2010 in Dicks

2011 has started and seems disappointingly familiar, but it gives us all a chance to look back at the year just gone. And I felt that I'd look back at all the dicks who have made the world slightly worse. And where better to start than...

THE CONSERVATIVE-LEAD GOVERNMENT: We all knew it was coming. There was no way that New Labour could hold on any longer, but the popularity of the Liberal Democrats (a phrase that is as laughable now as it was last January) just kept the Tories from a majority. And then gave them the MPs they needed anyway. Much of the anger has been (rightly) directed at Nick Clegg for backtracking on virtually every promise that made him so popular in the first place, but let's not forget that to bend to the every whim of the Conservative Party, there needs to be Conservative policies to begin with. So whilst Cameron and Osborne are happily pissing on everyone, let's not take out all of our anger on the guy pointing and laughing.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: This was the year when Paul Chambers was convicted for an illegal use of irony, but at least he was fortunate enough not to end up in hospital at the hands of the police (allegedly, of course). Surely the worst injustice of the year is of the rape victim jailed for eight months for retracting her genuine allegations. Though she has since been released, she still has to fight for her children. The husband had all the charges against him dropped, begging the question: How can they convict someone of falsely retracting allegations of sexual assault, and yet not convict the (therefore genuine) rapist? It saddens me that the organisations that are suppose to protect me -- the police and the CPS -- have shown themselves to be thuggish and shockingly misguided.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Not for his work with WikiLeaks, an organisation which I support and I believe has done a remarkable amount of good work in revealing what it has, but for his entirely dick-ish remarks following the recent allegations against him. Sunny Hundal has compiled a brilliant piece on whether the accusations of conspiracy stand up, but regardless of his guilt or innocence (neither of which have yet been proven in court, and I would not like to speculate on it), he has recently said some phenomenally unpleasant things, such as claiming he fell into a "hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism", that Switzerland is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism", and that these women had got into a "tizzy" about something as trivial about the very serious subject of STDs. WikiLeaks would do very well without him.

KAY BURLEY, ADAM BOULTON AND BEN BROWN: 3 journalists, two working for Sky and one for the BBC. Boulton and Burley provided us with such shoddy journalism that people were compelled to shout at them in the street, but then at least you would expect that of Sky "News". Ben Brown's treatment of Jody McIntyre was a different matter, with the supposedly "impartial" BBC doing all they can to pin blame on a victim of a violent and horrific incident. The official statement from the editors completely misses the point. Would they really interview anyone in the same way? Is Crimewatch an interrogation of the victims, ascertaining whether they were "rolling towards" the criminals, perhaps? It was not a balanced view, but a disgusting display of victim-blaming.

NADINE DORRIES: I have tried several times to write a post about Dorries, about her 70% fictitious blog that she uses to make personal attacks on her constituents, but every time I begin I realise that Tim Ireland has said it earlier and better than I ever will (and been the victim of some vicious and nasty smearing as the result), so I'll just point you in his direction.

DANNY DYER AND ZOO MAGAZINE: Oh how we laughed back in May when Danny Dyer joked about cutting women's faces. Except we didn't, because it was deeply unpleasant. Dyer initially claimed to have been misquoted, but has since offered this apology, in which it becomes clear that the problem was that he was quoted, albeit an off-record aside. He has since resigned, and released the film Pimp to huge box-office takings of £205. Zoo magazine, however, which approved and printed the column, continues to be published to a wide readership.

THE POPE: An inevitable inclusion on this list, the Pope currently feels more like the head of SPECTRE than the Catholic Church. Accusation after accusation after accusation of child abuse and subsequent cover-ups have been leveled at Catholic Priests (too many to link to, but the length of this Wikipedia article is startling in itself), and yet all Ernst Stavro Blofeld and his lot have done is attack homosexuals, secularists, and women. I said back in September that

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.

Since then, the Pope has claimed that paedophilia wasn't a big deal in the '70s, and that child pornography is increasingly seen as "normal". Am I really expected to moral advice from a man who opposes the use of condoms more than child pornography?

So, that's why he's my Dick of 2010. Until the end of Monday you can vote for five dicks here (Cameron, Osborne, Dorries and Dyer were my other choices, by the way).

Happy New Year!

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.