CFI Canada is lending critical scientific support in a $30 million lawsuit against Shoppers Drug Mart and Boiron Canada.

Click here to watch the video; read the rest of the press release below the fold.

The suit alleges sales of Oscillococcinum, a homeopathic product marketed for flu-like symptoms, violate consumer protection laws.

“Oscillococcinum is overpriced sugar,” said Iain Martel, Chair of CFI’s Committee for the Advancement of scientific Skepticism. “The extreme dilutions used to make it ensure there is not a single molecule left of its supposed medicinal ingredient.”

CFI sent letters to Shoppers in January and March 2012, calling for the pharmacy giant to stop stocking products like Oscillo that make false and misleading claims about their contents and effectiveness.

“Shoppers Drug Mart had the opportunity for voluntary compliance, but chose not to respond,” said Justin Trottier, CFI’s National Communications Director. “Their silence gave us no choice but to support a legal approach.”

CFI entered a partner-solicitor relationship with Roy Elliott O’Connor LLP, recognized as one of the best class action law firms in Canada, and famous for charter cases on provocative issues including same-sex marriage, euthanasia, privacy, and censorship.

Boiron recently agreed to spend up to $12 million to resolve similar accusations in the United States. Consumers there sought refunds for Boiron products, including Oscillococcinum, that do not work as claimed.

“We hope everyone who profits from homeopathic products watches closely,” said Trottier. “These may prove to be landmark cases that revoke the free pass held by those making misleading, unfounded and unscientific claims about homeopathic products.”

Learn more at http://www.scientificskepticism.ca

This is very promising:

Religion is not important to Canadians

Is God weeping at the sight of so many atheists?

The Horde rallies around their banner.

 
Hemant found Waldo

Rainy Day Randi

The End

A’ Week is an online event that runs 18-24 March 2012. The idea of ‘A’ Week is simple – to raise awareness of how many people are ‘Good without Gods’ and don’t need religions to influence their lives.

As explained by CFI Ottawa member Ania:

This week is Good without God awareness week and I want to make some things very clear:

I am an Atheist. I don’t “not believe in anything” or “have faith in nothing”. I don’t have faith in a god(s) or believe in God(s). That is all.

I have faith is what matters: love, friendship, the power of people to do good and be good, human ingenuity and intelligence.

I am not “without wonder”. I find wonder in this incredible world we live in. I find inspiration that something so incredible, so beautiful, came about through natural processes. I find transcendence in my relative insignificance and confidence in my belief in my own ability to have an impact on the here and now.

I am given hope by my incredible luck that a series of circumstances, mutations, and otherwise unlikely events took place in such a way as to bring about my existence. I am a 1 in a billion chance; isn’t that just so very flattering!?

I have faith, and I believe, that this isn’t all just some test thought up by a bored, sadistic, megalomaniac with an inferiority complex somehow superimposed with a superiority complex.

I don’t need the threat of an afterlife to keep me working towards the greater good. I don’t fear death, but acknowledge it as motivation to live my life to the absolute. I make my own decisions about what is right and what is wrong based on experience and observation, and not because some ancient and irrelevant text told me what to think.

I am Good without God, because I don’t look to a god to make me good. I am good just because it is a good idea, and being good makes the world the place I want it to be.

I am an Atheist, and I am Proud.

CFI’s Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism has released a report slamming a course taught at a Carleton University over what they call “biased and inaccurate” claims concerning climate change. The authors are CFI Ottawa’s own Chris Hassall, Carley Centen, Cliff Beninger, and Chris Hebbern.

The course “Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective”, taught by Tom Harris for two years, is the subject of a 98-page report written by the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS).

The report constitutes a blow-by-blow response citing extensively from the scientific literature to rebut 142 erroneous and fully-quoted claims.

On auditing the course, CASS discovered that key messages for students contradict accepted scientific opinion. These messages include:

denying that current climate change has an anthropogenic cause; dismissing the problems that carbon dioxide emissions cause because CO2 is plant food; denying the existence of the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change; and claiming that we should prepare instead for global cooling.

A copy of the report can be downloaded at www.scientificskepticism.ca.

The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism critically engages with scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse. With a panel of expert advisers and volunteers, CASS addresses factual inaccuracies and misinformation in public debates by promoting evidence-based science. CASS is a working group of the Centre for Inquiry Canada, the leading free-thought organization in Canada promoting reason, science, secularism and freedom of inquiry.

There has been media reaction from the Ottawa Citizen, the Guardian, and no doubt more to come.

*************

Update (1 March):  CBC News article here

**************

Update (7 March): CBC Radio Ottawa Morning interview

From eSkeptic: How we know global warming is real and human caused:

How we know global warming is real and human made

Well, maybe. To some people. A less pointed cartoon (right) was sufficient to get the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist societies at three British universities in trouble with their respective student governments. It got blogger Rhys Morgan threatened with expulsion from his high school.

So, today in Britain is a Day To Defend Free Expression, sponsored by the One Law For All campaign. We post these images in solidarity with them, and in support of the right to free expression. Even when it is offensive. Especially when it is offensive — because that is precisely when it most needs defending.

I try to keep my blogging scientific.  Science is easy and I understand it well enough, everything else is horribly subjective.  Still, I do have an interest in recent events in the UK and so I thought I would post my opinions of what was going on:

The Jesus and Mo cartoon

So yet another UK atheist university group is in trouble, this time over the posting of a “Jesus and Mo” cartoon on a (closed, members-only) Facebook event page (with around 60 members).  Members of the Islamic Society at LSE complained about the representation of their prophet that was displayed an an event being run by the (big breath) London School of Economics (LSE) Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (LSESU ASH).  The Union at LSE asked that the cartoons be taken down and the ASH society said “no”.

Is it wrong to depict Mohammed?

We are frequently told that it is against Islamic tradition to depict the prophet Mohammed.  However, this is not found in the Qur’an.  Nowhere does Mohammed say anything on the subject.  Instead, there are a few examples in hadith, ancillary teachings written contemporaneously with or slightly after Mohammed, that prohibit the depiction of various figures by Muslims.  The two reasons are that this may cause deification via idolatry (which Muslims argue was the reason for claims of Jesus’ divinity) and a sense of keeping those images sacred (similar to the Jewish prohibition on saying or writing God’s name – note that that only applies to Jews).

The broader issue here is that there are multiple groups all fighting to understand the nature of the human experience.  What all movements have in common is that they martial a range of literary and philosophical techniques in this mission.  You can see satire, irony and humour used in both the Bible (OT and NT) and the Qur’an.  Clearly, then, there is a scriptural precedent for the use of these techniques in philosophical investigation?

Is it wrong to criticise Islam?

Of course it isn’t.  It isn’t wrong to criticise ideas.  ’Nuff said.

Speech can turn into violence?

From this piece at the LSE student newspaper:

Nabeel Moosa, President of the the LSE Students’ Union Islamic Society asserted that “whilst we support and recognise the value of free speech, it is always absolutely necessary to distinguish between ‘free speech’ and hate speech. The actions of some members of the Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society and others have sought to marginalise a large proportion of the LSE student body while also causing harm to the welfare of Muslim students who have been subject to a hateful campaign against their beliefs and liberties. We must also be aware that speech can very quickly turn into violence if not used responsibly.”

Aside from offense, I question the assertion that the welfare of Muslim students has been harmed.

The LSE motion

A motion taken before the LSE Student Union during an emergency general meeting on Thursday 26 January (passed by 339 votes to 179, you can listen to the debate here) read as follows:

No to racism – no to Islamophobia!
Union notes
1. The rise of Islamophobia in the United Kingdom [1][2],

It’s a shame that the Union couldn’t cite actual studies instead of newspaper articles, but I imagine these organisations are run largely by arts students who feel that assertions and the peer-reviewed literature are one and the same thing…

2. The rise of the extreme right in Europe [3],

This is probably also correct, but it is supported by yet more newspaper articles…

3. The 762 Islamophobic offences in London alone between April 2009 and June 2011 as confirmed by the Metropolitan Police, [4]

This seems to beg the question in that it assumes a common definition of “Islamophobia”, but we’ll get to this later…

4. Ethnic minorities are 42 times as likely to be targeted under the Terrorism Act, [5]

It is unfortunate that the rise in terrorist attacks perpetrated under the banner of Islam (e.g. 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, 2008 Exeter bombing), occurring against a backdrop of radicalisation in British mosques, has led to greater focus on ethnic minorities.  Some people justify this by saying that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims”.  This is absolutely untrue.  Brits understand better, perhaps, than any other group that terrorism is not synonymous with Islam.  Of the terrorist attacks committed in the UK since the 1970s, 6 have been by Islamic or Arabic (including Libyan and Palestinian) militants, 4 have been by domestic terrorists and 38 have been by the various Irish dissident groups.

5. Recent Islamophobic incidents at LSE.

Again, this begs a definition of Islamophobia (which probably should have come before this assertion).

Union believes
1. In the right to criticise religion,

Great.

2. In freedom of speech and thought,

Excellent, problem solved…?

3. It has a responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech,

Ah, here begins the slippery slope…

4. Debate on religious matters should not be limited by what may be offensive to any particular religion, but the deliberate and persistent targeting of one religious group about any issue with the intent or effect of being Islamophobic (‘Islamophobia’ as defined below) will not be tolerated.

“Free speech, but…”  There are not that many religious groups who we may wish to criticise.  Christianity and Islam are the two largest faiths and also contain doctrines that many atheists/secularists find abhorrent.  How many times and in how many ways are we allowed to criticise or offend before it becomes Islamophobic…?

5. That Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism.

The concept of racism is defined as either (i) the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, or (ii) prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.  Racism based on geographic origin is nonsensical in this context – just because people originate from the same location does not mean that they are particularly similar.  However, the “belief that all members of a race possess characteristics specific to that race” becomes entirely valid when talking about religious races.  Those characteristics are their theological tenets and, by definition, all members of the same religion hold (approximately, at least) the same religious tenets.  As to prejudice or discrimination, of course that is immoral.  However, when people criticise the tenets of those religions, we are often accused of racism because of the association between those tenets and the people who hold them dear.  What this comes down to, then, is whether we are committing Islamophobic acts as a result of persecuting Muslims (which would be racism) or their beliefs (certainly not racism).

Union resolves
1. To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred”,

And here’s the rub.  There are two points to be made here.  The first is that the inclusion of the Qur’an on the list of definitions has elevated a collection of ideas above criticism.  This is clearly an affront to the freedom of free expression.  Second, we need to decide based on this definition of Islamophobia whether or not the actions of the LSESU ASH group constitute “Islamophobia”.  Well I don’t think that there is any evidence that the posting of the cartoon was motivated by fear or hatred.  I also don’t think that the effect was to stereotype, demonise or harass Muslims (it was on a private Facebook group, for FSM’s sake…).  There was certainly no portrayal of Muslims as barbarians or terrorists and the Qur’an was never mentioned.  So, even by the definition of the LSE SU the LSE SU ASH did not commit any kind of Islamophobia.

2. To take a firm stance against all Islamophobic incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.

Great!  Just watch your knee-jerk reactions…

3. To publicly oppose actions on campus that are Islamophobic based on the aforementioned definition,

Ditto.

4. To ensure that all Islamophobic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School,

Ditto.

5. To work with the Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address Islamophobia and other forms of racism on campus and methods to alleviate it,

Ditto

6. To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of Islamophobia on campus.

I am pleased at least that they will welcome debate, since there is clearly a debate to be had between the inalienable right to free speech and the offence caused to those receiving criticism.

An alternative motion

The LSESU ASH and the various media commentators speaking in support of their actions have been fighting a rearguard action in the defense of freedom of speech and the definition of racism.  However, a more positive step might be to propose a logically consistent follow-on motion for the LSE SU:

No to racism – No to WLGBTQ-aphobia

Union notes
1. Women have been discriminated against throughout the world for centuries
2. The LGBTQ community has been discriminated against throughout the world for centuries
3. Discrimination against women and the LGBTQ community is stated among the tenets of the major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
4. The LSE SU contains groups that are dedicated to these discriminatory tenets.

Union believes
1. In the right to criticise women and LGBTQ individuals
2. In freedom of speech and thought
3. It has a responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech
4. Debate should not be limited by what may be offensive to any particular group, but the deliberate and persistent targeting of one group about any issue with the intent or effect of being WLGBTQ-aphobic (‘WLGBTQ-aphobia’ as defined below) will not be tolerated.

Union resolves
1. To define WLGBTQ-aphobia (women-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-queer-aphobia) as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of women or LGBTQ individuals, or their lifestyle, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of women or LGBTQ individuals, including but not limited to portraying women as being less than men[1], or LGBTQ individuals as unnatural[2], or abominations[3]”.
2. To take a firm stance against all WLGBTQ-aphobia incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.
3. To publicly oppose actions on campus that are WLGBTQ-aphobia based on the aforementioned definition,
4. To ensure that all WLGBTQ-aphobia incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School,
5. To work with the Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address WLGBTQ-aphobia on campus and methods to alleviate it,
6. To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of WLGBTQ-aphobia on campus.

[1] Qur’an 2:228, Leviticus 27:3, 1 Corinthians 11:3
[2] Qur’an 26:165, Romans 1:31-32
[3] Qur’an 27:54, Leviticus 18:22

First course of action: ban religious texts and groups that adhere to them.  Christian Unions have already been banned from the universities of Exeter, Birmingham and Warwick over these kinds of issues (some have been readmitted).

Conclusion

As usual, this is a storm in a tea cup.  It isn’t entirely clear how the LSE Islamic Society even came to view a cartoon (from a popular web comic) on a private Facebook group.  It is understandable that they were offended within their interpretation of Islam (although that depends on your particular branch of Islam) but it is not clear how any reasonable person could consider the cartoon stereotyping, harassment, demonisation, hatred, fear, portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists or criticising the Qu’ran.  As such, it does not constitute Islamophobia, even under the questionably broad definition provided by the LSE SU.  We abolished the Blasphemy Law in the UK in 2008, but it appears to be creeping back in through claims of Islamophobia.  Hopefully the LSE will at least be consistent in banning what they consider to be “hate speech” – it would make LSE a pretty quiet place.

Read more at Tessera, and the Ministry of Truth.

It’s  amazing to watch Ahlquist’s determination and persistence in the battle to have a religious prayer removed from the wall of the auditorium at her public school, not to mention her calm responses to being called an “evil little thing” by a State representative.

Even the owner of one of the flower shops who refused, citing safety concerns,  to deliver a bouquet for Jessica (from  the Freedom from Religion Foundation) said of Jessica,

  I’ve got a daughter, and I hope my daughter is as strong as she is, O.K.?

But what really impressed me was the one short statement at the end of the NYT article,  in which Jessica simultaneously defends free speech and science-based medicine:

It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good.

Here it is, the 6th episode of the monthly CFI Ottawa podcast… now with 100% more “having a name”.

This month we play another round of “Guess the Philosopher”, talk about “baby woo” (not the martial art… but still interesting!) and a bunch of other stuff.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download