, my behaviour would be characterized as provocation and I would receive most of the blame for any unfortunate turn that might follow. I think inviting a dictator to deliver a speech at a university is a similar provocation. Most university students and employees are expected to be freedom-loving people with utter dislike to dictators; and all university students and employees are expected to value the realm of human thought, which is another reason for them not to give an ear to dictators. After all, the quest for knowledge is based on free discussion and comparing the merits of different opinions. If somebody insists on installing his opinion by force and suppressing all other opinions, as dictators do, this automatically brings to zero the intellectual value of whatever this person has to say. Hence, dictators have nothing to do in university lecture halls. What is this modern fashion of inviting dictators to universities of free countries? What on Earth was Iran's president Ahmadinejad doing at Columbia University, and what was Wen doing at Cambridge? Inviting a dictator to speak at a university adds undue authority to the dictator and, respectively, diminishes the authority of the university. Why was Putin made honorary doctor of the University of Veliko Tarnovo in Bulgaria, reportedly after a plan of his friend Schroeder to make him honorary doctor of the Hamburg University failed? I think that university officials who flirt with dictators for dubious purposes (or, as Jahnke put it more bluntly, prostitute themselves with dictators), are largely responsible for resulting unpleasant incidents. I hope that the Cambridge shoe-throwing will lead to reconsidering the policy of prostituting with dictators by some universities, even if nobody admits this in public.
By the way, let me quote again a sentence from the Telegraph report: "The university attracts more than 600 Chinese students a year and are currently engaged in a recruitment drive from Hong Kong." Frankly, I thought that university officials trote the globe to lure students for the sake of their precious tuition fees only in backward countries like Bulgaria, where public moral is completely eroded by chronic poverty and absence of hope for a brighter future. Besides, doesn't anybody figure out that, while some young Chinese may adore their dictatorship in a sheep-like fashion, others may dislike it, and the latter ones are likely to make better Cambridge students?
Unfortunately, Jahnke is not in a position to invite kindly as co-defendants the Cambridge University officials who brought Wen to desacrate the campus land. On the contrary, they seem eager to use/abuse all the power they have in order to portray Jahnke guilty of all mortal sins, and themselves free of any wrongdoing. More often than not, universities and research institutes are headed by unscrupulous people with negative moral virtues and mediocre (at best) intellect - a fact that can surprise only those infamiliar with the rigid hierarchy of science and university education. For a very mild illustration how little respect officials have toward those below them in the hierarchy, see my previous post How scientists are viewed today (BTW the institute described in this post has some, although indirect, relation to Cambridge). I fear that only massive pressure by the academic community in Cambridge and elsewhere (which isn't visible for the moment) can prevent the university authorities from acting as miniature versions of Chinese dictators.
Let's return to the legal aspect of the case. I hope that nobody will interpret my text as implying that people of science must be granted immunity when they break the law. However, the reality as we know it is that people of science, when they break the law, are punished more severely than almost anybody else. Under Bulgarian laws, people convicted for intentional crimes lose the right to study at a university or, if they have already graduated, to work as university teachers and researchers. (The term "intentional crime" here is quite interesting; it apparently covers Jahnke's shoe-throwing but will leave off the hook any dean who kills a person by drunken driving.) I admit that, when I have taken part in half-allowed or banned street protests, I have always feared that I might end up with some sentence that, however small, would be for an "intentional" crime and so would make me uneligible for my university. (To those thinking that one could avoid this risk by keeping his offences strictly in the misdemeanor range, I'll say that nothing is easier for police than lying that you have attacked them, as once happened to my online friend Jane Meyerding. Also, the demise of free speech by criminalizing more and more topics of criticism as "hate speech" makes it fairly easy for anybody to acquire a criminal record.) I don't know whether British laws are similar, but even if they aren't, Cambridge University authorities could expel Jahnke by their own decision.
I wish to add that expelling a science student or firing a researcher or university teacher means much more than the loss of money and work invested over years. Restarting a carrier can be very difficult for young people of science. One must keep in mind that public universities and research institutes in every country form interconnected networks where people are careful not to anger other people on which they may depend some day. Therefore, if a graduate student or employee has quarreled with his superior and has left his institution (or has been expelled from it), then the absence of proper recommendations by the boss will make it almost impossible for the victim to find another suitable position in the same country. My friend once was systematically abused by her mentally ill PhD advisor and managed to find another advisor only after intervention by a professor who knew her personally. Another young researcher known to me emigrated to escape emotional abuse by her PhD advisor. I also knew a PhD student who was harassed after her colleague and boyfriend accused a superior in incompetence - a careless though perfectly true statement. I later lost touch with that couple and don't know what happened to him and whether she ever finished her PhD thesis. I also don't know what happened to my fellow student fired from his research position because of criticizing the institute; he intended to struggle for his rights in court, though he hardly had the resources for this. I'd wish to give more examples with people from my own extended family living in the USA, but I fear that they might disapprove this, even if I keep their anonymity.
I hope that you already understand that even in democratic countries people of science can find themselves in the situation described by Nadezhda Mandelstam as "government monopolizing all jobs and keeping inconvenient people unemployed". The private sector has very few positions suitable for people trained in science and often can give them only the last refuge of unskilled labour. In my country's Neofit Rilski Southwestern University, an assistant named Petar Doshkov was fired and put to trial after exposing corruption practices in a TV interview. He was eventually acquitted and restored to his position by court, but the process took more than 3 years. During this time, finding himself unemployed in a region with sky high unemployment rate, he had to work on his father's small subsistence farm.
The worst aspect of the situation actually isn't the material one - after all, wages of people of science are often comparable to those of unskilled workers. The worst aspect, to my opinion, is losing the occupation one likes and in fact needs. Most people cannot understand this because they don't care much what work they will do, as long as it isn't too hard or unpleasant or poorly paid. However, people of science (even mediocre ones) express themselves in their work. Their craft is integrated in their personality and without doing it they cannot have not only happiness but even a reasonably normal life. To ban a person of science from doing his work, or to abuse him until he quits "voluntarily", can have severe and unpredictable consequences for the victim. During my undergraduate study, I twice feared that I'd be expelled because of serious disagreements with teachers; and I admit I was totally freaked out in both cases, because they dragged for monghs before eventually coming to a quasi-happy ending. I prefer not to mention here how I felt during the later troubles with my PhD thesis - I still don't feel strong enough for this. Unfortunately, people of science have to rely only on themselves when in trouble, because there is little solidarity between them and no support by the rest of the society. The only exception are courts restoring illegally fired teachers and researchers to their positions, as mentioned above; in most Western countries, this chance is taken away by keeping people of science on temporary contracts, so that no specific reasons need to be given for not renewing the employee's contract.
I am afraid this post spontaneously grew into a too ambitious attempt to explain why we are having "hard days on the endless frontier". Let me return to Jahnke's case. If he by chance is reading this, I'd advise him not to quit Cambridge voluntarily (as my colleagues and friends have always told me when I have considered this step, "the enemy will be very happy if you leave - don't give them such a pleasure"). And also not to sign without consulting a lawyer any papers tossed in his direction by the bosses (a doctor I know lost her job this way). He is welcome to e-mail me (mayamarkov at gmail dot com) - and also any person connected to him who wishes. One need not necessarily be himself subjected to prosecution, disciplinary proceesings, forced apology and gag orders for calling a dictator a dictator - just being around when such things happen may make a person need emotional support.
I hope that Jahnke's advisor Prof. Trowsdale, who looks like a nice person on photos, will support his student and help Jahnke's PhD thesis to be live-born. The scientific community in Cambridge and elsewhere also can help. We know our craft and its rules, so I need not give tips about citations and peer-reviewing and other things, need I :-) ? What a pity that my own research topics are so many miles away.

Short overview of journalists criticizing presidents

Cartoon of a shoe with George Bush's face on it, apparently shown at a rally in support of al-Zaidi. Authors of the cartoon and the photo are unknown to me.

On Dec. 14, 2008, during his visit to South Ossetia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev held a press conference. A local journalist, angered by the Russian occupation and de facto annex of his country, threw both of his shoes at him. President Medvedev ducked twice, avoiding being hit by the shoes. The journalist was arrested and is now awaiting trial. He may be charged with insulting a foreign leader of with assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 3 and 15 years, respectively. However, he found support from his employer, thousands of protesters in South Ossetia and some Ossetian politicians, as well as outside the country.

Of course the above described incident never happened. It hardly could, and even if it did, I don't think we would ever again hear of the shoe-thrower. The event actually took place in Baghdad, the journalist was Muntadhar al-Zaidi (29) and his target was then-US President George Bush. I copied some of the above phrases from al-Zaidi's Widipedia article, changing the names of people and locations.

Al-Zaidi became a hero not only in Iraq but also in the entire Arab and much of the Western world. I have shown above a cartoon held by his supporters, because it is really a good one and I can only regret that such excellent Arab cartoonists waste their talent on dubious causes, leaving all the important work to their Danish colleagues. In the city of Tikrit (where Saddam Hussein was born) a sculpture in the shape of a shoe was created, stayed for three days and then was removed following an order by local authorities.

Let me now frankly state that I have only contempt for al-Zaidi and his personality cult. According to Wikipedia, his journalism record prior to the incident shows him being strongly "anti-occupation", i.e. standing at the enemy side. While throwing the second shoe, he shouted, "This is for the widows and orphans...". Because civilian war victims are presumed to include at least as many women and children as men, and because only several thousands of regular Iraqi soldiers died during the 2003 invasion, al-Zaidi's mentioning of killed Iraqi men with surviving wives and children is (at least to me) a clear reference to the "insurgents", as the politically correct media prefer to call the terrorists. I think that German journalist blogger R.A. Clermont was quite right to note similarity between al-Zaidi and suicide bombers (her post is actually quite sympathetic to him, describing him as "thinking, civilized, with real understanding"). And while there is much talk about al-Zaidi's courage, this courage apparently never passed the threshold required for opposing Saddam Hussein's regime in any way. Many people independently asked the same question as commenter Jack on Sandmonkey's blog: "I wonder when Arabs will start throwing shoes at their own leaders? Or do they know, somehow, that the consequences might be substantially different?...I know exactly what would happen if people started to throw shoes at Arab leaders, aside from what seems to be the consensus so far: death after an indeterminate period of pain. The Arab leaders would make wearing shoes illegal."

After his arrest, al-Zaidi was beaten and this raised much indignation and protests (quite different from the silence observed when police are beating innocent citizens and killing detainees here in Europe). While I agree that no prisoner should be mistreated, I am amused by the double standards of al-Zaidi's supporters who claim that he is entitled to full corporal integrity and at the same time has the right to express his opinions by throwing heavy objects at other people's heads. Al-Baghdadia TV, which is al-Zaidi's employer, went as far to demand that "the Iraqi authorities immediately release their stringer Muntadhir al-Zaidi, in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people on the ousting of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. ... Any measures against Muntadhir will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime" (source: Wikipedia).

What angers me most, and is the reason for me to write such a long post, is the worldwide attention given to al-Zaidi's act. It undoubtedly deserved to be included in the news, but I think this should have been in the People section, between reports of celebrity marriages, divorces, drunken drivings, clashes with paparazzi and attempts to guess paternity without using DNA tests. Inclusion of such news in the political section only diverts attention from real problems and leaves darkness where the spotlight of public attention is desperately needed. To illustrate, let me briefly mention what happened to two journalists criticizing other presidents.

"The terrifying ordeal of Jestina Mukoko, a television news anchor turned human rights activist, began at 5am on December 3 when seven men and one woman forced their way into her house at gunpoint... Certainly Mukoko has been a thorn in Mugabe’s flesh. She resigned from state television to become director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a human rights monitoring network, and has been one of the regime’s most intelligent, influential and informed critics. She has collected evidence of tens of thousands of abuses in the past decade. Her monthly reports have detailed the routine tyranny of violence, the shortage of food and the denial of free speech that characterise Zimbabwean life today..." The quote is from the Sunday Times Dec. 14, 2008 article Silenced - the sharpest voice against Mugabe, by Sophie Shaw. I came across this report via the WIP site, which means that I would never hear about this case if Mukoko were male. According to a later report by Independent, Mukoko was tortured and is now being tried.

Let's now come home to Bulgaria, which is expected to have a better human rights record and more freedom of speech. On Sept. 23, 2008 journalist Ognyan Stefanov (54), editor in-chief of Frog News, was severely beaten in the street as he was leaving a restaurant. The attackers were several men who first asked for Stefanov's name to be sure about his identity and then started beating him with hammers and metal rods. Stefanov suffered fractures of all four extremities, backbone and head injuries, lost over two liters of blood and spent days on artificial respiration. Doctors were not sure for a long time whether he would survive; fortunately, he did. I have no information about his present condition.

I wanted very much to blog about Stefanov immediately after the attack, but I had no opportunity back then. However, today isn't late at all because the key questions remain unanswered. Stefanov's attackers haven't been caught and their motivation remains uncertain. However, most commentators reminded that Stefanov had been "highly critical of the President Parvanov" and that shortly before the assault he had been subpoenated and interrogated by the State Agency for National Security. A month before the beating, on Aug. 28, Stefanov himself wrote a text titled Free speech between fear from those with power and power over fear; in it, he claimed that unidentified powerful people demanded him to stop criticizing the President and threatened him that if he doesn't, "they knew how to cause harm". So Bulgarian journalists strongly suspect that either security agents or "businessmen" sponsors of the President, not content with the legal options to shut up criticism, arranged a beating. But even if DANS people didn't participate in the attack per se, by calling Stefanov they clearly gave a sign to the mafia (against which he also wrote) that he was considered by the authorities as an enemy and wouldn't be protected. This aspect was best expressed by TV journalist Velizar Enchev, who knows well the secret services. If the reader thinks that I am too biased against our security forces and unwilling to let them off the hook, I would ask, why are then the attackers still unidentified and walking free? Or are our police good only in intimidating journalists and other citizens?

As far as I know, the attack against Stefanov was largely neglected by international public opinion. An exception is the Netherlands, where Daniela Gorcheva, a journalist from Bulgaria, alerted her colleagues about the case. Five leading Dutch cartoonists created works in solidarity with Stefanov (you can see the cartoons at Gorcheva's blog).

Let's now return to the shoe-throwing subject. While this post was in the pipeline, another incident took place in Britain. On Feb. 2, as Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao was delivering a lecture at the Cambridge University, an unidentified 27-year-old man called him a "dictator" and threw at him a shoe, which landed a meter away. While agreeing with a university official that "Cambridge is a place where ideas are put into play, not shoes," I have much more sympathy for this protester than I have for Mr. al-Zaidi.

Chinese media initially kept silence over the incident, but when information leaked in via satellite channels and the Web, they just had to report it. According to one commenter, "the uncompromising Iraqi people threw a shoe at Bush which is a brave act by a suppressed nation, but the ugly Englishman threw a shoe at Wen, which was only a barbaric trick". Isn't this brilliant? I love China!

Letter from China

If you want to know what is happening in China, don't trust media reports too much. Their authors are blinded by the enormous proportions of China, by its superpower status and its fast economic progress (though the latter is perceived on the basis of official Chinese statistics, which reminds the alleged economic prosperity of USSR and is likely to be about as authentic).
The quote below is from a letter written in April by a guest worker in China. I prefer not to give more details about the author and where I found the text; let me just mention that I am not the blogger to whom the letter was addressed.

"Unfortunately, I have no access to your blog. I suppose that, similarly to many other Web pages, it is made unaccessible from China. I am very angry at the whole situation here. Frankly, I am quite afraid by the thought that China is the new superpower... I see you are aware of the events happening here, but let me add several interesting facts from the last few days:
1. The Party sent a mass text message to all Chinese, "advising" them not to buy anything from Carrefour (the largest hypermarket here, it is French btw). And guess what - after May 1 no one Chinese will shop there. Let me clarify the reason. I talked about this with a colleague from Singapore and he said, "My girlfriend is against this Party initiative, but she also isn't going to shop at Carrefour, because if she does and some of her colleagues hear about it, they will begin to hate her." There are some very malicious people here, hating those who don't march with the majority and ready to expose their hate. You get the situation, don't you? Chinese are so brainwashed that it is hard to believe!
2. The Party sent a mass e-mail message to the Chinese, explaning how malicious Western European people are. There were attached photos (ultra manipulated) of Chinese in Paris weeping because of what happened there with the Olympic fire. Quote: "See our HEROES"... To me, these things just suck! My boss commented the situation, ”We are the strongest and most powerful nation in the world, nobody has the right to stand against us”. Can you imagine this coming from the mouth of an educated Chinese citizen, with much international experience. Imagine then the "thoughts" of an ordinary Chinese who has had the great luck to graduate 3rd grade... And this is the nation coming forward - scary, isn't it?
...I am a complicated personality. And despite being "material", I am much tormented by the things I described and therefore I decided that China isn't for me, at least not at the moment... I am going to leave soon. I may return when this nation becomes a little more mature, but during the last 6 months I realized that if Chinese mentality is to grow up at all, it will require a loooooong time... I intend to seek a job in South Africa or in some pretty corner of Europe... I need a more normal place, these Chinese exhausted me too much..."

My Westerner's demands to Muslims

On May 15, another Bulgarian blogger wrote that religious denominations are unimportant for her, so the attempts of us her commenters to "convert her to anti-Islam" were to no avail. On the same day, I replied with a post on my Bulgarian blog where I asked what more had Muslims to do in the name of Islam in order to "convert her to anti-Islam", and wrote what Muslims, on the other hand, had to do in order to make me renounce my Islamophobia.
Now, I am translating those demands to English and publishing them here. This is blog action against Islamism as a reaction to the June 2 suicide attack against the Danish embassy in Pakistan which killed 8 people.

To renounce my Islamophobia, I demand from Muslims to recognize the right of existence of:
- Israel;
- former Muslims;
- critics of Islam;
- Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and all other people not belonging to any Abrahamian faith;
- homosexuals;
- clitores.

They must also recognize the equal rights of:
- non-Muslims;
- women.

I'd wish to add something about separation of religion from state, de-criminalizing food, alcohol and sex... but let's not be maximalistic.
The above listed demands are absolute, non-negotiable, and I think that no Westerner should ever consider any compromise regarding them. I reserve the right to make additions to the list if something appropriate comes to mind.

Blog action against Islamism

There is a site that periodically announces "blog action day", i.e. appeals to bloggers to write posts devoted to a particular subject on a particular day. However, I think we don't really need special days and a special site or another authority to call us to blog action. Any ordinary blogger can do the job as well. So I use the opportunity to appeal for blog action against Islamism. My idea is to react to every major action of Islamists by numerous anti-Islamist texts, images, videos, music and whatever else comes to mind.
While some of the anti-Islamist and anti-Islamic propaganda could, in isolated cases, change the views of our opponents, this is not what I am pursuing and certainly not what I am hoping for. The core of my idea is to try behaviour modification on Islamists. Behaviour modification means influencing another person's actions by rewarding him for wanted behaviour and/or punishing him for unwanted behaviour. It is widely used in animal training, upbringing and education of children, and virtually all aspects of adult life. Islamists use it on us all the time, while we most of the time unduly abstain from using it on them. Let's change things. They don't want anti-Islamist and anti-Islamic stuff in public space? Let's guarantee that when they resort to coercion or terror, they'll get more of what they don't want. As said Christopher Hitchens in his must-read essay God-fearing people: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?, "It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways... And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy."

Proposed rules for Blog Action against Islamism:
1) Write explicitly that your post is participation in blog action and specify to which event you are reacting. That is, make it clear that without the particular undue Islamist action your anti-Islamist or anti-Islamic post would never appear on your blog. This is especially important for blogs that are Islamophobic all the time.
2) Try not to write things you may regret later when you calm down. We claim to stand not only for our interests but also for universal principles. So we regard all people as humans with rights, no matter how malicious their views may be. Besides, it's good to remember that were we born in a Muslim community, we would most likely be quite like the people whose behaviour we condemn now.
3) It isn't necessary for the published material to be new and created by you. However, if you are using another person's work, cite properly the original author, unless he prefers to stay anonymous. While it isn't practical to ask specific permission from the author, you should consider whether he would mind his work republished on your blog and proceed only if you think he wouldn't. This rule has an exception - Islamists wouldn't want their words to be cited in such context, but still I think it is OK to do so.

Of course traditional media can also participate in such action, which they actually are already doing. In 2006, after Denmark became target of Islamists because of the famous cartoons, a number of European newspapers republished them. Earlier this year, a group of Danish newspaper republished the cartoons again as a reaction to an Islamist plot to assassinate one of the cartoonists. However, most people cannot publish in media other than blogs, therefore I am writing specifically about blog action.

Realpolitik about Georgi Stoev

Most Bulgarian bloggers who are worth reading write under their true identities. An exception is the right-wing political blog Realpolitik, by anonymous author(s).
My previous post was dedicated to the death of Georgi Stoev, a writer who exposed the organized crime in present-day Bulgaria. Realpolitik also has a post on the subject, written on the very day of his death (Apr. 7) and titled They murdered Georgi Stoev for the sake of us all. Below, I'm translating several lines of it:
"Our analysis: Georgi Stoev was shot dead by the Monterey Ring, this is obvious. There was no way for them to let him talk all over the place that Lyuben Gotsev is capo di tutti capi and an old friend of the Margin. There was no way for them to let him testify against Madzho... On Realpolitik, we have been writing about the Monterey Ring for a long time. When we started the blog, we had a discussion whether to reveal our names. The opinion not to show them on the site prevailed because we didn't want to be entangled in made-up lawsuits. The story of Georgi Stoev showed the existence of dangers far more serious than a made-up lawsuit. In Bulgaria, they already assasinate writers in order to shut them up."

The death of Georgi Stoev

I rarely write about the organized crime in Bulgaria and its powerful grip on our lives and when I do, the posts are of copy-paste type such as the ones dated May 19, 2006 and the May 11, 2007 . Not only have I no expertise in this subject, but reflecting on it for too long fills me with hopelessness and apathy, because I see no sign that rule of law and civil society in Bulgaria will ever prevail over the mafia.
However, when a writer is murdered and there is strong suspicion that this is because of his writings, no other writer (in the broadest meaning of the term) can remain silent.
On Apr. 7, writer Georgi Stoev, 35, died after being shot in the street with three bullets. It is not known (and is unlikely ever to be known) who pulled the trigger, but the victim knew it was going to happen. He left behind a 7-year-old daughter. He had separated himself from her mother, perhaps to spare her and the child the inevitable risk.
In his youth, Stoev was involved in Bulgarian organized crime. He had first-hand experience with its two most important groups, designated with the acronyms VIS and SIC. Later on, he turned his back on mafia and began to write books about it. He was an example of the writer of the future as Varlam Shalamov imagined him - not a person educated in literature with little knowledge of reality, but a person with much real-life experience and expertise, plus innate gift of writing.
I didn't know his works because in recent years financial reasons force me to stay away from the book market. However, after the murder my husband bought one of his books, SIC. It was describing not only the racketeering activities of the mafia thugs but also their ties with high-ranking members of all major political parties. After reading it, I told my husband that I wonder how the author of such things could survive that long. He suggested that it was possible because Bulgarian crime lords and politicians don't read books (though, unlike us, they can afford whatever books they wish).
However, it is not quite clear whether Stoev's murder was really motivated by his books, because there was also another story centered around Mladen Mihalev, nicknamed Madzho (Madjo). Journalists call Madzho "a businessman", which in Bulgaria has become a standard euphemism for any person with a huge income of murky origin. Madzho was portrayed in SIC and other books by Stoev. In fact, SIC was dedicated to "M.M. - M.", a clear reference to Madzho. The 2007 dedication stated, "I am not certain about our present relationships and wouldn't call you a friend now, though I used to. But I am not afraid of you, we'll meet as equals and this time I'll set the rules of the game." This makes me think that Stoev either was too naive or had too little instinct of self-preservation.
I am sorry that this post turns more about Madzho than about Stoev, but this seems inevitable if we want to face the truth about why Stoev died and in what a country we continue to live. I am translating from an unsigned article titled Do you remember who Madzho is from the May 18, 2007 issue of Capital weekly:
"... His name made headlines when the gangster war broke out in 1993... Madzho was the person whose nerves yielded and he fired an entire charger of bullets into the entrance of the Sevastopol casino at Rakovski Street in Sofia. Unfortunately for him, (rival gangster) Karamanski had made an ambush and Mihalev was wounded by a shot from an apartment across the street... His "business career" included supplying oil to Serbia during the embargo and forcible insurance... Mihalev was one of the four founders of SIC in late 1994... In 1995, Mladen Mihalev bought First East International Bank... In 1996, several hotels in (the mountain resort of) Borovets were privatized by Madzho. He later bought and built several more hotels in (the sea resort of) Sunny Beach... Because the (rival gangsters) Margin brothers are threatening his life, Mladen Mihalev is now living abroad, most of the time in Switzerland... Madzho's activities are allegedly directed by the former Interior Minister and Deputy Director of First Administration of (former Communist) State Security service, General Lyuben Gotsev... The general doesn't deny he knows Madzho but denies any influence upon him."
The reason Capital weekly paid attention to Madzho were some events that took place on May 16, 2007. Let me quote Reporters Without Borders:
"18.05 - Bulgaria: Court security officials beat photographer. Emil Ivanov, a photographer for the newspaper Express was beaten up by court security officials in Sofia on 16 May when he tried to take photos of underworld figure, Mladen Mihalev, key witness in a trial for the murder of an associate, Milcho Bonev. Tight security has surrounded the hearings, including systematic searches of journalists. Interior minister, Roumen Petkov, announced the opening of an investigation."
The "key witness" actually appeared in court with a 3-hour delay to give completely useless testimony. However, his appearance made big news because of the way it was handled by police. They took unprecedented security measures, "occupying" the Palace of Justice and its surroundings in the center of Sofia. Eyewitnesses told shameful stories of policemen standing side by side with the thuggish private guards of Madzho and indistinguishable from them, of judges stopped by police and forced in the most disrespectful way to prove their identity in order to be let into their own offices. Nobody was surprised when 55-year-old Emil Ivanov, after photographing these security measures, was brutally beaten by police and forced to erase his photos. (More details here and here, in Bulgarian.) All commentators agreed that there was no real threat to Madzho's life and the entire parade of force aimed to show the public that Bulgarian state supports Madzho. The investigation mentioned by Reporters Without Borders later vindicated the uniformed beaters. One of them even threatened to sue his victim for libel. It is a sad Bulgarian reality that our police and prosecution not only let organized criminals do whatever they want, but help them terrorize the population by beating and prosecuting whoever tries to expose them (another example: our authorities wanted to prosecute BBC journalists for reporting a ring of child traffickers).
Let me return to Georgi Stoev. He claimed that recently Madzho contacted him and ordered him to organize a group to carry out assassinations. Stoev didn't want to do this and passed this information to the prosecution. The result was disastrous: information leaked from the prosecution to Madzho. Stoev wanted to testify against him but only after his arrest. Prosecutors were not going to arrest Madzho and, as they claim, instead offered Stoev the protection our law has for such cases (which is essentially useless). I doubt that they were ready to do even this; it is easy for them to say it now - he is unable to refute it. I cannot figure out how Stoev, knowing our prosecution, could think they would do their duty; and even if they wanted, they had no evidence against Madzho other than Stoev's words. Anyway, they were not interested in charging Madzho, turned Stoev away and after a short time he was dead.
A day before Stoev's murder, "Borislav Georgiev, the executive director of a multimillion-pound energy company in charge of maintaining a controversial nuclear power plant, was shot outside his apartment block" (quote from The Independent). These two contract killings in two days finally led to the resignation of the Interior Minister Rumen Petkov, presumably after pressure from EU. Petkov's reputation was already marred by many previous deeds, notably a meeting with two underworld bosses known as Galev brothers. Nevertheless, Petkov retained a high position in Bulgarian political life and was included in the talkes about the new Cabinet.
So Stoev was silenced, his characters who killed him are untouchable and enjoying their dirty money and high positions. Trying to construct some good end to a story that has none, I think of my husband's reaction. He usually skips voting, but now every time when Stoev's name is mentioned in the news, says, "I will vote next time - and not fot them."
"They" are today's rulers who transfered their power to the underground world.

US blogger subpoenated for writing against quackery

On Feb. 1, I wrote that quacks want freedom of speech for themselves but deny it to opponents. Now, we have a fresh example of this phenomenon. Kathleen Seidel who blogs against the vaccines-cause-autism quackery reported on Apr. 3 that she was subpoenated by Clifford Shoemaker, a lawyer representing Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes in their $20,000,000 personal injury lawsuit against Bayer company. The Sykes think that vaccines have caused their son's autism and want big money from vaccine manufacturer Bayer as compensation. (The vaccines-cause-autism urban legend is discussed in my Jan. 14 post.)
I am surprised that the event described above happened in the USA. You expect such things in places described by the broad term "east of Belgrade", e.g. here in Bulgaria. In fact, the story reminded me of Bulgarian blogger Michel who was subpoenated and warned by police last summer because of his writings about the Strandja protests (see my July 19, 2007 post).
I guess, US legislature allows laywers to directly subpoenate people thought to have information useful for their clients' cases. However, Kathleen Seidel had no such information; in fact, she had more than once written against the Sykes' claims. So the only explanation is that Mr. Shoemaker abused his right to subpoenate in order to harass and intimidate Kathleen. In fact, the subpoena came shortly after Kathleen's post The Commerce in Causation, describing how Mr. Shoemaker uses the disproved vaccines-cause-autism theory to nicely fill his pockets via never-ending litigations. So it clearly looks like a revenge: you blog against me - I intrude into your life by a subpoena. Although not compatible to a lawsuit, a subpoena such as this one is, to say the least, unpleasant for those on the receiving end. Bulgarian blogger Michel reported the experience to be traumatizing.
One of the absurd aspects of the overall absurd subpoena is the demand that Kathleen should provide copies of "all her communications with... religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations". Kathleen has written Serving the Guest, a cookbook with essays and anecdotes about the role of food in Sufism. I do not know whether she has actually converted to Islam, but even if she has, whose damn business is this? Has Mr. Shoemaker ever heard about freedom of religion?
It is important to defend rights and freedoms of everybody, including our opponents and even enemies. A Russian writer once said that freedom isn't like a blanket - take it from your neighbour and you'll have more of it. It is rather like air - take it from anybody and there will be less of it for everyone, including you. In this respect, I (like many others) was delighted and surprised to see that two distinguished quackery-promoting journalists have expressed their support for Kathleen Seidel.
Let me now say a few words about Mr. Shoemaker's clients (who are unlikely to be unaware about their lawyer's methods) and particularly about Rev. Lisa Sykes. For those who don't know what "Rev." (abbr. from reverend) means, it is a title of a clergy member (Bulg. prepodoben). Generally, religious people earn my respect by their attitude to disabled children. They think that there must be a reason for God to send children with disabilities to this world, so their parents must feel honoured and meet their extra responsibilities with dignity and compassion. This is e.g. the view of Jenny, mother of 3 children (2 with special needs) and, let me remind, seller of a wonderful home in the city of Anniston. However, Rev. Sykes (shown here with her son) has a different attitude. She apparently thinks than nothing can be "wrong" with her or her husband's genes, and that God couldn't be so cruel or stupid to dump a non-perfect child on such a wonderful person as her. So she blames vaccines for her son's autism, sues a pharma company to rob it of its honestly earned money and, by her own admission, does on her son a quack "treatment" which castrates him chemically. I ask, why is this pompous person, greedy gold digger and abusive mother still a pastor? What is the human resources policy (if any) of today's churches and what do they think they are doing by employing people such as Lisa Sykes, Jeremiah Wright and Rowan Williams, to name just a few? Thank God I am an atheist :-). Read also the excellent Janna's post on this subject.

Quacks want freedom of speech for themselves but deny it to opponents

Freedom of speech is definitely having a hard time. The relentless attacks of Islamists and their Western appeasers against it gave me material for 4 posts in last month alone (dated Jan. 11, 27, 29 and 30, respectively), and this without digging deeply into news and blogs. (Some Muslims seem to fear that their Allah, similarly to the gods of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, will cease to exist if enough people say He doesn't.) Crusaders of political correctness are banning every single word that could eventually offend anybody and so are transforming our languange into an euphemized and censored Newspeak. And now quack thugs try to silence people exposing their quackery.
Yes, I am not joking. On Jan. 23, Orac reported: "Three months ago, I wrote about vacuous legal threats issued by the Society of Homeopaths against one of the better skeptical bloggers, Le Canard Noir, who runs the excellent Quackometer Blog and created the infamous Quackometer, in order to intimidate him into silence. The attempt backfired spectacularly, as scores of bloggers reposted the article by Le Canard Noir that prompted the legal threats, in the face of which his ISP had caved. Now it looks like it might be time to do it all again, this time with a different twit who has issued abusive threats against Le Canard Noir. This time around, I learn from No Nonsense!, it is a man named Dr. Joseph Chikelue Obi (who bills himself as the "world's top expert in nutritional immunomudulation") who has threatened Le Canard Noir's webhost with a lawsuit, demanding a £1 million a day penalty unless pages about him and his highly dubious activities are removed from their server. Once again, given the U.K.'s exceedingly plaintiff-friendly libel laws, Le Canard Noir had little choice but to capitulate, as his ISP demanded that he take down the offending pages. Guess what? It's time for every blogger who supports freedom of speech and skepticism to repost the article, and I call on you to do just that. Here are my copies of the offending articles: Right Royal College of Pompous Quackery..."
However, knights of quackery are all for free speech when it comes to their "right" to give harmful advice to gullible public. Yesterday, Eli Stone soap opera went on air. Let me quote Wikipedia about it: "Eli Stone is an American television drama... Produced by ABC Studios..., the series... is airing as a mid-season replacement in 2008. It will also air on Channel Seven in Australia, CTV in Canada, and Antena 3 in Spain... The debut episode, dated 2008-01-31, attracted controversy due to its plot line, which depicts the theory that autism is caused by a mercury-based preservative formerly used in common childhood vaccines, and treats the theory as being credible and legally compelling. This theory is not supported by scientific evidence, but has contributed to decreased vaccination rates that endanger children. The American Academy of Pediatrics asked ABC to either cancel the episode or include a disclaimer emphasizing that mercury is not used in routine childhood vaccines, and that no scientific link exists between vaccines and autism. ABC instead decided to present a written notice and voice-over saying "The following story is fictional and does not portray any actual persons, companies, products or events", with a second card directing viewers to the autism web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
When pediatricians raised their voices against the "drama", quacks cried censorship. A distinquished their representative, David Kirby, wrote a jewel titled Pediatricians, ABC and censorship: Facts are scarier than fiction. (No, don't expect a link from me here, find it yourself if you want to read it. I have written before about the vaccines-cause-autism myth on Jan. 14)
Kristina Chew cites Chicago Tribune columnist Julie Deardorff that "the show is not about whether vaccines cause autism. It’s about the redemptive powers of faith. What the episode’s conclusion really asks is: Which is the greater force in life: science or faith?... What people, and specifically parents of autistic children, believe, the scientific evidence that there is no link between vaccines and autism, or their own faith that one day their child was “normal” and the next, post-vaccination, autistic. “It won’t matter how many studies show there is no link between vaccines and autism,” writes Deardorff. “We all believe our own truths.” "
Cancel all science, all quest for The Truth. There is no objective Truth cognizable by reason, just individual truths revealed to us by faith. The Age of Unreason has come.
I want to end this post with a quote from Joey's Mom. I am pasting her entire Jan. 28 post, which is short and on target:
"ABC is airing a new show with a first episode that implies a link between autism and vaccines. The co-creators say they'd be upset if people stopped vaccinating because of the show... talk about waffle-waffle. If they were so concerned, they would never have written it. If they believe vaccines cause autism, why are they saying they are concerned? And if they don't pull it, guess who isn't going to buy any more Disney products?"

Atheism: a proposed addition to DSM-V

This morning, I systematically toured Libyan blogs in the hope of finding a particular picture about Ramadan I had seen in one of them. (I found it eventually in another place). During the search, I mentioned something interesting in a blog I generally don't read, Khalid Jorni's CNN Libya (Update: after a demand by CNN, Khalid had to change the name and URL of his blog, now located here). The post is dated Jan. 28 and titled Union of Libyan Bloggers succeeds in deleting a Libyan blog. I am pasting here an unusually large, unedited quote from its beginning:
"Living in a country where all men head to mosque on Fridays, and 99% of women wear Hijab, always made me think that we are different, innately religious, and naturally immune against godlessness and secularism, but recently I realized that we are as normal, "or abnormal, this is not the point", the point is that people in this country are not different from those who come out everyday in western societies confessing that they don’t believe in God, they are homosexuals, or they are addicted and cannot quit, the only one difference between us and them is that they can speak out, while we have to worry about the possible consequent social stigma before we even take a breath.
Those of you who browse the Arabic language sector of the Libyan blogosphere, have definitely come across what used to be the most popular Libyan blog of Tariq Ali, a Libyan guy who confessed frankly that he didn’t believe in any religion, and wrote things like "all prophets are quacks..bla bla bla", his blog has recently been deleted after the message that had been sent by the Libyan union of bloggers to maktoob, the host of Tariq's blog.
Now Tariq is silent, and I think since maktoob acquiesced in the demands of the Libyan union of bloggers, so the guy must have violated the terms of use of the host of his blog, and therefore his blog deserves to be deleted.
But I wonder if this was the right way to manage!. Did we need to hide him!?, to insult him on the comment section of his blog? To provoke everyone against him?, or to understand his illness, feel sorry for him, and advice him to get help?
Before the atheist Libyans -who are increasing every day- state their objection to the word "illness", I would like to point out that spirituality is now added as a recognized component of health.
Health used to be identified as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, but WHO has recently added spirituality as a fourth component of health, "Libyan physician bloggers can correct me if I am wrong, we have plenty of them", so he who has no spiritual life, who is not a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.., is now formally considered sick and needs therapy, not to be hidden, not to be insulted, not to be silenced, not to be terminated, but to be helped out with treatment..."
Follow the above link to read the entire post.
I am sorry for Tariq and his blog, but at the same time I think that what happened is good from the viewpoint of safety. The deceptive anonymity of Internet lures people to write things that could put them in trouble if they are found out. And they are too easily found out. We all know how Chinese regime with the help of Yahoo identifies people writing against it in the Web and puts them in jail. So, if Tariq hadn't been silenced now, he could eventually suffer something much worse than losing his blog. If he happens to read this, he is welcome to e-mail me.
Meanwhile, I would suggest to Khalid (and other people who think like him) to take care for the much needed inclusion of atheism in the next, fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I don't know whom they should e-mail, but this is relatively easy to find :-).

Model European state Belarus respects UN resolutions

Belarus, which has the "honour" to remain in history as the last European dictatorship, strictly keeps UN resolutions. In accord with a recent one against "defamation of religions", particularly Islam, a court in Minsk ten days ago sentenced Alyaksandr Zdvizhkou, former deputy editor of the weekly Zhoda, to three years in prison for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that first appeared in a Danish newspaper (source: Spanish Pundit, hattip Hyscience). The same source continues, "He was found guilty of “inciting racial hatred”... It is highly likely that this was just a pretext for punishing an opposition journalist."
I also think that this must have been just a pretext, but the million-dollar-question is, why were Belarussian authorities given such a convenient pretext? If somebody has doubted that Muslim states are using UN as a tool to spread Sharia to non-Muslim states, I don't know what more evidence is needed.
And if you think that such things happen just in dictatorships, to obscure Slav people who don't matter much anyway, here is more food for thought: in Canada, journalist Esra Levant, who had also reprinted the (in)famous cartoons, has been summoned to Canadian HR Commission because "a Saudi-trained imam, who had called for sharia law to be introduced in Canada, complained to a human rights officer". Also in Canada, as Robert Spencer reports, "The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. They are responding to complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress about an excerpt from the book." The text in question contained quotes from Muslim leaders revealing their expansionist agendas.
I wish to end with a citation from Spencer's article: "In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them... Wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified."

UN is inconsistent, happily

In late 2007, UN General Assembly passed a resolution against "defamation of religions", particularly Islam. I wrote about it in my Jan. 11 post.
Now, every normal legislative act not only bans some unwanted human actions but specifies punishments for those who are caught doing such actions. Without a prescribed punishment, plus a mechanism to bring it into effect, you have no legislation but empty talk, as in the UN. How should be actually treated those who defame Islam? Fined, banned from taking positions in government, imprisoned, executed? It is enough to think a little over this to see how laughable the UN resolution is. It can work only in the Western gag culture of political correctness and self-censorship... or, better, in the context of Sharia law.
One of the most chilling features of Islamic societies is the zeal with which violaters of presumed God's orders are punished. Jews and Christians believe, for example, that God has given the Ten Commandments. However, I haven't heard of people executed solely for, say, lying or being disrespectful to their parents - not even in the darkest ages of the Judeo-Christian world. In contrast, Muslims take God's orders very seriously. They tend to ascribe capital punishment for each violation of the Koranic rules, unless the book specifies a lighter punishment. They even tend to punish by death "crimes" for which the Koran does specify a lighter punishment. E.g. the "holy book" says that an adulterous woman should be lashed, but in many Muslim societies she is stoned instead.
Naturally, one of the worst crimes in Islamic societies is blasphemy. Here is an ongoing case in Afghanistan: "An Afghan court sentenced a 23-year-old journalism student to death for distributing a paper he printed off the Internet that three judges ruled humiliated Islam, an official said... (Chief judge) Wahab said he did not immediately have the details of the paper that (defendant) Kambaksh circulated, other than that it was against Islam. He said Kaambakhsh discussed the paper with his teacher and classmates at Balkh University, and some students complained to the government" (source: International Herald Tribune).
You should expect the UN to be happy. Here is a country respecting it and taking its resolutions seriously, unlike wicked countries such as USA, Switzerland and so many others. But instead, UN mission in Afghanistan opposes Afghan death sentence (source: BBC). And, while thinking that the 2007 resolution against defamation of Islam may have encouraged Afghan judges to sentence the young man to death, I welcome the current inconsistency. Possibly, if we live long enough (say, 200-300 years), we'll see UN catching up with the Enlightenment and passing resolutions in favour of free speech and separation of religion from state.

UN doesn't want us to criticize Islam

In December 2007, UN General Assembly passed a resolution against "defamation of religions". Predictably, the only religion mentioned in the document was Islam (hattip: Joseph Klein in FrontPage Magazine).
Media Watch Watch lists how different countries have voted. I am pasting from there:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Bulgaria is in the Against list. I am proud of my country! And because I have so few occasions to be proud of it, this makes me really happy.
This resolution, and the comparison of the two lists, shows well why UN is of no use. It gives equal weight to countries like Canada and Switzerland and to what I'll refer to as "In Favour List Countries". And because there are, unfortunately, more In Favour List Countries in the world than countries like Canada and Switzerland, UN resolutions reflect what governments (not necessarily people) of In Favour List Countries want.
Here in Europe, blasphemy was a crime back in the Middle Ages. In many of the In Favour List Countries, life is like it was in the Middle Ages, or worse. So their rulers may be unaware that the Middle Ages are actually over. Isn't there anybody to kindly inform them about that? (From a safe distance, of course.)
In the meantime, I invite the UN General Assembly to come and shut down this blog.