Restrict Religious Groups?

I don't think so. Take a look at this:

Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.

A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.

More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

Alarmed? From the words, you're clearly supposed to be. An Islamic political party? What a terrible thing. Next thing you know we'll have a Calvinist as Prime Minister...and a quarter of Muslim students with little or no respect for gay people? Why not try canvassing Christian students and see if you get an even bigger number! And speaking of Christians, Muslim servicemen should 'opt out' of hostilities with Muslim countries? Gosh you'll get civil registrars and policemen trying to opt out of their secular duties next.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

Absolute hogwash, and I say that as an atheist. Whilst I agree that Church and state should indeed be separated, this argument is tantamount to advocating that all MPs should be atheists, which is ridiculous. But for religion to have no public space at all would be insane. In a recent talk I watched by Bishop Gene Robinson, he and Sir Ian McKellen jointly argued that we can only progress together in society - that means atheist lobbyists working alongside gay bishops, that mean civil rights and religious rites side by side, but not one excluding the other. Only by making the civil and religious spheres distinct can we see the deficiencies in both and how each can aid the other.

Sure it's past time for the sake of fairness in society (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that disestablishment should take place, but to then say that religion should as a result wither on the vine would be ignorant. And to exclude religion from places of learning is downright inane. I agree that it should not be the means of learning (you're right, I think faith schools should be stopped - by which I mean Anglican and Catholic ones too), but not to allow its free expression by those best able to articulate it would be the most dangerous act of extremism of all.

Yet how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?

There's that fear thing again - the writer blaming Muslims for attitudes widely held by Christians. Want Islamophobia? That's how it's transmitted. Try attacking the levels of domestic violence and rape perpetrated by chuchgoing Christians. Try attacking the Christian Institute for trying to change the law to allow religious opt-outs such as Lillian Ladele's disgraceful example in Islington. And for that matter if we really don't like dictators maybe we should try to oust all of them rather than just the Islamic ones.

Homosexuality and Heinz

Dear old Heinz. First they run a humorous ad featuring a New York deli chef kissing another man, implying pretty strongly in the script that the chef is actually their mother and it's Heinz's Deli Mayo product that makes her appear this way.



Then when about 200 viewers complain because it was 'offensive', 'inappropriate' and 'unsuitable to be seen by children', Heinz pulls it, just like that. Considering that the ad wasn't allowed to be screened during children's scheduling because of the product's extreme unhealthiness, surely that 'unsuitability' argument should have been immediately discounted. And Zoe Williams is right - what makes this so inappropriate when Bounty (the kitchen roll) is still running a series of ads with men dressed as women. So transvestism isn't 'inappropriate' or 'unsuitable to be seen by children'? But the bigger question is why Heinz pulled it at all. Spokesman Nigel Dickie said:

"Heinz is a global company and we respect all universal rights. The advertisement was intended to be humorous, not designed to cause offence to anyone. Clearly it failed in its intent to amuse and that is why we took the decision to withdraw it."

Says who that it failed to amuse? 200 complaints is hardly groundbreaking, and why do you think it makes more sense to offend gay and gay friendly consumers by bending to homophobic pressure? Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill advocates a consumer boycott of Heinz (and I agree with him), saying:

"We're shocked that an innocuous ad should have been withdrawn in this way. I can't imagine that Heinz would respond to protests about black people featuring in their adverts."

Brown is Gutless and Hypocritical

Gordon Brown indeed witters on again and again about 'Britishness', as did Blair's first Home Secretary David Blunkett. He discusses new ideas about 'British' bank holidays, citizenship ceremonies, flag flying, all sorts of petty nationalistic ideas which might buy him some extra time with the electorate, yet when challenged by David Davis to fight a by-election on civil liberties and their 'strangulation' he bottles it again. Surely Davis is right, that these values are quintessentially British, and to fight for them is the most British quality of all.

He added: "Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness - fundamental to Britishness is being free. He should come out and argue the case."

Why not? Unless of course Brown feels that being free means to have a surveillance society, ID cards and the hugest period of allowable time for detention without charge anywhere in the Western world...

Britain Moots Internet Regulation

It's hardly surprising from a government that thinks it knows best about everything and tries to control the electorate accordingly, but it's now mooting applying televisual standards to the internet. Excuse me? Is it not bad enough that the corporatisation of the internet is already introducing massive unwanted, unnecessary controls? Are the freedoms which the internet allows, and the likes of which have never previously been known, to be sacrificed for the sake of inhibiting truly dangerous content? Isn't that backward? Then again, this is the government that is so clued up on technology that they think ID cards are a good idea.

Except of course they have a point. The genuinely good on the internet would hardly be touched, if at all, and it would take a brave or foolish person to say that the continuing explosion of objectively dangerous and wrong internet pornography shouldn't be somehow stopped, but there's also huge swathes of grey area, which would likely be trampled by such regulation. The internet has the levelled the playing field for diversity more than any previous technology. We can understand the full spectrum of people's cultures, sexual behaviours, private lives, most personal and uninhibited thoughts. Of course this has opened the same door wide open to child abuse, fundamentalist violence, neo-Nazism and bullying. Should all those things be allowed to occur freely when we aren't remotely comfortable yet at mediating our relationship with this technology?

Of course not, but the absence of regulation also gives us the ability to question whether our national laws and national ideas are sound, by being able to see everything about the way everyone else does things. That in my mind is a freedom we mustn't even accidentally give up, driven by moral panic or not. So do require ISPs to block child porn - it's been a mystery to me why that hasn't been done for a decade or more; it's not like some places don't do it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - blocking Flickr in the Middle East has been a retrograde step, and forcing national filters on that site (which ostensibly doesn't harm anyone), for countries as close as Germany is completely wrong. For the rest we need better intelligence, better ISP, website and governmental intelligence, taking a close look at the individual cases which might cause damage to young people (for this is surely the point of regulation?) or others and deciding case-by-case what needs to be tackled and how. Big governmental decisions on this subject tend to lead to undesirable outcomes.

The Apprentice (UK) 4:12 (Spoilers)

Aaaargh. I got it wrong. I really thought Alex was going to win. He fit the description from what Alan Sugar has gone for so precisely, I'd been pretty sure it was cut and dried. Lee it was though - the cheeky chappy who lied on his CV wins the day.

Hmmph. Ah well. I'd have been happier if Claire had won out of the two of them.

A Lack of Principle

It may have started before Tony Blair took office in 1997, but New Labour sure has made the disengagement of the electorate from their elected representatives almost an art form. Sleazy financing, friendships with war criminals, launching illegal wars, privatising almost everything that moves, and of course trashing civil liberties. Gordon Brown came to power saying he'd listen, and that his would be a new government. Don't you believe it, it's more of the same bilge. Without any change in circumstances since his predecessor tried to raise the potential period of detention without charge to 90 days, Brown is now trying to raise it from 28 (already too high) to 42 days. What's deplorable is that out of what used to be a left-wing party there were only 'rebels', and now even many of them are being successfully bought off, ostensibly to shore up Brown's crumbled authority and to recast him as a strong, decisive Prime Minister, even though he's anything but.

Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, has also decided to back the government after he was given an undertaking that anyone locked up for as long as 42 days and then released without charge would receive compensation on a day-by-day basis.

I'm sorry but this is dreadful. The very basis of doing this is wrong, as former Prime Minister Sir John Major quite rightly pointed out. But it also shows no understanding of why it's wrong. Financial compensation couldn't hope to repair the damage of the destruction of someone's life without definite proof. And it's naive beyond words to think that these powers wouldn't be used abusively - even local councils now regularly abuse the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). And they're all like this - principle used to be the guide at least to most of the Labour Party, but no longer. They're more interested in voting tactically to shore the worst Prime Minister in generations up in the futile hope they'll keep their jobs in 2010. It's no wonder people aren't voting in general elections anymore

Jesus Christ, It's Iris Robinson!

As many of you already know, Democratic Unionist MP and MLP Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland's new First Minister Peter Robinson, is a died-in-the-wool, fire-and-brimstone 'born again' Christian. Well when on a phone-in radio programme last week, she was asked for her response to the news that a gay man had been viciously beaten up and left for dead. She admittedly condemned the violence, but then qualified it by saying gay people were an 'abomination', who could always seek therapy with her pet psychiatrist, because he's good at turning gay people straight! You thought crap like this left with the Paisleys? Not a bit of it. I have a considered response here, but I wanted a freer word here too.



The woman is mad, bonkers mad. When challenged on TV she followed up her earlier slurs by likening us to murderers, and then complained about a 'witchhunt' against Christians speaking out! Of course she defended that by saying 'it's not me, it's God's word, and you can't disagree with Him'. How convenient - wanton bigotry by someone in a position of power, and an argument that can't be contradicted. Her husband needs to fire her as Chair of Stormont's health committee - that if nothing else is an abomination. This is not what someone in a position of a responsibility, in a devolved government statutorily committed to equality can be allowed to bleat about. Why? Because it's bonkers, does anyone really need that explaining?

Shut up, Iris (or at least laugh at your own madness in likening gay people to murderers in front of a TV camera again - that was priceless)! If only theists knew how hilarious their rants really were.

Leave Fern Britton Alone

I don't feel quite as strongly about this, as a famous individual did about Britney, but it's still wrong that Fern Britton should feel the need to take a break from This Morning because of nervous exhaustion. As I said in my last post her body isn't the property of the public and it's certainly not the property of TV executives:

Television executives have given Britton some time off, although they are
said to be privately angry that she was not open about the operation at an
earlier stage.

It's not a programme I watch, but I hope she's back soon and doesn't feel the need to address this non-issue continually. Fern you're fabulous and always have been. Her detractors need to get some perspective - this is an unhealthy public row to have, clearly particularly for Fern.

I Heart Fern Britton

I've loved Fern Britton as a TV presenter since I was a kid. At a time when all TV presenters (and certainly news presenters) were boring and old, she made a splash on 80's BBC-training-ground 'Spotlight South West' (followed soon after by Jill Dando) and it didn't take long for BBC London to notice her. In those days she was glamorous and thin, and her popularity was full deserved. Her personality shone through in the age of Kenneth Kendall, a permanently frowny Jan Leeming and Richard Baker.

Her run as co-presenter on ITV's 'This Morning' with Phillip Schofield unexpectedly eclipsed that of her predecessor Judy Finnigan, except this time she was significantly overweight. The suspicion was that she had become a national treasure in part because of her weight, which became borne out when she recently went for her dramatic weight loss. She didn't initially reveal that she'd had gastric banding surgery and much of the tabloid press decided she'd been dishonest in some manner with her audience. Excuse me, how exactly is it her audience's business, even if she'd only told part of the story? I think Fern is as fabulous now as she was when I was then, and Lowri Turner is dead right - her appearance is her business. If she wasn't being truthful about being happy being fat, it indeed shows just how difficult her body image as a TV presenter has been for her. And how she went about her weight loss is also irrelevant - might I remind the tabloid scum that her Rivita commercials were supposed to be ironic in the first place?

What's alarming remains the suggestion that part of her popularity came from her size, that being fat and seemingly happy with it made her the safe repository for a huge proportion of her audience's insecurities, and that going thin was thus some sort of betrayal. Barbara Ellen is right here - her popularity really should only be down to her disproportionate skill as a TV presenter. I wonder if Dawn French would suddenly get it in the neck if she revealed she hated her weight and actually did something about it. What a damning indictment that would be on us. The lesson of this storm in a teacup is that yes, it is ok to be fat, yes it's ok to be slim, and that judging people for their bodies whatever their size couldn't be more out of order. And good for Fern for sticking up for herself (below).

Fern Britton
by UnrealityTV

Virgin Attacks Internet Users

The corporate world is going for a nuclear strike against internet freedom, with Virgin Media (formerly NTHell) agreeing to ban illegal downloads. They will warn their users they could be prosecuted, and will institute a 'three strikes and you're out' policy, disconnecting repeat offenders. Filesharing is one thing and using the internet for clearly illegal purposes is another (why is this being discussed for music instead of pornography - oh yes this is all about money not about the principle), but this isn't theft. Whilst I stopped going anywhere near filesharing some time ago, preferring iTunes for its ease of use, relative value for money, and to support the Apple brand, I'm also aware that musicians make no money at all out of downloads, and almost nothing worth talking about from music sales full stop. So it's a complete con when Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the BPI says:

"Virgin Media is the first ISP to publicly address the problem. It is a socially responsible ISP and I think other ISPs will look at this and see progress. I am very encouraged they have engaged with us. They understand the rights of musicians," he said.

It's got nothing at all to do with musicians' rights. If it were a rights question there would be an attempt to generally police the internet by the ISP for all sorts of activity. Why not police porn for women's rights and children's rights, or movies for actors' rights or far right websites to protect gay and ethnic minority rights? Oh right because it's not about that, it's about a cheap and nasty money grab, and we'll just blame the users yet again rather than the technology which makes it possible. Of course the BPI could adapt its entire structure to be able to deal with the new technology, but is instead chooses to languish in the past and blame its own future customers for bypassing traditional delivery systems.

It's insidious, and the BPI should concentrate on producing more music which people actually want to buy. NTHell Virgin customers should leave now if they have any sense. The company isn't liable, and allowing interference like this in how it operates is an outrage.

The Business minister, Shriti Vadera, said: "This is a very welcome first step ... to educate consumers about unlawful file sharing, which damages our vibrant economy."

It does nothing of the sort. How stupid she is, but what do you expect from an investment banker who doubles as a politician?

John McCain is a Liar

Which shouldn't shock anyone. After all this is the man who on gay rights is far further to the right than even George W Bush, who wants in all but name to walk away from the UN and fight on for another 100 years in Iraq! But the worst Republican candidate ever has also decided not to support environmental legislation, just when on the campaign trail he says he does.

Who is advising this man? There's getting off on a maverick reputation, and there's just plain stupidity. Why did he go on the 'Ellen' show? Why did he try such a petty speech on Obama's victory night and not have any idea how to deliver it? He is a failure in every conceivable regard, and if he loses in November (remember the incumbent was also a failure before being appointed elected) I wonder if this will become important:

Other influential backers of the Senate climate change bill include 13 leading US energy companies and California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Photography is not a Crime

Not a single terrorist has ever photographed their intended targets. This whole nonsense which the police in this country wilfully propagates is just that - a nonsense. Their reasons are more difficult to determine, if you assume there's much going on other than stupidity. But Bruce Schneier thinks much of the reason why it's taken hold so successfully is because it mirrors plotlines we see in the cinema. I wonder. It would take postmodernity beyond itself into almost living irony.

This Country is NUTS

Maybe one of you can explain this to me. A man wearing an Optimus Prime t-shirt was prevented from boarding a flight because the Transformers cartoon character was holding a gun. Said BAA (one of the most disreputable companies in the United Kingdom):

"If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be
asked to remove it," he said.
"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.
"If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

I simply don't see how passengers could possibly get upset by a cartoon character, but we are entering the stage where the thought police are now trying to ban drawings of things they don't like rather than just photos. Maybe this is part of the first salvo. I'm truly dumbfounded.

Sydney Pollack Dies

Really sad news. I hadn't noticed he'd been fighting cancer.

Another Bewildering Murder

Kids are killing each other in London, and it's getting to be a habit. They're shooting each other and using knives, and noone seems to be immune. And the more senseless they get, the more upset I'm feeling in response to them.

Over the weekend Robert Knox was killed. He was only 18, and had just finished shooting the new Harry Potter movie. By all accounts he was intelligent, talented and well brought up - a peacemaker. In Brown's Britain that's not in vogue, and he was stabbed to death whilst trying to protect his brother who'd been targeted in a vendetta over something as trivial as a mobile phone. Unimaginable. As a society we clearly failed Rob, we must also have failed his murderer for him to think that killing was an idea even worth having.

Is the solution to introduce harsher penalties for gun and knife possession? Maybe, I honestly don't know. There just seem to be more and more losses, and everyone seems powerless to stop them. My heart goes out to the family.

"To my big bro. As much as I used to piss you off and call you names, ask for lifts everywhere, I loved you so much and I know you didn't know it. I looked up to you so much ... I thought you were invincible."

That just made me cry.

Enough Eurovision Nonsense

This isn't so much of a new complaint as a final one. Terry Wogan is right - it's time to leave, at least for the UK. The nature of the Eurovision Song Contest has always been in flux I guess, but it's now evolved (devolved?) to be largely about voting patterns of migrant workers, and scoring regional (and by regional I mean eastern and south-eastern European) points off one another, regardless of the merits of the music. Andy Abraham is actually an extremely good singer, and you could quite easily argue that he was competing in the wrong competition last night (I think that's true), but his last-place finish was a joke. The voting for Russia was strategic (Terry kept remarking on the oil, and who's to say he was wrong?), the regional Balkan and Scandinavian voting didn't take the music into account at all,but at the end of the day despite the hideous mutual appreciation societies (Germany & Turkey anyone?), it was clear these audiences no longer listen to our stuff. We're part of a mainstream in the UK, Australasia, German and Japan, whose audiences either can't watch this show or don't vote for it. Ergo there's no further point in competing.

Gay President Delanoë?

It's a great thought about the mainstreaming of diversity, isn't it? Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë has signalled he's likely to run for the leadership of the French Socialist Party at the end of the year - if he were to win, putting him on a collision course with the hugely unpopular Nicolas Sarkozy at the next presidential election in 2012. This would be routine but for one important factor: Delanoë is gay. It's not unknown for the leaders of major cities to be gay - Klaus Wowereit in Berlin and Mayor-elect Sam Adams in Portland, Oregon are current notable fellows, but none has so far made an attempt to make the transition to the national stage.

So far Delanoë has travelled on the same path which took Boris Johnson to the top in London - that in this day and age, if you offer a certain level of professionalism, straightforwardness and accountability voters are indifferent to your background. There are hints in the UK that that trend will successfully convert to national politics, but despite currently favourable opinion polls, it remains to be seen if the same is true in France. We can but hope - Royal ran a spectacularly unfocused campaign last year against a man widely known to be a monster (who proved to be as well). France needs more competent and likable alternatives.

Gordon Clearly Doesn't Get It

Gordon Brown brings the Labour government closer to inevitable defeat, almost by the day.

Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader, acknowledged there were "discordant voices" in the party but insisted: "The overwhelming majority of people in the Labour Party – and I speak to constituency chairs up and down the country in my capacity as deputy leader – are solidly behind Gordon Brown and what he stands for, which is a strong economy and fair society. He is the man with the experience to make sure that happens."

No, he isn't. He himself contributed to the current credit crunch by building an economy on the basis of cheap credit; he encouraged us to spend irresponsibly for a decade. That was always an artifice ready to collapse at a moment's notice under the right conditions, and they're now here. Even now he and his idiot counterpart in America are trying to get us to spend, and to get the banks to revert to form, but noone's having it. And I'd love someone to tell me where this fair society is. Under his and Blair's watch, British society has become more unequal than at any time in history. It's true that poverty has been tackled, but the top end has raced away disproportionately. And this whilst Blair and Brown have wantonly ran away from civil liberties as if they didn't matter. They do, and everyone knows it. From ID cards to 42 days, to the police abusing legitimate protest and the Border Service abusing asylum seekers, this country under Brown couldn't be more unfair.

This is not at its core about high fuel prices, high energy prices or high food prices. This is about an electorate so convinced the government isn't listening that it's even prepared to look at the party which didn't listen in the past. It's a real tragedy - I remember watching Brown on 'Question Time' before Blair snatched the top job from under his nose and he was all about progressive politics. But he's so wedded to New Labour triangulation that he's unable to see that the electorate aren't just trapped between two unpalatable choices, but they're so fed with him being the one to listen least, that they're leaving him and not coming back.

The other week he tried to buy off the electorate from the 10p tax debacle, but it made no difference to his popularity. What the electorate wants is honesty and backbone. He needs to do something, not just play for short term gain, but he's like a rabbit in headlights. Even just a commitment to walking away from ID cards would make a difference, but I bet he doesn't.

Liberty vs City Police

Epic Nose Guy, the teenage Anonymous protester stopped by the City of London Police at the most recent anti-'Church' of Scientology demonstration, was told today that he won't in fact face prosecution after all. His bravery, and the conduct of the Anonymous protesters in his support, has been an example for us all. And I find it delightful that Liberty isn't letting it lie - the behaviour of the City Police was incompetent and thuggish at best, corrupt at worst, and Liberty is going to investigate what really happened.

Better Transport? Maybe...

It's interesting at a time when Gordon Brown is so weak that new, environmentally friendly transportation policies are being pushed so hard. Given this government's failings on the environment and in transport, we can only hope that they listen in the time they have left.

On the one hand we have a cable car being recommended by the Stockholm Environment Institute, University College London and the University of Wuppertal, in place of the much-derided and unwanted Thamesmead Bridge. It's a novel and worthy idea, getting neatly around the 'if you build it they will come' maxim. But of course the drawback is an existing need for some road link between the Blackwall and Dartford tunnels. Would this cut the demand for road users crossing the Thames?

The Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Sir Jonathon Porritt, said there were big question marks over the environmental and economic arguments underpinning the proposals for British airport expansion.

Yet the government and the disgraceful BAA have already dismissed its findings; hardly surprising considering the report questions the entire economic and environmental rationale for a third runway. Is the solution to this though to get the aviation industry to 'pay its part in meeting environmental costs'? I don't think so.