Center For Inquiry Condemns United Nations Resolution on “Defamation of Religions”

March 26, 2009 (New York)—The United Nations Human Rights Council has handed another victory to Islamic states in their decade-long push to limit freedom of expression out of “respect” for religious beliefs.
A new Council resolution decries a “campaign of defamation of religions” in which “the media” and “extremist organizations” are “perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions and sacred persons,” and urges UN member states to provide redress “within their respective legal and constitutional systems.” Capitalizing on concerns about racial profiling and discrimination in the era of the war on terror, the language conflates criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry and seeks to stifle peaceful speech in the name of “dialogue” and “diversity.”
Similar resolutions have been passed at the Council since 1999 and by the General Assembly since 2005. The resolution passed with 23 in favor, 11 against, and 13 abstentions, gaining one additional no vote since the last time it was adopted by the Council.
“The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ is both absurd and dangerous.” said Ronald A. Lindsay, CFI’s president and chief executive officer. “Legally speaking, it’s gibberish, and any ban on so-called ‘defamation’ would effectively prevent any critique of religious beliefs or practices.”
In the opinion of a broad range of civil society organizations, these pronouncements do nothing but lend legitimacy to the repression of political and religious dissent around the world, particularly in Islamic countries. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, for example, which carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment, are frequently used against members of the Ahmaddiya community, a peaceful minority Muslim sect.
Through its UN representative, Dr. Austin Dacey, CFI participated in the negotiations over the resolution during the March session of the Council in Geneva, and delivered an oral statement before the plenary meeting on March 24. Most worrisome, according to CFI, is that the present language equates religiously insulting speech with “advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence,” a category of speech that is prohibited by existing treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have the force of law.
“Now the argument becomes very awkward for Europe,” said Dacey, “since many European states have laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, and even blasphemy (for example, in Austria) that have been upheld by their regional human rights courts. The Islamic states will say they simply want to extend the same protection to all beliefs.”
The Center for Inquiry has submitted a written briefing to the Tenth Session of the Human Rights Council detailing a reading of the case law that separates criticism, satire, and insult from incitement.

(From CFI press release 27 March 2009)

SA Blog Awards – I’m a FINALIST!

I never thought I’d get to write this, so bear with me while I celebrate; The Skeptic Detective has made it through the nominations phase of the 2009 South African Blog awards and has been shortlisted for the Science and Technology award! Please go vote for me here, or click on the banner on the left of the page (Note: you need to submit your email address and then click on a confirmation email).

I agree with the Catholic Church!

The Vatican’s Conference on Evolution has been criticized for not inviting creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design to participate in the proceedings. Who was doing the criticizing? None other than the Discovery Institute, leading proponents of the theory that some features of living creatures are too complex to have evolved through “random” natural selection and must therefore have been created by a higher power.

On Thursday the organizers of the five day conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University responded to the criticism by informing the world that they had barred the ID crowd from their conference because they wanted to encourage an intellectually rigorous conference on science, theology and philosophy and that “We think that it’s not a scientific prospective, nor a theological or philosophical one,” (Rev. Marc Leclerk).

That’s right; the Vatican thinks that ID is STUPID! I love the Vatican.

Ok, before I get carried away, there is one other aspect of this mud fight which is interesting. The evolution conference is funded by the Templeton foundation and the Discovery Institute has butted heads with the foundation in the past. The Institute is claiming that they have been barred from the conference because of their tainted history in dealing with the institute. The Templeton Foundation goes so far as to state on their website that they do not support any research projects which “deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge.” The organisers of the conference deny any conspiracy between themselves and the Templeton Foundation in barring the Discovery Institute from their proceedings.

I think that this whole episode illustrates how the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is on its way out of our culture. Thank goodness! If the Vatican (arguably the largest church on the planet, especially in the Christian world) thinks that ID has no social value, then it can only be a matter of time before they disappear from our landscape. In the meanwhile, lets just hope that influential groups such as the Vatican continue to point out the idiocy of ID.

Mark this day people – an atheist agreed with the Vatican!

A breath of fresh Hoodia

It is not everyday that a conscientious consumer protection advocate strikes a decisive blow against the peddlers of snake oil. Today is just such a day, Dr Harris Steinman is the man leading the fight against the forces of darkness. The evil army, in this instance, is a proudly South African company called Planethoodia.

I will start off with an explanation of what Hoodia is and the claims which are made regarding it’s supposed effects on the human body. We will then examine the way in which Planethoodia markets their weight loss gel in the hopes that it will help you to make sound decisions in the future.

What exactly is Hoodia?

Hoodia is a genus of 13 species of flowering cactiform plants found in the Namib Desert, with a range from central Namibia to southern Angola. In recent years a specific species, Hoodia gordonii, has been marketed as a weight loss tool.

A few minutes spent browsing the internet yields various claims for the effects of Hoodia on the human body, including;

• Appetite suppression
• Reduction of cravings
• Increases energy levels
• Enhances mood
• Reduces gastric acid

One website even claims that hoodia can do all of these wonderful things for your body with absolutely no side effects, the chances are that a product which has no side effects on your body will have No real effects either.

The biggest single problem which I have with the claims made for Hoodia is that there is absolutely no published scientific data to substantiate them. There is one study briefly mentioned in which Dr Richard Goldfarb conducted a study on seven people and found it effective.

Yes, Dr. Goldfarb’s study did yield positive results. However, it was never published in any medical journal, nor was it presented at a medical meeting. The only place you can read about this study is in your local You magazine. This is not how science is done. Dr. Goldfarb’s study needs to be published in a medical journal so that other scientists can review the protocols used in order to make sure that the results were not influenced by other variables. If the protocols were flawed, we would very quickly know about it, but because the study was never published, it can never be peer reviewed and thus it is worthless.

The companies marketing Hoodia have,when faced with a complete lack of testable evidence, turned to a trusty favorite; the appeal to authority. I see it over and over again;

Hoodia was eaten as a fresh food by the San tribe for thousands of years with ZERO side effects.

and again

This plant has worked for the tribes of South Africa for centuries, now let their secret work for you!

The appeal to authority is a well known (and well used) logical fallacy. Every time you see an advert on TV which tells you that “Doctors recommend” a product, or you should use Superduper washing powder because your grandmother and her grandmother used it, you are witnessing an appeal to authority. This argument is used by people who want to convince you of something, but have no evidence for their argument. You should always be sceptical of someone who uses this argument, especially when they are trying to get you to give them some of your money.

I think that this is a good time to have a look at Planethoodia’s website. The South African Advertising Standards Authority has recently instructed Planethoodia to remove claims on their website that there is scientific evidence for the efficacy of their Slender Gel product. Planethoodia is further required to;

indicate in its advertisements that claims relating to the product’s efficacy are supported to varying degrees by the participants of a four-week product test,

Planethoodia did this, but you have to wade through acres of wild claims, images of all the local magazines in which it has had it’s product advertised (all of which are popular women’s magazines, not a respectable journal in sight), lots of very sciency sounding words, a great big blue “BUY NOW” button and you finally find a line in 3pt vanishing type face right at the bottom of the page;

* ALL CLAIMS FOR EFFICACY OF HOODIA SLENDER GEL ARE BASED PURELY ON ANECDOTAL CONSUMER FEEDBACK DATA

That’s it, that is all th judgment by the ASA has been able to achieve. Personally I think that this is insulting. I am very glad to see that the ASA can be effective, however I feel as though the end result is mediocre at best. Anyone seriously interested in Hoodia is going to click the “Buy now” button and never see the disclaimer. I would like to see the ASA push Planethoodia to state the disclaimer in clear typeface far, FAR, further up in the ad. Think it’s going to happen?

Edit: My side-kick has pointed out to me that I misidentified the logical fallacy above as an argument from authority when the practice of appealing to ancient knowledge and tradition is more accurately described as the Appeal to tradition.

Thanks Side-kick

Carnival of the Africans #7

Great news! Martin at the Lay Scientist has posted the February edition of the Carnival of the Africans. This is a monthly blogging carnival which showcases high quality scientific, sceptical or critical thinking writing from, and dealing with, the continent of my birth; Africa.

The carnival has been growing in leaps and bounds over the past six months and I am very proud to be associated with all of the contributors.

Enjoy it!