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.