Category Archives: beliefs

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Jilly, writing over at jillysheep has prompted me to write something about the assassination today of Benazir Bhutto, although I was not intending to do so as I don’t usually descend into international politics.

Sadly I have to agree with Jilly’s sentiments of being “shocked … but hardly surprised” and hoping “this does not make the situation in Pakistan worse than it already is, though I can’t help feeling it will do”.

This was a disaster waiting to happen, entirely predictable and IMO should have been avoidable without Ms Bhutto having to return to exile. But of course her presence was unwelcome by the existing dictatorship who could well have had some part in the affair (not that we will likely ever know if they did) and she is less of a problem dead than waiting in exile.

I fear that Imran Khan may well be the next martyr (sorry, victim) on the list. I also fear that Pakistan is likely to descend into a blood-bath before the situation gets sorted out – and that the sorting out could well be at the hands of the Taliban. I also reckon South Africa won’t be far behind once Nelson Mandela dies – I think he still wields a controlling influence over many of the factions. Similar internecine warfare seems quite likely in Zimbabwe too when Mugabe goes. And countries like Russia, while paying lip-service to democracy, seem still to be ruled by old-style dictators.

But should we really be surprised? I don’t think so. We must remember that these people have no tradition of democracy; they’ve always had tribal, monarchical and/or feudal rulers of one form or another. We started on the road to democracy some 700 years ago with Magna Carta and to get to meaningful and stable democracy took us two civil wars, an interregnum, numerous petty squabbles and over 500 years. And we expect to be able to impose our view of democracy on these countries effectively overnight. I ask you: what chance do Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe or even Russia stand? Absolutely none!

Another Afghanistan or Iraq anyone?

Blair and God

The news a couple of days ago that Tony Blair has joined the Roman Catholic church should have come as a surprise to no-one. It’s nice to see a couple of commenters to BBC News’s story saying very much what I was thinking:

Quite frankly, who cares? Not talking about his faith previously was probably one of the few good decisions he took as prime minister. Running the country is not about what version of god you believe in, in fact religion should have no part at all in the day-to-day running of the country.
Alex Bailey, Corby

I would never have voted for him had I knew he was religious. The thought that people in power have gone to war based upon the voices in their heads fills me with horror. To not believe in fairytales is the norm, anything other than that is delusional. We need more normal atheist people to speak up for common sense.
D Johnstone, Birmingham

Solstice Reprise!

Wow, things heavenly come in threes? It’s probably always thus, but I’ve never noticed quite so obviously before a whole raft of heavenly celebration:

  • Winter solstice: 21 December, the winter festival of light
  • New Moon: early hours of 24 December, the monthly rite of the goddess
  • Christmas Day
  • Boxing Day (26 December): being one of the days for wassailing your fruit trees
  • New Year’s Day: being another of the days on which one should wassail fruit trees

Looks like there’s going to be lots of dancing naked round the garden in the next few days. 😉

Christmas Five

1. What is your fave thing about Christmas?
The anticipation; the excuse to do absolutely nothing quite shamelessly; the time off work.

2. Did you believe in Santa Claus? If so, what was the best gift from him?
Nope, I don’t think I ever did. But I did get an electric train set from him one year.

3. Do you have a Christmas Tree? Ribbon, Angel, Star or ______ on Top?
Yes, it wouldn’t be Christmas without a tree. And it has a star on the top.

4. Best stocking stuffer you got?
My wife. We got engaged just before Christmas and then had to spend Christmas itself keeping quiet about it until we had the right opportunity at New Year to tell our respective parents.

5. Wishing for a White Christmas?
Of course. In over 50 years I’ve never seen a white Christmas. Lots of snow on Boxing Day, and a couple of days before Christmas, and lots of frost on Christmas Day, but never snow on Christmas Day.

[Brought to you courtesy of Friday Five.]

Sex for Sale

Oh dear; oh dear! They just do not understand do they! Harriet Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, has decided to boil the ocean. According to various news items yesterday (including on BBC News) she has said she wants to make it illegal in the UK to buy sex. This seems to be on the grounds that it is (a) abuse of women and (b) it’s been done successfully in Sweden. At the very least Mistress Harman (and it seems safe to assume she speaks for the disreputable control freaks we have for a government) wants a major open debate on the subject.

The very idea of making payment for sex illegal I find totally abhorrent. And no that’s not because I use (or ever have used) prostitutes. It is a purely open-minded and pragmatic approach.

So here is my (first?) contribution to the debate:

  1. Objection the first is that the whole thing will be unworkable. So it will be illegal to pay for sex. Bystander, over at the Magistrates Blog makes a good point: how is it possible to prevent the oldest profession. He observes: “As a lawyer you [Harriet Harman] will be aware that you belong to the world’s second-oldest profession. What chance have you got of outlawing the oldest?”
  2. No-one doubts that abuse happens within the prostitution trade. Equally everyone will agree it shouldn’t happen. But criminalising payment for sex isn’t going to make it go away; it’s going to make it worse: the protagonists will feel that as they’re already the wrong side of the law they have nothing to lose and that will just make the abuse and violence go underground. So everyone is actually worse off.
  3. Similarly with the drugs problem which many prostitutes are feeding, especially at the lower end of the market. If they’re engaging in a criminal activity already then they become even more vulnerable and potential prey for drug dealers. And there will be less funding etc. for those organisations who try to help the girls by providing needle exchange, condoms and sanity.
  4. There is also a major logic problem with the thinking. Apparently the idea is not to make it illegal to sell sex but illegal to buy for sex. What? How can you sell something legally when it is illegal for someone to buy it? Currently it is legal to sell and to buy sex; prostitution in the UK is not of itself illegal. But many activities associated with prostitution (kerb-crawling, soliciting, pimping, etc.) are illegal.
  5. Moreover there are ways round the “payment” restriction. As we know many “hostess clubs” already take large payments for bottles of champagne (or other food or drink) for which one gets the attentions of your chosen handmaiden. Said handmaiden is paid a wage by the club as a member of staff. How are the lawyers going to prevent such scams. John says he didn’t pay Kat for sex, he just bought an expensive bottle of champagne and some sandwiches; the fact that they had sex was because he came onto her ’cos she was gagging for it and so was he. Kat says she received no money from John, she had sex with him ’cos she fancied him and he seemed like a decent bloke. Case dismissed, M’Lud.
  6. In another BBC News article (from February 2007) they look at how the Swedish system – on which Mistress Harman proposes ours should be based – has actually worked. Answer: patchily at best. While it does appear to have reduced abuse and trafficking, it has also reduced the level of support for those prostitutes still working who have drugs habits; and the supply of condoms has also dried up.
  7. A third BBC News item (this one from December 2006) looked at the more liberal approach of the Netherlands, where they openly allow prostitution and protect their working girls. This works. Prostitution is legal (as long as the girls are registered), they can advertise their services, most work from rooms and few need to work the street. Those who do work the streets are looked after in safe zones. As one Dutch interviewee comments: “Prostitution is a reality … and in order to protect those women and men who engage in it, it should be given equal status to other occupations”. Incidentally for even further enlightenment read the readers’ comments to this article.
  8. “Equal status” is an interesting point. What is the human rights position on (the illegality of) prostitution? Is it not a basic human right to be able to sell ones body if one chooses to. And if that means a woman chooses to sell her vagina, mouth or hand in return of cash, or a pig, or loaves of bread, then why should she not be allowed to? I can sell my brain to the company I work for; I don’t get abused because the law says it’s illegal. If prostitution were legal then it would be easier for working girls to turn in those who abuse them, because that is already illegal. At the end of the day all work is prostitution of one form or another!
  9. Finally, something governments always seem to forget. If you make something legal, you can regulate it and tax it. In the case of prostitution this means that the girls would be paying tax and National Insurance, which is ultimately good for them and for the Treasury. It also means that if they’re regulated (as in Holland) then they can be licensed only if they have regular health checks, which should be good for the girls and ultimately save stress on the health service.

As usual it seems to me that the pragmatic Dutch – who incidentally also have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the West; a quarter of the UK rate and 10% of the USA’s rate! – have got it right. Legalise prostitution, don’t drive it further underground. Openness and trust does actually work!

Creationists Plan British Theme Park

There’s an article in today’s Observer which, at a personal level, I find more than somewhat disturbing. It begins

A business trust is looking at sites for a Christian showplace to challenge the theory of evolution.

Apparently there are plans being laid to build an intelligent design (ID) theme park (my phrase) in NW England.

At a personal level I find this deeply disturbing. Christianity, indeed all religion and politics, is about belief. But those who believe in ID claim it as science. Science is about knowledge. Thus belief does not (and by definition cannot) equal knowledge. ID is not science, or knowledge, but belief.

What’s more I find this Christian proselytising of their (to me misguided) beliefs objectionable. For me it is a basic human right that everyone is allowed to believe (or not) whatever they choose without having someone else’s beliefs rammed down their throats, as is the Christian way. Don’t get me wrong. I find all proselytising just as objectionable; it’s just that Christians seem to have a particularly well developed, self-righteous and nauseating form of it.

But this does give me a moral dilemma: freedom of thought and speech. Everyone is entitled to their opinion/belief, however misguided. And they are entitled to be allowed to express that belief. So morally I have to allow these people that freedom. I just find their beliefs, their methods, their self-righteousness and their closed minds deeply obscene.