Category Archives: freedom of speech

current affairs, freedom of speech, topographical

Open Government

There’s an excellent short post over at Evolving Thoughts which succinctly addresses the need for open government. In fact it is so good I’m going to quote the key two paragraphs here:

Whenever a government […] wants to be free from oversight, the motivation, whether they are aware of it or not, is empire building and control. No government activity, not even those pertaining to that hold-all of rights denial, national security, should automatically be free from supervision. Democracy only works when government is done in the open. Otherwise it simply becomes a matter of who can rort the system most effectively, as we see with the Bush administration today.

No special powers are required to prevent terrorism, just good old fashioned police work. No special acts of parliament are needed to prosecute them, for insurgency and murder are already crimes. And no special politicians are needed to “lead us out of this mess”, because either every political authority can do this, or we have no hope. And a democratic government, legislature or judiciary knows this already, and will act to protect our rights in a time of stress.

Precisely what I’ve been saying for years.

beliefs, freedom of speech, medical, photography, science, sexuality, thoughts

Circumcision

3 Comments

Writing my Thirteen Things post for Flickr the other day set me thinking …

I made the comment that I am glad my parents didn’t have me circumcised. I won’t say that their decision was great foresight: from my observations the rate of male circumcision of my generation in the UK is somewhere around 30-40% (amongst Americans it is more like 80%), and moreover my father was also entire so probably didn’t feel there was any “precedent” to follow. So my parents weren’t exactly bucking a trend (medical or otherwise). But I’m still glad that I’m entire; I like being entire; I’m comfortable with my “male apparatus” and I would never have inflicted circumcision on any son I might have had.

But there is one thing I do not understand about our western culture. Female circumcision, as still practiced in many parts of Africa especially, is considered barbarous, a violation of a woman and abuse. And I have to agree; it is all of these. And yet, male circumcision is considered much more (though not universally) acceptable; even those who are against male circumcision don’t generally have “screaming fits” about it the way they do over female circumcision. It is even being advocated as a way of constraining the spread of HIV, as I’ve blogged before. Why is this? I do not understand how one can be considered barbarous and the other acceptable.

OK, so before anyone screams at me let’s be clear. Male circumcision (at least as we practice it in the western world) is generally performed on the very young, by a surgeon, often with anaesthetic, in a sterile surgical environment; hence immediately post-operative complications are rare, although no-one seems to agree about the long-term effects on sexual function. Even if performed later in life male circumcision is a proper medical procedure. This contrasts with the vast majority of female circumcision in the developing world, where the operation is mostly performed by the medically unskilled, without a sterile environment, seldom any anaesthetic and mostly against the will of the female concerned who often has to be physically restrained. Needless to say post-operative complications appear to be the norm rather than the exception and death is not uncommon. The UN and WHO now use the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) when referring to female circumcision, but make no comment on male circumcision

But I still don’t see how it is acceptable for parents to have an infant boy routinely circumcised without any immediate medical necessity – as is still widely practiced in the USA. And I include in that the religious practices of both Judaism and Islam – albeit I can understand how male circumcision may have originally arisen in an ancient, hygienically-challenged, desert community, even if this was based on a false premise.

Having started writing this I found a good couple of paragraphs at the History of Circumcision which sum up my dilemma:

Given the similarities between the male and female genitals, the nature of the surgery and the justifications offered, it is surprising that male and female circumcision enjoy such strikingly different reputations, at least in Anglophone societies: the first, a mild and harmless adjustment which should be tolerated, if not actively promoted; the second, a cruel abomination which must be stopped by law, no matter how culturally significant to its practitioners. If you call circumcision of boys male genital mutilation, you are accused of emotionalism; if you fail to call circumcision of women or girls female genital mutilation you are accused of trivialising the offence. While the United Nations, Amnesty International and other international agencies spend millions on programs to eradicate FGM, they have never uttered a word against circumcision of boys.

It might be thought that the reason for this double standard lies in the greater physical severity of female circumcision, but this is to confuse cause with effect. On the contrary, it is the tolerant or positive attitude towards male circumcision and the rarity of female circumcision in western societies which promote the illusion that the operation is necessarily more sexually disabling, and without benefit to health, when performed on girls or women. It is, of course, also true that the term female circumcision is vague, referring to any one or more of a number of surgical procedures.
… …
But it should be remembered that the most extreme forms of FGM are rare, and that male circumcision in general is far more common on a world scale than female: about 13 million boys, compared with two million girls annually.
… …
Given the respective numbers of victims involved and the fact that some circumcisions are worse than some instances of FGM, there is no justification for perpetuating the gender discrimination which has characterised discussion of these issues.
… …
To compare female and male circumcision is not to trivialize the enormity of the first, as some feminists seem to fear, but to recognise that the physical and moral similarities between the two are very real.

So here we have it. The two “procedures” while different are the same. So why is it OK for males to be circumcised but not females? Even after reading a number of worthy websites on the subject I still do not understand.

PS. Anyone who wishes to delve a little deeper might like to start with:

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, thoughts

Depressing and Predictable

1 Comment

Following on from yesterday’s post about the views on drugs of the Chief Constable of North Wales … Needless to say said Chief Constable has today come in for the “usual intemperate attack” from the Daily Mail and other papers (eg. this relatively well tempered article in the Daily Telegraph).

Bystander over at The Magistrate’s Blog comments in his usual forthright and perceptive style:

… what is most depressing about this is the entire lack of any reasoned debate. Whenever the drugs issue comes up, the tabloids and some of the rent-a-quote politicians … go into a knee-jerk rant mode …

We have now reached the position where there is no chance of any rational approach to our fellow citizens’ increasing appetite for chemical stimulation.

Our politicians long ago gave up leadership, in favour of a marketing-led approach dependent on focus groups and polls.

… elected politicians … are terrified of upsetting anyone.

The ‘War on Drugs’ has become like the later stages of the Vietnam war: it’s unwinnable, but nobody has the guts to admit it …

I really couldn’t have expressed it better myself, even with all day to think about it!

However the “intemperate attacks” are precisely why I think Brunstrom is wrong. The legalisation he is advocating won’t happen; the tabloid press and the tabloid politicians will ensure it doesn’t; they’ll drown out anyone who dares to think about the subject.

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, medical, science

Drugs to be Legal in 10 Years?

Yes, you read it right! This was the thrust of a BBC News item yesterday. Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, believes that in about 10 years time drugs which are currently illegal will be legalised. His logic is impeccable:

  • Over 50% of all recorded crime is caused by people feeding a drugs habit.
  • Despite drug misuse falling (slowly) because of better treatment programmes it is still causing a £20bn a year hole in the country’s finances.
  • Portugal has already gone the legalisation route
  • And it is being talked about elsewhere in the world (although the article doesn’t specify where!).

All that is needed is a shift in public opinion (as has happened against drink-driving in the last 20 years or so) and the change will become inevitable, Brumstrom appears to believe.

But interestingly there is one argument which hasn’t been used – and which is sometimes used for the legalisation of cannabis: if it is legal you can regulate the supply (by licencing sellers) and you can tax the proceeds. That has to be powerful: stop large swathes of crime, save £20bn a year, and generate income as well.

Even so, personally, I can’t see it happening. I cannot see any politician sticking their neck out and advocating such a policy, let alone voting for it. The legalisation of cannabis I think will come, although it may take a while yet. However I’m not sure that the legalisation of heroin, cocaine, etc. isn’t a step too far even for me, at least at present. But it is an interesting idea, and one worthy of discussion. And hoorah for a senior plod who has enough foresight to be able to think outside the box!

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, topographical

Picking the Crap Out of 2007

1 Comment

What happened in 2007? Here are some of the highlights …

January
US commits even more troops to Iraq in the name of preventing violence.

February
H5N1 Bird Flu confirmed on a turkey farm in Suffolk; it’s been imported from Eastern Europe.
Heavy snow in parts of western UK surprises everyone – can’t have snow, it’s winter!
One woman dies in rail crash in Cumbria caused by failures in track maintenance.

March
Pakistan cricket coach Bob Woolmer found dead in Jamaica during Cricket World Cup amid match fixing row; cause of death never properly established. Negotiation of film rights expected to conclude imminently.
Power-sharing returns to Northern Ireland when Protestant Ian Paisley and Catholic Gerry Adams meet face to face for the first time ever; but they don’t have the courtesy to shake hands.
Unfit for purpose Home Office split into two unfit for purpose ministries, further confusing everyone including the judiciary.
BBC journalist Alan Johnston is kidnapped in Gaza; he is released in July.

April
Earthquake in Folkestone; no-one is hurt.

May
Blonde tot Madeleine McCann abducted in Portugal and we never hear the last of it.
Fire fails to destroy the Cutty Sark.

June
Tony Blair finally steps down as Prime Minister after 10 years and is succeeded by Gordon “Bottler” Brown – away with the deceitful, in with the asset-stripping accountant.
Crap logo for 2012 London Olympics unveiled; video version causes epileptic fits.
Two car bombs left in London’s West End; both fail.
Terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport causes little damage but paralyses everything. As a result thousands have their gas-guzzling, CO2-spewing holiday flights cancelled.
Jacques Chirac loses French presidential election to Nicolas Sarkozy. Anyone noticed the difference?
Severe flooding in Yorkshire at the start of one of the wettest summers on record. York is flooded – nothing new there then.

July
Severe flooding in western England following further interminable amounts of rain. Thousands of houses built in flood plains are submerged.

August
Outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease in South-East England; turns out it is released from a government research facility and vaccine production plant.
Billions wiped off London Stock Market in sharp falls across the world caused by the collapse of the sub-prime loans market in the US.
Wildfires spread across Greece.

September
Bank of England has to provide £10B loan to prevent Northern Rock becoming bankrupt; the government continue to pump taxpayers’ money in to support Northern Rock and its shareholders
Bluetongue Disease arrives in England; this time the weather is blamed.
BBC admits to fixing the results of polls on programmes like children’s show Blue Peter.
Jose Mourinho (who?) sacked as manager of Chelsea FC.
Death of tenor Luciano Pavarotti; “Nestling Dormouse” is heard the length and breadth of the land.
“Saffron Revolt” of Buddhist monks in Burma is brutally crushed by the military regime.

October
Lewis Hamilton fails to win Formula One Grand Prix championship at the first attempt. It was ever thus.
Inquest into the 1997 death of Princess Diana finally opens in London. What’s the point, anyone?

Prime Minister Gordon Brown bottles it by not calling a general election when expected to do so.
Sir Menzies Campbell resigns as leader of the Liberal Democrats; he’s too old at 66.
Former US Vice-President Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize for flying millions of miles a year while campaigning on the environment.
Bush fires rip through California (no, not that Bush – for once!)

November
Four fire-fighters die in vegetable warehouse blaze.
Cruise liner Explorer sinks in Antarctica after hitting an iceberg; all passengers and crew cold but rescued.
The Spice Girls begin their reunion tour. Why?
The Queen and Prince Philip celebrate their diamond (60th) wedding anniversary.
HM Revenue & Customs lose 25 million taxpayers’ personal details on two lightly encrypted data CDs.
In football England surprise no-one by failing to qualify for the 2008 European Cup.
English teacher arrested and nearly executed in Sudan for allowing children to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
“Drowned canoeist” John Darwin reappears after 5 years and is promptly arrested for fraud.
Another outbreak of H5N1 bird flu threatens to disrupt the supply of Christmas turkeys; sadly it doesn’t.
Declaration of state of emergency in Pakistan, thus postponing elections and prolonging the military regime – a key ally of the US.

December
Several large food retailers fined for price fixing of dairy products. You mean you’d not noticed they all charged the same prices?
More outbreaks of Bluetongue Disease in different parts of the UK.
Christmas comes round again.
Assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto; turmoil follows, further threatening the prospect of elections.
Kenyan elections end in chaos and allegations of vote-rigging.
“Mini-Starlet” Kylie Minogue features at the top of the New Year Honours List.

So all-in-all a pretty crap year. Now can we rise to the challenge of making 2008 even worse?

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, history

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

1 Comment

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?

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, sexuality, thoughts, topographical

Sex for Sale

2 Comments

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!

beliefs, current affairs, freedom of speech, memes, science, thoughts, topographical

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.

beliefs, freedom of speech, memes, quotes, thoughts

Arthur C Clarke – Threat to Humanity

There’s an interview with SF author Arthur C Clarke in the current edition of BBC Focus magazine, which contains the following …

What’s the greatest threat humanity faces?
Organised religion polluting our minds as it pretends to deliver morality
and spiritual salvation. It’s spreading the most malevolent mind virus of
all. I hope our race can one day outgrow this primitive notion.

I couldn’t have put it better myself.