Our Side of the Occupation

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other members of the Exeter University Open Occupation.

Anyone who has been following me on Twitter recently will probably be aware that I have been taking part in the Open Occupation of the largest lecture theatre in Exeter University. The harsh, ideological governments cuts must be fought, and so hundreds of us joined together to make a stand.

It all began on Wednesday, 8 December 2010. After a march organised by the Students' Guild, over a hundred of us continued back to the Newman A lecture theatre, taking over the room during a maths lecture, that, as with all lectures, we sat through and allowed to take place. Within an hour after this, we had a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and a blog. It's been impossible to overstate the importance of social media and the blogosphere to publicise the occupation. Every decision, and every significant moment has been available for anyone to see, and the amount of support that came through via Twitter, Facebook and e-mail was a constant inspiration (not least the email of solidarity from Billy Bragg. BILLY BRAGG!).

The support we received from the University, and specifically the security and porters, was also incredibly heartening. We allowed all lectures that could not be moved to take place, albeit after reading out a notice at the beginning of each explaining that our aims and that we would remain silently sitting through the lecture with them. Sadly, we did not receive the support of the Guild, who claimed that they needed to act in the interests of all students. I find this confusing, given their support for the marches with the same aim. The occupation was peaceful, legal and did not disrupt lectures (some were cancelled on the first Thursday due to the University assuming we would not allow lectures in).

Friday saw a debate between Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University, and president of Universities UK, Steve Smith debate the future of HE funding with president of the NUS Aaron Porter. Since this debate was open only to University students, not students from the college, I live tweeted through it. We were not allowed signs or banners due to an alleged "health and safety risk" (a shorthand, it seems, for anything that's been banned, and I wonder where these ridiculous myths come from!) -- though, to be fair, the Guild president did apologise for this overzealous reaction (and his treatment by some was undeniably unfair). After the debate, Aaron Porter came around to support the occupation and answer questions.

Getting Steve Smith to recognise the Occupation was always going to be a priority, and so when he came round on the second Wednesday, wearing a name badge and in the circle as anyone else would be, it was a major coup. Again I tweeted through it, this time on the official Occupation feed, so you can see what he had to say here. Our research was thorough, and I at least was shocked to hear such an influential supporter of the fees rise describe the HE cuts as "ideological".

The unity and creativity in the occupation was incredible. We were all there for political reasons, but though the sleeping arrangements were tough, people seemed genuinely engaged. When we could schedule them, we had free lectures, and we were all proud to be a space on the campus where you could receive free education. We had music, storytelling, and dancing. At times, I almost felt guilty for having so much fun.

But we did get a message across. Yes, the Tuition Fee rise made it through both the Commons and the Lords, and yes, Phillip Green still isn't paying the taxes that he should be. But we have shown the government that we will not stand for its cuts, that put the burden on the poorest whilst the richest go free. When I tell my MP that I will never vote for him again, he'll know that this is no idle threat, and that I damned well mean it. We have created a tradition of peaceful protest in Exeter, one which will live on long after the end of the Occupation, and shown that the "apathetic generation", so addicted to Fecebook and Twitter, can turn those tools against those who try to remove our rights.

The occupation may be over, but the movement lives on!

The Steve Smith/Aaron Porter Debate

These are the tweets I sent from the debate between Steve Smith, president of UUK, and Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, about HE funding. They are presented in chronological order.

Smith claims we "underinvest in HE", and doesn't think it should be privatised. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Browne review "utilitarian", says Porter. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Porter: individuals, businesses and the economy should ALL contribute to HE. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Q: with a £50m forum project unrequested,how do you guarantee student fees are spent on the best interests of students #smithporter #ukuncut

Smith: openness with guild, focus on research. Porter: much opacity exists still. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Q: should the NUS put more effort into telling poorer students the debt is bot[not] as they see it? #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Porter: NUS will explain system, but figure is still daunting. #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Telegraph allegations of secret NUS talks were unfair - Porter #smithporter #solidarity

Cable's advisor tried to discredit us ... Disgusting. - Porter #smithporter #solidarity

£335m invested in Exeter is based on zero increase in fees. Balancing the loss. -Smith #smithporter #solidarity

Poorer universities may have to charge less, problems arise -Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

[Porter:] Universities can't just stand still with tripled fees. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: What can I do now? #smithporter #solidarity

Future governments may act, show it's unpalatable. - Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

Question on the consumerisation of education. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Education should not be influenced by how it's funded. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Important to hold universities to account. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: Unis should be responsible without direct funding from students. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: Recovery through growth, not just cutting. Education is key. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: Previous privatisations have required governing bodies. One needed here? #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: We can't stand back and allow this without regulation. #smithporter #solidarity

Office for Fair Access run by "two men and a dog". Needs more teeth - Porter. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: there will be more regulation. This is the right thing. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: Number one problem, attainment. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: how will tuition fees help science degrees when they have links with businesses? #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: businesses do not put much into degrees. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: international students show us our future. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: UCAS received calls from international students asking whether their fees going up 3x as well. #smithporter #solidarity

Q: Is U of E best placed to endorse a two tier system when it doesn't represent the interests of other Unis that may close. #smithporter

Smith: policy of UUK agreed unanimously at every board meeting. #smithporter #solidarity

I believe no universities will close - Smith. #smithporter #solidarity

Social mobility different at each uni -floor. #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: "No fees" tactic didn't win '98 or '06, and there was not enough scrutiny. #smithporter #solidarity

The 60% of people who do not go to university should not pay the entirety of the costs of the 40% that do - Porter. #smithporter

Q: why is this debate closed to non-uni students? Why were we denied banners? #smithporter #solidarity #ukuncut

Smith: I have no knowledge. This was organised by the Guild. #smithporter #solidarity

Final question: funding low, accessibility low. Big disparity in Unis. Will gap between Unis get worse? #smithporter #solidarity

Porter: people may have to stay local. Subject choice may be influenced by future jobs, not personal preference. #smithporter #solidarity

Smith: earnings better with degrees, fear the "elite" Unis may have to spend much to bring small group of smart poor students. #smithporter

Smith: poorer social classes attain less generally; this is the battle we should fight. #smithporter #solidarity

Steve Smith receives the pledge from @ExeterOccupied. #smithporter #solidarity

My First Official Complaint

I have never sent an official complaint before. I moan about things, blog about things, but I have never felt the need to make an official statement before. Until now.

This interview went out on the BBC News channel yesterday:

As a result of this disgusting interview, trying blame Jody McIntyre for everything that happened whilst simultaneously trying to play down the event itself, I have sent the BBC this:

The appalling treatment of disabled protester Jody McIntyre

Protester Jody McIntyre was subjected to a disgustingly aggressive attack by presenter Ben Brown, rather than a fair and balanced interview, on the BBC News Channel, 13 December 2010.

The segment seems designed to throw as much suspicion as possible on Mr McIntyre, constantly questioning his involvement with the protests, which has little relevancy given the seriousness of the incident in question. After the first question, every query seems more concerned with Mr McIntyre's character than the very serious actions of the police force. Mr Brown asks about his previous political statements, which should have no bearing on the facts of the incident, and even asks, based on no evidence whatsoever, whether Mr McIntyre was throwing missiles at the police, clearly insinuating that Mr McIntyre somehow deserved his treatment.

That such suspicion should be thrown onto the victim of violent action -- and the footage shown clearly shows the incident, despite Mr Brown stressing that it would only "appear" to show this incident -- is appalling. It shows a bias towards the police force, despite the quite overwhelming evidence against them, and it is offensive that Mr Brown should try to imply that a protester somehow deserved to be thrown out of his wheelchair and dragged along a road. As such, I feel very strongly that this is unacceptable from the BBC.

It doesn't quite get across how strongly this interview disgusts me, but then, as I said, this is my first official complaint, and I felt that just repeating the word "bastards" as many times as would fit in the box would probably render my argument somewhat invalid.

Policing the Police

Recently, I wrote about my displeasure at certain judicial decisions made in this country. But if we have learnt anything from the introduction to Law and Order: UK, in analysing justice,we should also look at the police force.

I would have thought the MSM's (Mainstream Media's) bias supporting the police force, rather than condemning it, was fairly apparent. Anton Vowl's piece here seems to sum up why that would be the case - that the authority of the police force would initially outweigh statements from the general public. Throughout Thursday's protests the only figures being relayed from Sky and BBC News were the number of police officers injured and protesters arrested -- no mention until much later of the number of protesters injured. The lack of relevance the MSM places on the wellbeing of protesters, many of whom were caught in the middle (if that is an important factor anyway), is highly troubling.

However, there is a lot of condemnation from the blogosphere, because time and time again police have been shown to be using needlessly brutal and thuggish tactics. But these are not groundless accusations. The case of Ian Tomlinson seems almost too obvious to mention, but the video footage shows clearly that he was walking away with his hands in his pockets when pushed, and regardless of whether or not this did cause his death (and it is my opinion that it probably did), this footage alone raises questions. More sickeningly, Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall was savagely beaten in a case of mistaken identity, yet only one of the three was successfully prosecuted.

These incidents are all at least few months old, but there have been so many during the recent protests. Take the case of Officer U1202, shown punching repeatedly into a crowd of students in a clearly unnecessary display of brutality. I doubt very much that the students suffering brain injuries as a result of being hit over the head with truncheons, or being pulled out of their wheelchairs would argue that they are more of a service than a force. The intimidating tactics, such as kettling or those deployed in Cambridge, only serve to make situations worse.

And charging with horses is wrong. These animals are large, fast and impossible to control entirely. The footage at London really is not as critical as it deserves, and the claims that this is the first time that this tactic has been used since the eighties are demonstrably false (despite what the Metropolitan Police would have you believe, with the official statements to the contrary).

The fact that the Metropolitan Police are happy to cover this up proves that it is not the purely the individual loose cannons that are the problem, but the organisation itself has questions to answer. Misrepresentation is everywhere, with very little being done to put it right. Were police officers "dragged off horses and beaten", as Cameron claims? No. Here the protesters are the "bad guys", and any incident must therefore been of their doing, whether it can be substantiated or not.

On the Today programme, the Met Commissioner praised the "restraint" of the firearms officers, suggesting that the shooting of protesters was an option, and only the moral judgements of individual officers saved bloodshed. This statement seems entirely contrary to the argument that it is the individuals who go wrong, whilst the force (or service) maintains the peace.

Time and again the police have shown these brutish tactics. The citations in this post are the most concrete evidence I could find of problems with the police, but the twitter feeds and live blogs from within kettles, or on the streets, go further still. I am glad that blind faith in the police is down, and if they really want our trust, then, like anybody or anything else, they must earn it.

This blog has been adapted from a comment left in response to this post. This comment is currently awaiting modification

The Tuition Fees Post

Oh, this one has been building for a while...

I've been a Liberal Democrat for pretty much all of my political life. I live in a Lib Dem constituency, and my local MP is Jeremy Browne. Since he's a Lib Dem, he signed the pledge saying he vote against any rise in Tuition Fees. Here he is, number 145 on the spreadsheet. Good for him.

Except he'll be voting in favour of raising the cap to £9,000 on Thursday. Here's his Facebook note on it, and if you can't click through, here's what he says:

This government is having to take dramatic steps to avoid a budget crisis.

The British government is already borrowing an extra £425 million every single day. We will soon be spending £1,000 million a week just on the interest on our debt – way more than the total education budget.

If we run away from this crisis it will make matters even worse. The budget for the NHS is being increased and the overall spending on schools is being protected. But other budgets are being reduced because Britain has to live within its means.

I wish the new government had inherited a budget surplus, but instead we are tackling a disastrous deficit.

The fact is that the Liberal Democrats did not win the election. Our manifesto contained the policy to end tuition fees over a six-year period, however that was not a policy we could deliver as the junior partners in a coalition with just 8% of the MPs in the House of Commons.

Instead, within very difficult budget constraints, we are making the new system of higher education funding as fair as possible. It would have been easy to stand on the sidelines and not get involved, but the right thing to do is to play a strong part in coming up with the best possible solution.

The Liberal Democrats have helped produce a genuinely fair and progressive system that will help people from poorer backgrounds go on to higher education. No one has to pay upfront fees. Graduates will make monthly payments based on their earnings and only after they are earning £21,000 (up from £15,000 today). These monthly payments will be lower than they are today in every case.

So for example, a care worker with a starting salary of £21,000 increasing to £27,000 in real terms over 20 years would pay an average of £7 a month over 30 years. Under the current system, they would be paying back at least £45 a month immediately.

Universities which have higher charges will have conditions placed on them to ensure that they reach out to children and families on low incomes. And we have created a much fairer deal for part-time students who have previously been discriminated against. Our reforms will actively encourage social mobility.

Everyone in Britain will need to contribute to reducing the ruinous budget deficit so we can get our country back on its feet. That is being done whilst protecting the excellence of out universities and ensuring fair access for all potential students.

Disappointed is not the word.

The Liberal Democrats have shown just how little they value their promises to constituents. It wasn't just a manifesto pledge, it was a signed pledge to the NUS, and a key identifying feature of Liberal Democrat policy, along with Proportional Representation and the abolition of Trident (how are those going by the way?). Instead, they place the coalition agreement and the promise of power over the voters who put them into government in the first place.

And it is the voters who have given the Lib Dems the chance to be in government. That 8% figure that Browne quotes (which, to be specific, is nearer 9% at 8.8%) looks tiny, but the other 92% is not all Conservative. In fact, it's less than 50% (47.2%), and that's why we have a coalition government, rather than a majority -- a coalition which the Liberal Democrats are part of. Take into account number of votes cast, rather than just MPs, and almost a quarter of the country voted Lib Dem (23%), giving them about 2/5 the popular vote in government.

And yet, they seem oblivious to this fact. They make it seem as if they're just making up the numbers of a Conservative government, and providing the convenient fall guys for the harsh reactions to the cuts -- ideological ones, rather than essential. I feel like it's a cliche to mention the banks at this point, but only because the countless cries to punish them for their mistakes, rather than the students who have done nothing towards this crisis (how can they? They're under 18!), seem to be falling on deaf ears.

I haven't even directly mentioned the proposal themselves yet. I feel I have little to add after Aaron Porter's 10 points comparing the government's scheme to that proposed by the NUS, other than to agree with him when he says that "It is ridiculous to assume that students won’t take the price of a course into account when choosing it". Simply the threat of £9,000 a year is enough to scare people out of Higher Education, because it looks like a gamble, and a lack of state support makes University Education appear an individual luxury, rather than the right, or the essential part of our society, that it is.

Jeremy Browne's constituency is marginal, and if recent polls are anything to go by, he will probably lose his seat, along with many other Lib Dems, in the next election. Why? Well, I voted Lib Dem expecting a difference should they get to power. I voted Lib Dem because of their stance on Tuition Fees, on Trident, on immigration. I voted Lib Dem because they weren't the Conservatives. Enough people felt like me to create a Hung Parliament, and I supported the ConDem coalition because the calming influence of the Liberal Democrats would take the sting out of the Tories. I was wrong. If the AV vote goes against them, there will be almost nothing to show for them except to expose them as spineless turncoats. How can I vote for a party I no longer trust?

Justice for All

Today, I read, with disgust, about the PC dismissed for raping a woman in police locker room. Unfortunately, though sadly not surprisingly, the CPS are not pressing charges. The British Judicial System seems to be, at the moment, behaving less like an organisation seeking to fight for justice and more like some kind of SPECTRE-lite.

Let's take a look at some recent cases:

The prosecution of Paul Chambers: This is probably the most famous recent case. Paul Chambers, upset that Robin Hood airport was closed, vented his frustration on Twitter with the tweet:

Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

. Despite the fact, as laid out in Jack of Kent's excellent blogpost, that neither the airport nor the Police considered his tweet to pose any credible threat, he was charged by the CPS, and prosecuted.

The imprisonment of a rape victim: A woman was jailed for falsely retracting a statement she had made, in which she claimed she had been raped by her husband. To put it a bit more clearly, she was jailed because she had been raped, and then "emotionally blackmailed" by her husband into retracting the statement, wasting the CPS's valuable time and money that could be spent prosecuting people on Twitter. Remarkably, the judge who handed this sentence down has offered less severe sentences to people who download child pornography or beat their wives.

The CPS trying to sue someone for kidnap with no grounds whatsoever: Only one source for this one, but if it is true then it is yet another brilliant use of resources by the CPS, which are, of course, finite, meaning that they can't always prosecute over insignificant little events like...

The Death of Ian Tomlinson: How there can be no case here? There is video footage of a policeman pushing a man to the ground, a man who was walking away with his hands in his pockets. Whether or not this caused Mr Tomlinson's death, there should be enough to show that wrongdoing is in place. The anger I felt at the CPS's decision here cannot be overstated. I was immediately reminded of this case after the CPS's most recent decision, and it troubles me that serious crimes are potentially going ignored, whilst trivial events and victims are being attacked.

I am, of course, aware of the fact that many guilty people are sentenced correctly, and many innocent people let off. I am aware that there are far worse legal systems out there, and that my increasing interest in politics over the last few years has increased my exposure to these instances of injustice. But the illiberal judgements and questionable prosecutions, or lack thereof, are overpowering any faith I once had in the police, the CPS and the organisations that are supposed to be there to protect me, and society.

Why, Stephen Fry, WHY?

I consider myself a normal person (pretty much). And like every other normal person I love Stephen Fry. His wordiness, his wit and his intellect have often left me amazed. In fact, in my last blog post I asked whether it was "possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?". Sadly, it seems that this might almost have been a challenge.

In case you are unaware, Fry was interviewed for Attitude magazine, and made a series of comments suggesting women did not enjoy sex, but "that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want." When these comments were picked up by The Guardian on Sunday, there was naturally a huge commotion on Twitter, amongst other places.

Fry claims to have been misquoted by the Guardian, saying

"So some fucking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."

Since then, he has tweeted once more -- "Bye, bye" -- and so, worryingly, looks like he may be about to leave Twitter, which would be a terrible shame for one of the most popular tweeters out there.

I have found the whole situation to be incredibly confusing and disheartening. Fry has not earned the "National Treasure" badge by accident, but by being one of the most likable and warm public figures in the country. These comments seem so out of character, so naturally I would hope that he has been misquoted, as I'm sure would so many people.

But Fry doesn't seem to be using Twitter as he said he could. One of the benefits of the social networking site is that it enables you to clarify your position without having to be filtered through the journalists who can twist your words to suit their own agendas. When the Mail accused him of leading an "Atheist Hate Campaign", he neatly demonstrated this to be false in his blog, and was able to put across what he actually believed.

Slightly more problematic in this regard is that Fry himself tweeted a link to a website with extracts from the interview himself (I believe it was this one), but has since deleted that tweet. Certainly, this article contains contentious quotes, so it seems less likely that The Guardian has entirely misrepresented his case, leaving one to wonder why he would initially tweet the link, then remove it after he claims to have been misquoted? (For what it's worth, I had this on my Tumblr the day before The Guardian ran with the story, and it's contents are such I don't feel I need to argue Fry's point again here.) He also seems to have made similar comments in a previous interview, which can be found on YouTube here.

The curious thing I have found is that some defenders of Stephen Fry are so ready to criticise The Guardian for misquoting the interview without looking into any other sources to see what the interview said. Of course, it's still possible that his intentions have been misread, and I would dearly love this to be the case, but to blindly assume that someone is right just because they're Stephen Fry is wrong.

I have focused on this more than most stories of this nature. Had it been almost any other figure, I probably would have made some remark and passed over it, but Fry is different. His charm has won so many people over, including me, and his intellect is so great that it's often easy to forget that he is fallible, and so devastating when proved so. But I hope that Fry rejoins Twitter, takes the time to clarify his statements, point out where he's been misquoted, and that this issue can be left behind very soon.

The New Atheism

This is something I've been meaning to say for a while, something that riles me more than almost anything: The myth of "New Atheism".

I fail to see just how there can be a "New Atheism". Atheism is the same as it has always been, namely, a lack of belief in God and, subsequently, a distancing of oneself from any religious organisation. That's it. What people mean when they say "New Atheism" is "more atheists", or perhaps "more vocal atheists". I don't see why this is such a problem – people have been expressing faith far more vocally for years.

And then you get to the big points: Atheism is a religion as bad as any other, and Richard Dawkins is its leader. And they're all smug.

writerJames wrote a brilliant piece about that "smug" notice, but suffice it to say that most commentators using that term are not being awfully humble themselves. You can basically describe anybody who has an opinion that they feel strongly enough about to voice as “smug”, and so it just becomes a convenient way to belittle an argument without going through the exhausting process of actually conveying a rational argument. I think the Pope is unbearably smug, but that doesn’t render his arguments invalid (there are far more things that do that).

The issue of Richard Dawkins is curious as well. A very important point to make right now would be that DAWKINS IS NOT ATHEISM. Dawkins is an atheist. This would be (I would have thought) a pretty obvious distinction, were it not for the fact that so few people seem to be able to make it. I hold Dawkins in very high esteem, but he is not my Pope. I do not feel compelled to agree with him because he is a representative for a perfect being. In many ways, he is more similar to an actor or musician – I enjoy his work, but were he to suddenly offer opinions that I continually disagreed with I would feel no more compelled to stay with him than I was with “Heroes”.

It seems to me that people outside of atheism are more obsessed with Dawkins than those within. Perhaps that is doing them an injustice, but he is undeniably the go-to guy whenever an atheist story drops. The Atheist Bus campaign and the idea of arresting the Pope were all attributed to him simply because when the ideas arose, journalists went to him asking if he approved. Any hint that he did resulted in them becoming Dawkins’s plans.

Things reached a nadir when Stephen Fry was accused of leading an “Atheist Hate Campaign”. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that Stephen Fry could lead a Hate Campaign. But, of course, this was shoddy, scaremongering journalism that was wrong on every count. As Fry’s wonderful blog describes (and, just as a side note, is it possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?), he was a signatory of a letter, not a leader. This letter began with the phrase:

“I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…”

It is sheer religious privilege that makes atheists the enemies. Our arguments challenge their beliefs and question their actions, as all worthwhile arguments do, and as a result we are accused of bullying, and labelled no better than racists, misogynists and homophobes – all things promoted, at one time or another, on religious grounds.

The Exeter Reclaim the Night March 2010

In November, Exeter was to have seen its first Reclaim the Night March, a march in keeping with the others nationwide promoting awareness of the issues women face, particularly walking at night. Sadly, this event is now no longer to take place, at least, not in November. Below is the email sent by Caitlin Hayward-Tapp, the president of Exeter University's Gender Equality Society, explaining the situation:

Dear all,

I'm afraid I have some sad news. For now, Exeter Reclaim the Night is going to have to be cancelled. This is certainly not for want of trying - in fact, it very nearly became a reality. However, the Devon Police Force withdrew its support, rendering the march financially impossible.

Their reasons for doing so are two-fold. The first is a desire not to take officers away from their core duties. Their second reason is much less palatable - a Reclaim the Night march is, apparently, not of National Significance. This statement follows detailed descriptions of the aims of such an event: to protest the shockingly low national rape conviction rate, to raise awareness of the importance of women's safety on the streets at night, and to campaign for a rape crisis centre to be opened in Devon.

One would hope that women's safety would be a number one priority of the police force. This response shatters that illusion. Of course, we're not taking this lying down. While there is a limit to how much we can do to change the police force's decision, we can make our discontent and disapproval heard. In order to do this, the committee have drawn up a petition.

This message, then, is not entirely bad news. There is something you can do to help. Please come find us, in town or on campus - I'll be sending out times as soon as we know them - and sign the petition. Also, if you'd like to be part of the campaigning team don't hesitate to get in touch. The more of us out there making ourselves heard, the better.

This situation is such a shame, as I know just how much effort went into making this happen. But we can show that, although women's safety might not be a priority to Devon's Police Force, it is to us. If we can't make the message heard on the streets of Exeter, we do have the internet. Use Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or anything to let people know. If you're in Exeter sign the petition. Even if you're not, please sign the online petition. And there IS still hope. Caitlin ends her e-mail with this:

Thank you all for your support thus far. We WILL bring Reclaim the Night to the streets of Exeter, one way or another. And when we do, we hope to see you there.

UPDATE, 21/10/2010: The Exeter Reclaim The Night event has a blog, which will keep be used to keep you updated on events.

A Secular Society is a Better Society

I was recently asked to speak at a debate with this blog's title as its motion. I have reproduced my argument in full below, and must point out that throughout I was indebted to Evan Harris's excellent Secularist manifesto:

A secular society is not only a better society, it is the only fair society. It is a society that does not judge a person by their religion, nor does it make decisions based on religious privilege. It is a society that treats everyone equally, regardless of faith, but does not let their faith impact on others. Essentially, it is an ability to express any and all religious beliefs openly, limited only by, as Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights puts it, “the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others". This separation of Church from State also allows for decisions to be made based on what is fairest to the society at that time, rather than being held to the unswaying doctrines of other eras; doctrines that we would mostly now consider to be outdated. Finally, it offers a greater accountability of politicians and decision-makers, who must justify their actions beyond matters of faith.

You have heard the arguments in favour of Secular Schools*. A Secularist is not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools – even Richard Dawkins admits that without an understanding of Christianity, it would be difficult to understand the history of Britain, for instance. But it is essential that no one religion should be forced onto a person, and that they should be free to decide which, if any, religion is appropriate for them. It is not up to any state authority to push one set of beliefs onto children, even if the state were to fund many different Faith Schools. These choices should be made by well-informed, well-balanced individuals, who are in possession of all the facts.

This society should not be atheist, agnostic, or humanist in views, but impartial. Protecting the right of all religions to say whatever they want is essential to a secular government, but with that also comes the right for anyone to challenge any view or opinion. No-one should have the right not to be offended. This is why the English blasphemy laws were so vigorously campaigned against by secularists, as well as the fact that they were Christian-only, up until the point that they were abolished in 2008. These laws showed a clear bias towards both faith in general and Christianity in particular at the heart of government – a government that has been elected to represent the whole country, and not just those who believe in the Christian God.

A secular nation is also a free nation, in the sense that it is unchained from the past. I shall use the example of homosexuality, since this is something treated with the severest punishments in a huge number of religions, including, but not limited to, Christianity. Despite the religious imperative to criminalise it, we as a society realised the injustice of this law, and legalised it in 1967. This abolition has led to countless people being freed from the threat of legal action simply for being who they are, and has resulted in a better standard of life for them. Crucially, it also does not criminalise opposition to homosexuality. Religious organisations, such as the Catholic Church, are still free to condemn homosexuality in exactly the same way that organisations like Stonewall are able to criticise their statements.

This freedom of religious expression ends when it starts to impact on the lives of others. Anyone may say anything, provided that it does not incite violence, and provided that they do not engage in any activity that is detrimental to the welfare of that individual or group. Let’s take the example of the gay couple barred from the Christian run Bed and Breakfast this March. The views of the Christian couple running the B&B are protected by law, no matter what your personal opinions on that may be. However, their actions were not, as they directly affected the happiness and welfare of the gay couple specifically because of their homosexuality. A secular law should allow for no justification on religious grounds. Why should someone be mistreated simply because the person behind the actions believes in a deity of some kind? An impartial system should accept only a rational argument to something like this, and not accept a supernatural one. The same rules apply to any religious organisation delivering a public service, such as a charitable organisation. They are more than welcome to provide that service, provided that they do not withhold any part of it from users for religious reasons.

A Secular Nation is stronger because its reliance on a rational argument, which emphasises the consequences of actions. Whatever your opinions of the Iraq war, it was shocking to hear that Tony Blair – a well-known opponent of secularism – made the decision to go in feeling that “God will be [his] judge”**. This reliance on a God which a huge percentage of his country does not believe in can easily cause arguments to be cyclical (“Why?” “Because God says!” “Why?” etc...), leaving those who hold different or no beliefs to feel unrepresented. A secular society deals purely with what unites us, our common humanity.

To conclude, a Secular society is neither theocratic nor atheist, but a society which supports freedom of religious, or indeed any other belief. However, it does not permit religious belief to be a justification for actions that in some way adversely affect another person. It promotes each belief system without bias on one or the other, leading to a fairer society for all, whilst at the same time vetting religious privilege. It allows for reasonable debate, and the jettisoning of old-fashioned ideology. Simply, it is the most inclusive society possible.

Despite the support that the religious societies had rallied, we only narrowly lost the vote 57 to 70.

*I was the second speaker for the proposition, and education was a large part of the first, hence the rather cursory reference.

**This argument was challenged, as Blair's statement was a reflection, rather than a reason, on the decision to go to war. Whilst I would say that it's true that I oversimplified the point, I maintain its relevance to the argument: a decision on the scale of going to war should not be made on the basis of faith, and its airing clearly caused a lot of anguish to people who saw Blair as leading the invasion under false pretenses.

Breast Cancer on Facebook

Recently on Facebook a lot of people have been posting the phrase "I like it on...", and then a location, referring to where they leave their handbag (only it's funny, cos it sounds like sex!). This is all for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is a very worthy cause. However, I have a LOT of issues with this campaign.

The logic behind it is non-existent. It's making an in-joke out of a scheme to raise Breast Cancer awareness. I usually find awareness is much better when, you know, people are BEING MADE AWARE, as opposed to being kept in the dark. Why not post a link to, say, Cancer Research UK (you can even just click here). That way, everyone knows what you're talking about, and maybe some of them might even donate. They are certainly more likely to do so after being directed from a link than with an obscure reference to where you leave your handbag.

For some reason that I haven't fully worked out, breast cancer seems to hold a special place amongst terminal illnesses, in that it's the only one that you're allowed to find sexy. Yes, I know they're breasts, but if you're getting turned on by a mammogram then there is something wrong with you. Try doing that with any other serious illness or condition -- if you made a sexual innuendo about AIDS, for instance, people would rightly deem it in poor taste (at best). I appreciate that dwelling on the details of cancer might not be best suited to Facebook, but there is a huge gulf between doing that and sexualising something that, I am sure, a huge percentage of your Facebook friends have seen affect or take a loved one.

All this, and I haven't even mentioned the fact that there is no link between cancer and handbags. Demonstrably. The only link is that it involves breasts -- like what girls got -- and handbags -- like what girls got. The word "Tenuous" probably covers that connection best, and only then if we assume strict gender binaries: that all women have a handbag, and all men don't (and we then forget about the 1-2% of cases affecting men).

So don't post this status. It's ridiculous. It really is no better at awareness raising than the chain e-mails that used to spam Bebo and the like, and certainly much worse than donating, or even telling people about it plainly. Or clicking this link, which directs you to a site where each hit earns someone a free mammogram. Much better.

(Thanks to Charlotte Bennett, whose Facebook comment helped lead to this blog)

Ad Priorities

I am, it is fairly safe to say, not a fan of advertising. In fact, I usually find it shallow, depressing and repetitive. I've already blogged generally about LGBT issues and advertising, and often refer to Charlie Brooker's excellent Screenwipe on advertising (on YouTube in three parts here, here and here). But the other day I saw an ad which annoyed, frustrated and depressed me more than a thousand "Go Compare" singers ever could.



Yes, if there was ever any doubt, beauty is entirely skin deep. But it doesn't stop at that, because happiness is directly proportional to how attractive you are. And, of course, we can make you more attractive. All it takes is to lop a bit off here, suck a bit out of there, and Hey Presto! You now conform to everything you've been told is beautiful, because that's the only beauty there is!

This is nothing new in advertising. Every advert for a beauty product suggests that, by using it, you can become a happier or more popular person. But this one is remarkably upfront, about something so incredibly drastic, and it's hard not to worry about the repercussions of an industry which finds this permissible. The token male doesn't detract from the heavy-handedness of it either.

Women seem to get the worse end of the deal whichever gender the advert is aimed at. Men's adverts have always used sexual images to promote their products, equating semi-naked women with everything from deodorant to video games(once rather tactlessly described by someone I knew as suggesting a "Buy One Get One Free" deal). Yet adverts aimed at women promote stick-thin models as an ideal that you SHOULD be living up to.

I don't know how long this cosmetic surgery advert has been showing, how often it has been seen, or even if it has attracted any complaints. I caught it one evening on some digital channel. However, I was aware of a storm of complaints around this advert:


So this advert is offensive? All it seems to offer is some images of women in contemplation, then a web address which offers more information. The word "abortion" is not even mentioned in the advert, let alone depicted or promoted. The ASA recognised this, concluding that:

...the ad was for an advice service for women dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and stated that Marie Stopes could help women who were 'pregnant and not sure what to do'. We considered it was an ad for a general pregnancy advice service for women who wished to learn about and discuss their options, which might include, but were not limited to, abortion.

Yet still the mainstream media focus on the complaints this advert receives, and so instead of offering women the information and choices they may need, we're left with identical women obsessing on hair, make-up and pro-biotic yoghurt.

Bryant v Burley

There is always the danger, when you have an opinion, of allowing that opinion to influence your viewpoint. For instance, I think that Rupert Murdoch and his affiliated publications are hideously biased politically towards a side I disagree with. I know that the News of the World, one of those publications, is currently under scrutiny thanks to allegations of phone-hacking. I also know that Sky News is, in part, owned by Murdoch.

All this leaves me open to the suggestion that Sky News would provide poor coverage of this story. Indeed, they, along with most of the mainstream media, provided no coverage of it the day The Guardian broke the story, and only relented when it became too big to deny. But, as Kay Burley points out in the clip, as a journalist she is there to provide the opposite side of the argument. It is only that she performs this badly that it is worthy of criticism.

The first problem is her demand for evidence. This is normally a perfectly reasonable demand, except for the fact that all the evidence has been out in public for a while (see Jack of Kent's blogpost for details), and, as an interviewee, it's a little unfair to ask him for all the figures when he doesn't have them to hand.

Nevertheless, the interview then progresses. Burley asks Bryant if he is prepared to make a controversial claim. A claim that he had already made before he was interrupted by Burley asking for evidence. If nothing else, it's poor journalism to ask an interviewee merely to repeat the same point over and over again.

Since Paxman's famous interview with Michael Howard, in which he continued to ask if Howard the same question without getting a straight answer, it seems that all journalists think they can badger their way to the truth. Burley is not alone in this, and neither is it limited to politics. Fabio Capello was badgered by a journalist minutes after England's draw with the USA in the FIFA World Cup as to the future of goalkeeper Robert Green. When Capello rightly argued it was too early to make a firm decision, the point continued to be brought up.

The biggest problem with Burley's "Devil's Advocate" argument is that she tries to make a dismissive comment without phrasing it as a question. Her assertion that Bryant should merely change his PIN and there would be no problem is immediately countered, despite the fact that she was clearly trying to move on to another topic. Of course, the fact that she seemed to be defending the concept of phone-hacking itself, rather than the fact that these are just allegations, is also disturbing.

So, is it journalistic bias, or just being "dim"? It's difficult to say objectively. However, whichever is the case, it's not the first time that Kay Burley has shown herself to be astonishingly poor at conducting an interview. If only there could have been protesters behind this interview...

5 Minutes with the Pope

I've been meaning to do a blog on the Pope UK visit for some time now, but this article in the New Humanist has finally inspired me to get around to it. So, if I had five minutes with the Pope, this is what I would like to say:

Pope Benedict, may I assume, for a second, that there is no God -- the primary justification for your actions and your position of authority. If this is the case, you have made women second class citizens and homosexuals outcasts for no reason. You have helped to spread HIV/AIDS by condemning condoms on the basis of a myth. And people in your organisation (and, if many reports are to be believed, you yourself) have covered up child molesters to protect the reputation of a lie. Given these countless millions who have suffered or have been killed, how is it that you can be regarded as a figure of moral authority, and how can you say, with the complete confidence that it would require, that you have acted justly?

I believe that this is the closest I can come to expressing my disgust at the actions of the Catholic Church, but I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

Reclaiming Hunt

It's often nice when people admit that they've made a mistake, such as Bjorn Lomborg's views on climate change. Sadly, Tony Blair's regrets seem not to focus on the disaster of Iraq (which they really should), but on the Hunting Ban.

Now, I am undeniably biased on the subject of fox hunting, since, as a vegetarian, I am never happy about anything to do with death. However, I do appreciate that foxes can be a problem, and so need to be controlled.

This does not mean that hunting is the best way to go about it. In fact, I can't see how it can help in the long term at all. It seems common knowledge that the hunters only catch the weaker foxes, and so the stronger foxes survive. Surely, therefore, this is only going to breed stronger, better, faster foxes. During a discussion on this topic on Twitter with Dr Evan Harris (with whom I disagree on this issue, if few others) and others, I put this point to him, and he offered an appropriate parallel, likening it to the more resilient bacteria that have formed because of anti-biotics.

I'm not proposing that fox hunting is breeding super-foxes, but I would argue that it therefore does not qualify as an effective form of pest control. If it does not, then what other excuse is there for it? All that remains is a large group cheerfully enjoying the slaughter of an animal.

Tony Blair's regret, however, seems shallow and misplaced, whatever your views on hunting. None of his regret seems to centre around his actions, but around other people's reactions. His remorse seems to lie with the fact that he got into "trouble for it". I find it incredibly depressing that, rather than have any conviction on a subject that means a great deal to both sides, he seems to care more about how he comes out of this than with the issues.

The Debate About The Debate

Debate is healthy. Most of the time. It can either reaffirm your beliefs, change them, or even tear them down (and the world would be a much better place if fewer people were afraid of that last point). A wider debate would be appreciated in, say, the Daily Express, where stories like "NOW ASYLUM IF YOU'RE GAY" are classed as news, when, in fact, they are mostly speculation and opinion. However, today Ann Widdecombe reversed the problem, as, rather than confusing opinion with fact, she confused fact with opinion.

So what do we learn from Ann's piece, aside from the fact that either she or The Express possesses a shocking inability to use capital letters (I'm not one for grammatical pedantry, but "Really, Mr sanderson?"? The "NHs"? Really??)? Well:

Last week it was reported that the British Humanist [A]ssociation [BHA] has condemned an award given to Noah’s [A]rk Zoo, a creationist centre near Bristol.

Yes, there is a creationist Zoo in North Somerset. You can read a review of it here. For the most part it is exactly what you'd expect from a zoo, except for the fact that it teaches that everything was designed by God, and contradicts evolution with posters like "“30 reasons why apes are not related to man”. And it is described by Widdecombe as "a moderate, education-focused organisation".

But those nasty secularists want to shut it up. They want to stifle the debate. And this is the problem with her argument. There is no debate. The Theory of Evolution is pretty much as sound a theory as we can plan for, with evidence in fossils, genes and anti-biotic resistant bacteria to name but a few sources. It is, to all intents and purposes, undeniable.

"Ah wait", say the creationists, "We're only asking for our opinion to be heard, and for people to make up their own minds". But if you are going to present people with one load of bollocks instead of facts, why stop at Christianity? There's a whole world full of rubbish that might have created everything.

Actually, to be consistent, why stop at the debate over evolution? The same argument is used by anyone going against scientific fact, and particularly pseudo-scientific groups -- that they want people to make up their own minds. Homeopaths are let on to the BBC to "debate" the science behind their magic sugar pills in an effort to remain impartial. Carrying this on, surely every time the Royal Family do anything, David Icke should come on to explain why they are actually acting to further their lizard-alien schemes? Otherwise, are they not just picking and choosing the topics they think open for debate?

Creationism and homeopathy are just conspiracy theories with a lot of followers, but just as careless a disregard for the facts. To claim that anyone wanting to get facts right is "bigoted" would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is such a popular idea, but it is only with these facts that you can have any basis for debate.

writerJames got here first. And better. But I wasn't going to tell you that before you'd read this.

Infringement State of Mind

If you're reading this then that probably means you have an internet connection. And if you do, then you may well have watched a video spoofing the song "Empire State of Mind" by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, but setting it in Newport. It was well written, well executed, and consequently gained over two and a half million hits on YouTube.

Here is what you see if you search for it now:

Yes, EMI decided that it was infringing on their copyright.

Now, I am not against copyrighting material. Artists have to earn money like everyone else, and if you want well produced music or films, someone somewhere has to pay for it. I would actually quite like to see The Times's paywall succeed, even though its content is not for me, and, I would argue, their pricing is questionable. But this EMI claim is something different.

The question is simple: is this song contributing to a loss of revenue for EMI? I would find it hard to believe that a video placed free on YouTube is a replacement for the original song. Although I don't have any figures to back this up, I would imagine that very few people may have been about to buy the original track, then decided that they would stick with this YouTube spoof instead.

In fact, I would go further than that. When I first heard the spoof, I thought it was clever, funny and brilliant, and immediately went over to the original song's video to compare, instantly giving EMI the income from that play (which I know is tiny, but unexpected profit, nonetheless). My interest rekindled, I almost bought the track, and I'm sure many did. All this, despite the fact that I'd got pretty fed up with it when it came out however many months before.

It used to be that if you were to mention, say, Jeff's Chip Shop on the television, Jeff would be so thrilled with the free publicity that you'd get a free portion of chips (I may be stretching this whole "chip" thing). Following EMI's example, Jeff would presumably demand that the tapes be destroyed and never brought up again.

The whole thing is exactly like the Downfall "Hitler reacts" case. Companies have become so paranoid by people stealing their material that they think anyone using it is infringing on their copyright. EMI are perfectly justified legally in what they are doing, but they've missed the point entirely, and not only are they taking away a highly successful, completely unpaid for advert for their product, but they are making themselves look like petty destroyers of creativity. With that kind of public image, it's only going to be easier for people to morally justify why they're happy to illegally download whole albums. For an industry apparently obsessed with image, they are, if nothing else, showing a remarkable lack of public awareness.

UPDATE, 11/08/10: Looks like this take isn't quite fair. According to a Guardian report today, it's the songwriters who opposed to the video, not EMI itself. The arguments stand though: what possible loss of revenue does it lead to? Is the notion of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch so abhorrent to you that you don't want it associated with your song? As artists, do you not at least appreciate the skill of adapting lyrics? I know that you have every legal right, but you have singularly failed to take advantage of a situation based on an infatuation with ownership, and to me that is just idiocy.

Consent & Videotape

Sometimes, you hear something that really depresses you. Like this, for instance.

The story is put succinctly here:

STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.

The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

Now, I am sure I am not alone in finding this troubling. Very troubling. If nothing else, how does this fit with the idea that we'd all like to put across: that consent is vital when it comes to sex, or sexual matters?

Firstly, I was under the impression that you had to get a consent form for anything appearing in anything (4:56 into this video). Is all that effort for nothing? It would appear to be, and so it seems I can go out and film what I like. You might say that this is a small point in the context of the whole story, and you'd be bloody well right (consider this a run-up), but it does beg the question: "what kind of legal ground is this ruling based on?"

The jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, explained that it was perfectly justified as "through her actions, she gave implied consent". Implied Consent??! I admit I haven't seen the tape (for fairly obvious reasons), but, by all accounts, she is heard to exclaim "no, no" on being asked to reveal her breasts. Surely any implicit consent is overruled empirically by the CLEAR FUCKING EXPLICIT STATEMENT SHOWING EXPLICITLY A LACK OF CONSENT. It seems that you can be done for a clearly ironic joke because of its literal meaning, but in a case like this, it's all about reading between the lines!*

Ah, wait! I forgot that she was dancing. AT A PARTY! I would say that, on the whole, that is the single most sane place to dance. Honestly, try it anywhere else -- on a plane, for instance, or at a funeral -- and people may reasonably question your motives. But at a party, you're often seen as unusual if you don't dance (believe me).

This decision is a travesty. The only positive that we can take from it is that the incident ended with just the exposure of breasts, rather than anything worse, but it's not hard to see where it could lead. As PZ Myers put it:

If you're willing to dance, you're willing to be stripped of your clothes. And presumably we can carry this a little further and reason that if you're naked in a bar, you've consented to sex, although fortunately it did not go that far in this case.

The fact that there are people out there defending this decision -- a decision by jury -- genuinely worries me. I remember when I first heard the phrase "No Means No", I thought it laughable in how obvious it was (I was young, and so didn't really understand what 'rape' was). But if "No" was clear enough then, how on earth did it come to mean "yes" in court?

*I know they're two different courts and countries, but it was hardly the first instance of statements being taken too literally.

UPDATE, 23:51: As Jack of Kent points out on twitter, whilst the story may be accurate, "my experience is there can be a disconnect between the report and what happened", and that "Bad law stories are sadly as common as bad science stories." I feel that this blog covers subjects beyond the individual case reported, but it is an important thing to take into consideration. For proof of misrepresentation of legal cases in the media, check out his excellent series on the McKinnon case.

The Agony of Choice

This blog is in response to this Early Day Motion, which essentially is in support of homeopathy in the NHS, and specifically to Caroline Lucas's signature, a politician whom I otherwise greatly respect.

I am more disappointed by her signature than any other, since, as a campaigner for Green issues, she must surely have come into contact with bad science before. You don't need me to tell you that there are thousands of people out there who provide misinformation to muddy the waters, others who claim that it's too late too act, and millions more who believe it, and are willing to argue that point. Ms Lucas must have seen through that, to the important facts of man-made climate change, and so I fail to see why it is that she can support the homeopathic cause.

Of course, there is always the argument of choice; that we should always offer people all the options, and allow them to make up their own minds. "Choice" seems like the friendly thing to do -- after all, who would want to go into a restaurant with one item on the menu? But choice is only a good thing if there are benefits on both sides ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like the rice"). If I were to offer you many options as viable alternatives to each other, but with positives only coming from one, it makes the situation needlessly complicated, and potentially dangerous ("I might like the pasta, but I also might like whatever ricin is").

You might think that that last image is a little excessive for the choice between conventional medicine and homeopathy, but the placebo effect (and I'm sure I don't need to point out that homeopathy offers NOTHING beyond the placebo effect) can only go so far. If an NHS doctor legitimises it by prescribing it, and this later makes one person consider homeopathy above conventional medicine for a life-threatening but treatable disease, then this is a life lost needlessly (and, I might add, painfully). The homeopathic industry makes enough money to publicise their sugar-pills themselves. They do not need the support of the NHS.

Andy Lewis put it well on Twitter when he described taking homeopathic medicine as "an act after being misled". In order to work as a placebo, it has to be presented as effective. In other words, doctors need to lie to patients about the effect the drugs have in order for them to have any effect at all, which would surely erode confidence in their profession. And of course, returning to the earlier issue, this actually presents patients with a false choice, as they would not be able to make their choice based on all of the relevant evidence.

Caroline Lucas tweeted her response here, saying:

EDM is about lack of BMA's consultation & argues that local NHS better placed to know patient needs, based on objective clinical assessment

But how can any "objective clinical assessment" support the use of placebo? Quite clearly, you should prescribe something that has an effect beyond placebo. Homeopathy is also as much a placebo at local level as at national, as is witchcraft (not on the NHS, but what the BMA likened to homeopathy, kicking off this row), so in taking action against homeopathy, the BMA were acting entirely within their remit.

Burqa Off?

So everyone seems to have been talking about the French burqa ban. Even David Mitchell offered his views in a column for the Guardian, and his opinions seem to echo the majority of people that I follow. This being a blog that deals with religious and feminist issues, it was only a matter of time before I had to cover the burqa, and so here is that blogpost.

And I am undecided.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that to impose a ban would restrict freedom of expression, whereas not to do so seems to ignore the current restrictions of freedom suffered by a lot of Muslim women. So either action or inaction would restrict the freedom of a group of people.

Ideally, of course, I would love to live in a world in which the burqa was a thing of the past. It is deeply symbolic of the oppression of women that some areas of Islam impose, and to claim that that is some kind of cultural misunderstanding is to be complicit. Of course, cultural values may differ, but there are certain rights that no human should have to sacrifice simply because they were born into the wrong culture, and to be able to go outside without those oppressive garments is one of them.

The solution could be to tell them that they can't wear it, but isn't this also an imposition on what people can wear, or more specifically what they can't? And so how exactly does this leave you better off? If this is an argument that we all have the right to wear what we want, it's pretty bloody stupid to make that point by forbidding everyone to wear something. And as a man with a penchant for bow ties, it would be a bit hypocritical of me to criticise someone for wearing something different. What you decide to wear should be up to you, given that it is appropriate for what you are doing (as David Mitchell said, "crotchless jeans outside primary schools" is unreasonable, but a trip to the shops in a burqa should be fine).

Right then. So that means I'm against a ban on the grounds that anyone should be allowed to wear whatever they like? Well, yes, but as I said earlier, the burqa is not just an item of clothing. It is a symbol of an aggressive patriarchy within certain quarters of the Muslim community. To take a stand against it is to show those oppressed that we will fight for their rights, even if they feel they cannot. Surely there is nothing we value higher than the right for everyone to live free from fear? I would certainly place it above the right to an alternative fashion.

And so, there's the problem. On the one hand, you want to help oppressed minorities, and on the other, you want to make sure you're not oppressing them yourself. I haven't even mentioned issues of security, which I feel are separate to this issue. It's inescapable that in today's world you will need to be identified, and quite clearly impossible with a covered face, but that is just the same whether it is covered by a burqa, a motorcycle helmet or a mask of Richard Nixon.

Perhaps the answer is just in tutting loudly, or perhaps legislation is the key, but if called upon to vote, I would have to abstain. If you think you can sway me, please feel free to leave a comment below.

Reassuringly Atheist

It's often said that there are no atheists in foxholes; that when nothing else is left, people will turn to God just to keep hope. It's a view that I know a lot of atheists hold, and I would understand why someone would feel this. But reverting to a religious position is not the only course of action in times of trouble, and there have been times when a lack of belief in a deity has been of great comfort to me.

First of all, it inspires you to act on the things that you can change. Without an all-knowing, all-powerful guy working things out for you, you have to rely on yourself (or someone else who, crucially, exists) to sort things out. OK, so maybe that isn't very reassuring, but it's more likely to get results than sitting around waiting for divine intervention. It also allows you to take whatever credit you are due, or to properly credit the parties involved in sorting the situation. I wonder how many surgeons see their hard work attributed to God or a guardian angel?

On the other hand, there are things we must accept we cannot change, or are powerless the prevent. This is never easy, but, for me, it is easier to look at some statistics and place myself in the context of them than it is to equate an awful event with a loving, omnipotent Father.

There seem to me to be three possible reasons why this wonderful figure would allow you to go through these troubles:
1: He is ignoring you. If this is the case, you may wish to ask yourself why you are going to such levels to appease this man. Seriously, you wouldn't stay in a relationship this one-sided.
2: He is doing this as part of an overarching plan. I once went to a talk on why a benevolent God allowed evil, and was presented with this hypothetical situation: a good couple lose a son in a car accident, then set up a successful campaign for road safety, thus leading to a better world. I'm sure you don't need me to point out the circular logic and doublethink at play here, but really?
3: He is punishing you. Leaving you with a large amount of guilt to add to this completely unfortunate tragedy, as it is in some way ALL YOUR FAULT! Or, of course, you've been caught in the crossfire of someone else's punishment, and so you're back to reason 1.

I've never seen bad circumstance as something that makes a god less likely -- maybe he enjoys watching conflict and misery as much as any Eastenders viewer -- but I find it intensely troubling that people feel the need to thank someone they believe is torturing them in some way (such as in this tweet, which is one of today's most ReTweeted).

Is it not enough to accept that the garden is ruined, without having to imagine the fairies want you dead as well?

My Problem With Organised Religion in 100 Words.

The Church of England has recently announced that it is putting an end to years of institutionalised sexism and will start allowing women to become bishops.

It was also announced this year that the Catholic Church had been protecting paedophiles within its organisation for many years, with internal documents claiming that it was the best thing for the image of the church. These allegations even extend as far as the current Pope.

One of these decisions has so angered some of the members of its church that they are threatening to defect to the other.

Can you guess which one?

Forbidden Art

Today I was shocked to read that Russia has fined and convicted a couple of artists for "inciting hatred". Their crime was merely to put on an exhibit featuring some controversial artworks, portraying images of Jesus Christ that some people might have found offensive. At this point I feel that I should point out that I have not personally seen the exhibits themselves, but neither did 131 of the 134 of the prosecution witnesses, who seemed perfectly happy to testify against them.

So, it seems that Russia can't shake off the specter of censorship, so prevalent in Soviet days. It is a tragedy that the country does not seem to believe in the basic human right to freedom of expression. One would hope that Oleg Kassin, of the rather ominously named Council of the People (the group that brought the complaint against the artists), was not indicative of the government when saying

"If you like expressing yourself freely, do it at home, invite some close friends".

Presumably, not everybody "likes expressing" themselves "freely", then, and that this is a dangerous lifestyle choice? Quite clearly, freedom to express one's opinions should not be limited, or else it isn't "freedom". To tolerate expression in private is only to tolerate free will.

Of course, the condemnation sprang from the fact that the exhibits were seen as "anti-Christian". Once again, we see the religious extremists criticising the use of the free will they believe their creator gave them. It is terrible an organisation is allowed to go completely uncriticised because it describes itself as a religion. There will no doubt be supporters of the ruling here, perhaps invoking a previous shameful ruling against the artists' work as an example of people not respecting their faith. But why should "faith" be the only thing exempt from satire, or critique?

The sensitivity of religious organisations is beyond that of any other, beyond even what is reasonable. Is there any other figure that could be placed in Mickey Mouse ears and so anger a group that they claim it is "inciting hatred"? The idea is quite clearly ludicrous. The marches against Jerry Springer: The Opera showed that certain people struggled with the concept of "freedom of speech" in this country, but the BBC refused to give in to this. That in Russia that expression is a criminal offence is nothing short of scandalous.

Richard Littlejohn is a ...?

Hello all,

Before I start, this is an IMPORTANT NOTICE (capitals and everything). This blog post contains uncensored language which may offend. This post is inspired by this one from Bloggerheads.

In an era in which Frankie Boyle can publish a book called My Shit Life So Far, and have this book prominently displayed, uncensored, in the windows of High Street Booksellers nationwide, it would be reasonable to assume that we, as a society, are no longer shocked by four-letter-language. To my mind, this is no bad thing, since, as George Carlin put it, there are no "bad words", just bad contexts. To assume that it shows a limited vocabulary would be to assume that Shakespeare, a man who introduced over 1000 words into the English language, suffered from a limited vocabulary. However, there is one word that still has the power to shock and offend most people, and it remains problematic because of its association with women.

It has recently been my pleasure to get to know many members of Exeter University's Gender Equality Society, and I asked two of them where they stood on the word "cunt". (Since this was an informal conversation I shan't name them, but they're welcome to comment either on the blog or to me personally if they feel misrepresented.) Both had no qualms about its use descriptively, both expressed a regret that society has deemed its greatest insult to be so associated with women, but one admitted that there were times when no other insult seemed appropriate.

This is the main problem. There are times when you really need to shock, when no other word seems to quite have the power to convey the disgust you feel at something or someone. A brilliant example would be Richard Littlejohn, the Daily Mail columnist whose apparent lack of any shred of human decency would make him a worthy recipient of the title "cunt". His Wikipedia page nicely sums up his failings as a human being, but his most heinous article, undoubtedly one of the nastiest things I have ever read, was this vile piece (and in case you think that that was a one off many years ago, this post was less than two months ago). His inability to see the person behind the label of "prostitute" marks him as a foul, putrid groveling excuse for a human, and a festering genital wart on the carcass of journalism.

Stewart Lee also took offence at Littlejohn, and conveyed this in a very funny section of his live show, but once again, relied on the power of the word "cunt" to convey his anger. Yet, as the top article puts it,

[A]sk yourself who really wins when you call a notorious woman-hater like Richard Littlejohn a 'cunt'.

The replacement suggested by that piece "cloaca", seems a suitable alternative, and has been used at the b3ta.com image challenge on Littlejohn, but will probably remain an in-joke whilst "cunt" stays known and used in society, which is a great shame. I can't say that I shall never label a person as a "cunt", even though I almost never use it as such anyway, because it really is the only word sometimes with enough power. But if you feel differently, please feel free to leave a comment.

UPDATE, 16:39: Something wrong with the previous template prevented commenting on this, or any other post. This should now have been rectified.

Pie in the Sky

Hello all,



A couple of months ago I posted a tweet on my Twitter page (which I'm shamelessly linking to here), saying,

People want to sack Kay Burley. People are laughing at Adam Boulton. Sky - When you BECOME the news, you're doing it wrong.

This immediately became the most re-tweeted tweet I'd ever posted, implying that other people, like me, were also fed up with Sky "News"'s take on events at that time. More than 1000 people complained to Ofcom about the clash involving Boulton above, and a further 1000-odd complained about Kay Burley's shocking "interview" with a protester:

(Though this did lead to this fantastic moment, in which the protesters made their opinions of Sky News very clear).

This kind of "news" coverage (the inverted commas are getting tedious, so I shall stop, but you get the idea) is quite common in America, where pundits like Bill O'Reilly and the monstrous Glenn Beck have made their names by being bullies dressed up as journalists. There is no attempt to dress the news as anything other than propaganda, and as a result, gaining facts is a tricky business. But in this country, mainstream broadcasters must be impartial, and our news is the better for it.

Some important facts must be added at this point, that may or may not have relevance. Sky News is, ultimately, owned by Rupert Murdoch, at that time a prominent supporter of David Cameron and the Conservative Party, who owns many newspapers who proclaimed their support publicly in the run-up to the General Election. He also owns FOX News, the home of O'Reilly, Beck, and many of the most significant right-wing propagandists currently working in America. His son, James Murdoch, is the direct head of News Corp's dealings in Europe, and is non-executive chairman at BSkyB. He is also the main reason for Murdoch Snr's switch from Brown to Cameron. This information might lead us to assume a bias is likely, BUT it does not make it inevitable.

I was disappointed when Ofcom decided to reject the complaints leveled at Sky News. For me, both of these incidents show clear journalistic bias. David Babbs, the director of the movement behind the protest, seems barely able to speak three words before Burley shouts at his pointlessness and tells him to go home and watch it all on Sky News (nice plug, there, Kay). And at what point did anyone vote for a "Hung Parliament"? The only people claiming you could actively vote for a Hung Parliament were the Conservatives, though I would argue this is more an inability to grasp facts rather than a deliberate link. However, it is, whichever way you look at it, shockingly poor journalism.

Boulton's outbreak is less serious than Kay Burley's crimes, if much funnier. It weakens your integrity as a journalist if you are unable to counter arguments with anything other than shouting (rather like John Sweeney getting angry at the Church of Scientology), and so again can only be seen as bad journalism. His constant point-scoring techniques make him sound more like one of the politicians he interviews than an impartial onlooker. Even if we accept that, as an interviewer, he must take the other side of the argument, it is clear from the footage that he is trying to undermine Alastair Campbell's arguments, rather than challenge or highlight them.

If Ofcom are not going to censure such poor journalism and partial broadcasting, there remains only one solution. As the protesters themselves shouted out on Sky television, "Watch the BBC"!

Pride (In The Name Of Love)

Hello all,

This weekend has seen the annual Pride events held in London. As usual (though in reassuringly small numbers), people took to the internet asking why there is no "Straight Pride" event, in a way that reminds me of the time when I asked my mother why there was a Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day, but no Children's Day. Her reply was that that was every other day of the year, and with LGBT rights this certainly is the case.

The LGBT community is, of course, served badly by the media in most of its forms (popular literature, music, film and television etc.), but there is one area that has consistently underrepresented it, and in my opinion will continue to do so: marketing.

Little seems to have changed since this article was written two years ago. Gay men often seem notable by their absence, and women even less so. Why is this? When Maltesers made the original version of this advert, it featured a gay couple, but it was decided that this limited the market to just gay men. On that logic, of course, no-one in the LGBT community would be able to buy anything. This advert features two pregnant women, but it would be incredible to claim that it would limit the market to just pregnant women, so I do not see how this idea holds. I, despite being a heterosexual male, buy Galaxy chocolate, but not Yorkie bars, and I am sure I am far from the exception.

I don't believe that this situation is likely to improve very soon. Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe showed the difficulties that globalisation has introduced to marketing (6:30 into this video), focusing on the casual racism of the industry, but clearly affecting the representation of LGBT people. The medium must be inherently conservative to appeal to the largest number of people, but its prevalence it propagates the society it is trying to reflect.

Of course, I am aware that it is not the advertisers who are homophobic, racist, misogynistic or anything else. If it turned out that they could make more money featuring homosexual couples in their adverts, they'd start today. It's a nasty system, and one can't help sympathise with Bill Hicks in his classic rant on marketing.

To be a spoil-sport, or not?

Hello all,

Today, I find myself in a very peculiar position. For the past five hours or so I have been watching, almost solidly, sport. As a cricket fan, this in itself is not unprecedented, except for the fact that I can't really claim to like either of the sports I have been watching. The England vs Slovenia football match seemed to be an average game from my limited knowledge of the sport, whereas the current Isner/Mahut game of tennis (that, as it is still going, I have no link for, save to say it is the longest game in Wimbledon history) is as exciting as watching a fish swim excitedly back and forth in an aquarium for about three hours.

And yet, I am still watching it, hypnotised. Why? There are plenty of people who hold as little interest in football as me who become even less interested during major events like the World Cup, people whose opinions I respect and admire. Caitlin, a friend of mine (who you can follow on twitter here) recently started a discussion of her Facebook page by claiming:

When it can be front page news when there's actual real things happening that are being ignored, that's wrong.

and it's pretty hard to argue with that. By all rights, I should be blogging about Obama firing General McChrystal or passing comment on the Budget, but these things are not getting discussed in the same way.

The truth is that sport means a lot to a lot of people. I don't even think it would be too controversial to claim that many people value their sporting team or hero above any religion they may or may not have, and it certainly unites people, as seen, it was pointed out, in the film Invictus. An even more powerful example, perhaps, might have been the Christmas Day football match during World War One. I would argue that this gives it a significance that cannot merely be swept under the carpet, and that having a basic idea of events (but not necessarily an in-depth knowledge) is almost as important as having a grasp on other news stories.

The more problematic issue, and I think the one that I think Caitlin was referring to, was the coverage these events receive. Newspapers are always going to appeal to the broadest possible audience with their front pages, but the television coverage is ubiquitous. Now that the Digital Switchover is rolling out, more and more homes have multiple channels, including many with sports-channel packages, yet today, BBC1, BBC2 and ITV1 have devoted a HUGE amount of time towards covering the sport. Who should be expected to move: sports fans, or non-sports fans. Personally I feel that major sporting events, such as an England football match, do have the right to elbow out a repeat of Bargain Hunt, but since the coverage of the World Cup has put all games played on one of the major television networks (BBC1 or ITV1), which, to my mind, is excessive. However, it is something that I am willing to put up with. Provided it does not interfere with Doctor Who.

Yes, major sport stars are overpaid, their skills vastly overvalued by a society that considers celebrity the ideal (and those two worlds collided in this spectacular non-story). They provide easy hate-figures in a world too full of real villains. But to celebrate one's ignorance of anything, be it sport, politics, or even engineering, is never, to my mind, the right way to go.