Category Archives: current affairs

current affairs, sexuality

Safer Sex Work

Today I’m going to return to one of my perennial subjects: prostitution.
A couple of weeks ago New Scientist (12 December) carried an Opinion piece by Clare Wilson under the title Safer Sex Work. As I’m not sure if the linked article is generally accessible on the New Scientist website, I post here the core of the article.

Evidence suggests nations should legalise, not ban, prostitution
Do we help sex workers most by legalising or criminalising what they do? …
A proposed bill [in Scotland] that would decriminalise prostitution there has just finished its consultation stage. In the UK, selling sex isn’t illegal but related acts are, such as soliciting, kerb-crawling and working in a brothel. These would be allowed under the Scottish bill.
In 2012 [MSP] Jean Urquhart favoured a form of criminalisation. Then she went to a debate involving sex workers. What she heard … has led her to “come full circle”. [The] bill is modelled on a 2003 New Zealand law … backed by [WHO] …
… if what you do is illegal, it is harder to work with others or hire guards — that’s classed as working in a brothel. If you get attacked you dare not go to the police. And you are less likely to use services that provide free condoms and treat sexually transmitted infections …


Some opponents of legalisation want the “Swedish model”, where it is illegal to pay for sex but not to provide it, to avoid penalising sex workers. But a sex worker whose customers get arrested will quickly have no customers at all. So it still forces them to operate in secret, leading to the same problems.
As one sex worker says, the debate tends to revolve around feelings about men who pay for sex and what that says about society. She wants to scream: “What about our safety?”

Despite many opinions to the contrary (and despite being totally illogical), we know that the “Swedish model” doesn’t work: see for instance here and here. Unlike in New Zealand which has gone the opposite route to general acclaim.
I remember reading about this Scottish bill some while back and it did seem to me to be the most sensible and logical way forward. Prostitution isn’t going to go away. So legalising, or at least decriminalising, it seems the best approach: the sex workers can be protected, registered and have regular medical checks; that protects their clients as well; and once something is legal and regulated it can be taxed (and what government doesn’t want money for nothing?).
That looks like win-win-win to me.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, quotes

Language, Politics and War

I the last couple of days I’ve seen two articles, of very different natures, invoking George Orwell (1903-1950, right) against the deceit and obfuscation of modern politics, and indeed public life generally.
The first goes under the banner 10 George Orwell Quotes that Predicted Life in 2015 America, although it applies just as well to any other country. Here are a few of the Orwell quotes (sadly not referenced):

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.
In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.
Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.

I’ll wait here while you think about those for a few minutes …
…
…
…
OK? Good. Then I’ll resume …
The second article is quite a long essay in last Saturday’s Guardian from Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury. But don’t let that deter you because the article is erudite, well-written and in the tradition of English essay-writing. It is an edited version of this year’s Orwell Lecture.
[Orwell was working at what may well have been the height of the English art of essay-writing — and he was a master essayist. Essay writing was the way for journalists and intellectuals to summon up and communicate their thoughts; which is why we were taught to write essays at school. It was essentially the 1920s to 1950s version of modern blogging — at least the more serious end of blogging.]
In his article Williams looks at the way in which Orwell, and his contemporary Thomas Merton (an American Roman Catholic monk, 1915-1968, pictured right), teach us about the language of terror and war. Essentially the thesis is that in order to counteract the obfuscation of “military strategists and politicians” the commentator has to write well — clearly, concisely, transparently — in order to permit communication and hence understanding.
Williams’ essay is dense. So dense I had to read it twice. Nevertheless it is itself clear and well written — so don’t let the density put you off; it is very well worth reading. This is where I would normally give you a couple of quick quotes as the nub of the article, but were I to do that here I would have to reproduce the whole essay! That is how good it is. But undeterred, I will anyway because Williams says it so much better than I can …

Bureaucratic double-speak, tautology and ambiguous cliché not only dominate the language of public life from the health service to higher education, talking and writing badly also prepares the ground for military and terrorist action.
Merton relished the comment of an American commander in Vietnam: “In order to save the village, it became necessary to destroy it”.
When the agents of Islamist terror call suicide bombers “martyrs”, the writer’s job is to direct attention to the baby, the Muslim grandmother, the Jewish aid worker, the young architect, the Christian nurse or taxi driver whose death has been triumphantly scooped up into the glory of the killer’s self-inflicted death.
Both Merton and Orwell concentrate on a particular kind of bureaucratic redescription of reality, language that is designed to be no one’s in particular, the language of countless contemporary manifestos, mission statements and regulatory policies, the language that dominates so much of our public life, from health service to higher education. In its more malign forms, this is also the language of commercial interests defending tax evasion … or worse, governments dealing with challenges to human rights violations, or worst of all (it’s in all our minds just now) of terrorists who have mastered so effectively the art of saying nothing true or humane as part of their techniques of intimidation. In contrast, the difficulty of good writing is a difficulty meant to make the reader pause and rethink.
Our current panics about causing “offence” are, at their best and most generous, an acknowledgement of how language can encode and enact power relations … But at its worst, it is a patronising and infantilising worry about protecting individuals from challenge; the inevitable end of that road is a far worse entrenching of unquestionable power, the power of a discourse that is never open to reply … On both sides of all such debates, there can be a deep unwillingness to have things said or shown that might profoundly challenge someone’s starting assumptions.

Yes it is a dense, but good and illuminating, essay. It’s well worth the effort required to read it. And when you’ve read it, please hammer its lessons into the concrete heads of our politicians.

current affairs, ramblings

Paris

No I’m not going to start delving into all the recent mess; there’s too much uninformed and idle garbage being talked already. But I must just highlight what Brad Warner has said — he’s American, a Zen monk and talks much sense; unlike so very many Americans. Brad has written a ferociously forthright, and also in parts highly amusing, analysis on his blog.
His final sentences are:

The lunatics who think they can overturn all of [civilisation] are using technologies that could not possibly even exist at all if the rest of the world wanted to go back to life as it was in the seventh century. They will fail.
Greed, hatred and stupidity are universal human traits. But so are cooperation, love and intelligence.
And more people support cooperation, love and intelligence than will ever support greed, hatred and stupidity.

But what is brilliant, because even Brad admits it is funny, is what he quotes from a guy called John Oliver:

croc… it is important to remember, nothing about what these assholes are trying to do is going to work. France is going to endure and I’ll tell you why. If you are in a war of culture and lifestyle with France, good fucking luck. Go ahead, bring your bankrupt ideology. They’ll bring Jean-Paul Sartre, Edith Piaf, fine wine, Gauloise cigarettes, Camus, Camembert, madeleines, macarons, and the fucking croquembouche. You just brought a philosophy of rigorous self-abnegation to a pastry fight, my friend. You are fucked.

As Brad says: “It’s a funny rant, but it’s also deeply true”.
Go read the whole of Brad’s post here, it’s not very long.

beliefs, current affairs, ramblings

They just don’t learn

When will the Western world understand that, by their actions, they are responsible for the terrorist attacks which are happening around the world? I’m thinking specifically of Paris last Friday but there are many many others.
By interfering — usually with military force — in the Arab nations all they are succeeding in doing is further radicalising those countries’ (potentially) disaffected youth and other (misguided) religious zealots.
And why are they surprised at this? If some set of foreigners, with a different culture and religion, were launching air strikes on us, wouldn’t we be sending anyone who would into their countries as insurgents? Especially if we had poorly organised and equipped military ourselves.
Of course we would — and we have. For starters, see the WWII French Resistance and other clandestine organisations like SOE. And we have officially sanctioned and organised terrorists called the SAS.
The more we meddle, and the more we retaliate, the worse we are going to make the problem. And it is a problem which is of our making! We started meddling in the Middle East way back at the time of the Crusades and it has escalated (on and off) ever since. In After the Victorians AN Wilson makes the point that one of the underlying causes of WWI was Britain trying to prevent Germany getting access to Arab oil which we had claimed. We’ve been interfering ever since. And it goes on.
None of these countries — in fact overall very few countries in the world — have a tradition of democracy. They are nearly all used to autocratic rule in one form or another. Just as we were, once upon a time. It has taken us 800 years, starting with Magna Carta in 1215, to get our democracy to its current (fragile) state. Some of the countries of our erstwhile empire have taken the English model on board. Other European countries have got there too by their own, often bloody, routes — see, for example, the French Revolution.
So how is it we expect to be able to walk into any country, tell them to embrace democracy and expect them to jump for joy and do so overnight? Why would they? How can they when it’s taken us 800 years? To them democracy is a revolution and a totally different culture. People don’t like change and they are mostly OK with what they have because at least they understand it. Nearly everywhere we’ve done this in the last 200 years we have ended up with, at best, a bloody nose.
The Arab countries are large enough and well enough orchestrated that they can bring their resistance to us. They have a religion which, by and large, transcends their tribal divisions and they aren’t confined to their own little enclaves like many African nations. Contrary to Christianity, when push comes to shove, the Arab religious beliefs will overcome any tribal animosities.
Why is it that politicians cannot learn from history? It isn’t that hard. If I, a mere scientist, can do so then so can anyone with more than six brain cells. (Oh, hang on, do politicians even have six brain cells?)
No I am not saying we should be soft on terrorists. Yes we have to deal with them on our territory according to our laws — just as they would if the tables were turned.
What I am saying is twofold: (a) stop meddling in other countries, except perhaps through diplomatic channels, and (b) stop bombing the shit out of them at any excuse. Unless, of course, your objective is to radicalise them.
Let me leave you with two final thoughts.
(1) Never lose sight of the fact that your enemy is a human being too. He (or she) has a mother, a sister, a child, a spouse who loves them. They eat, pee and lust the same as you. They were once that carefree child playing in the street. To lose sight of your enemy’s humanity is to lose all respect for others and yourself.
(2) And in the words of Abraham Lincoln:

Do I not destroy my enemies by making them my friends?

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, ramblings

From Agincourt to WWII

This is a very lightly edited version of something I posted earlier today on Facebook, but I’m repeating it here as I feel it needs to be filed for posterity.
There’s an interesting perspective from Martin Kettle in today’s Guardian under the banner

It will soon be time to drop our oppressive remembrance rituals.
We can respect the fallen without wrapping ourselves in the flag,
as the Agincourt anniversary shows.

And I have to agree, especially as I see the BBC have already dusted off their never-ending supply of Remembrance Day poppies. Basically I’m with Evelyn Waugh who back in the 1930s described Remembrance Day as a disgusting idea of artificial reverence and sentimentality. Moreover I object to being subjected to what is now basically moral blackmail.
But note very clearly: I’m not saying be unpatriotic, not to remember and not to be grateful for the sacrifice others have made to protect our freedoms. I’m saying that the current public display of maudlin sentiment and obsequiousness associated with Remembrance Day (and everything around it) is nauseating and unnecessary and serves only to glorify war. Martin Kettle says it much better, and in much more measured words, than I can:

… if we are capable of thinking about Agincourt without wrapping ourselves in the flag, why not other later conflicts too? In three weeks’ time we will reach the climax of the annual military remembrance rituals. A century after the great war, these rituals have become more culturally hegemonic than ever before. Yet it is surely possible to respect the importance of history and to support events that bring peoples together while still feeling that … these particular rituals have now become unnecessarily oppressive.
At some point in the future … we will begin to let go of these rituals. One day, the head of state will no longer lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in November for the long-distant dead. One day, MPs and TV newsreaders will not feel the press of obligation to wear poppies on all public appearances …
For the present, people in public roles have little scope but to conform on such matters … we will be right to stop doing these things … and there is nothing inappropriate or disrespectful about suggesting that we would benefit from that time coming sooner rather than later.

We need to be looking and going forward, working for peace; not looking mournfully backward.

You can’t look forward and backward at the same time

amusements, current affairs

Oddity of the Week

Pope Francis is currently visiting Cuba and the USA. The followning was reported at the end of August by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and summarised by the Weird Universe blog:

Muslim clerics complain of the commercialization of the holy city of Mecca during the annual Hajj pilgrimages, but for Pope Francis’s visits to New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia in mid-September, shameless street vendors and entrepreneurs already appear to be eclipsing Mecca’s experience. Merchants said they’d be selling, among other tacky items, mozzarella cheese statuettes of the Pope ($20), a Pope Toaster to burnish Francis’s image on bread, a Philly-themed bobblehead associating the Pope with the boxer “Rocky”, local beers Papal Pleasure and YOPO (You Only Pope Once), and T-shirts (“Yo Pontiff!” and “The Pope Is My Homeboy”). The Wall Street Journal quoted a Philadelphia archdiocese spokesman admitting that “you kind of have to take it in stride”.

current affairs, freedom of speech, ramblings

So It's Two Fingers to You …

They just do not get it, do they!
According to today’s news feeds (for example here from the BBC) Rebekah Brooks is to return as chief executive of Rupert Murdoch’s UK newspaper operations.
This is the woman who was acquitted (yes, OK, she was found not guilty) of phone hacking last year, having not known, or forgotten, large chucks of what was happening in her empire over a period of something like 10 years. Others were allowed to take the fall.
OK, I accept it is Murdoch’s right to appoint anyone he likes to his organisation (providing they fulfil the legal niceties). As Evan Harris of Hacked Off has observed (quoted in the Guardian a few days ago)

Mrs Brooks’s successful defence at trial was that she was such an incompetent executive that she was unaware of industrial-scale criminal wrongdoing in intercepting voicemails and bribing public officials, and unaware of the vast conspiracy to cover it up, despite her admitting to destroying millions of emails and putting the company’s reputation before cooperation with the police.

This doesn’t seem to be a very encouraging sign in one expected to lead an organisation — any organisation.
Moreover to me this also says much about the Murdoch empire’s total disregard for ethics and morality. As the shadow Culture Secretary and others have said (also in the Guardian) it sends a massive two fingers to the British public and, I suggest, a high-five to the wealthy and influential who seem to be able to can get away with almost anything they like.
However legal it is, they basically just do not seem to get how cynical this is.

current affairs, ramblings

The (Plastic) Pound in Your Pocket

The Bank of England is introducing plastic money. Specifically polymer banknotes. They start in the autumn of next year with a new £5 note, followed by a new £10 note in 2017. And, it has been announced today, a new £20 in 2020. Which will leave only the £50 note made from paper.


But why, oh why, does this take so long? The Bank essentially know the designs, the technology and the security features. So why is it not possible to have the new £10 and £20 notes next year along with the £5 note? Why does it take 5 years to create the new £20 note. This isn’t building a space shuttle; it’s essentially printing pieces of paper, albeit with some devilishly clever technology embedded.
I have never understood why it takes any public enterprise — central government, local government, Bank of England, the NHS; the list is endless — so long to accomplish anything. They’d never survive in a competitive marketplace.
Gawdelpus!