the cheney family guide to moral dilemnas

Today's Guardian excerpt of Mary Cheney's $1 million advance book neatly summarises how to cope with complex moral dilemnas. It's very simple - decide what your moral code is, and then ignore it anyway:

In 2004, Dick Cheney ran for re-election, with Mary as his director of operations. But how could a woman in a committed lesbian relationship work for Bush, given his backing for the Federal Marriage Amendment, outlawing same-sex marriage?

I needed to decide if I could continue working for the re-election of a president who wanted to write discrimination into the Constitution.

Given that Mary Cheney recognises the Federal Marriage Amendment for what it is, she's apparently either a) pro-discrimination or b) not that bothered because although discrimination is kinda bad, it mainly seems to be happening to people are not wealthy white women whose fathers have more money and power than the UN.

On with the fevered "struggle" of personal morals:

It wasn't an easy decision for me to make, and in the days that followed I came very close to quitting my job as director of VP operations. I spent a long time on the phone talking to Heather, who was just as troubled as I was. [...]

During the 2000 vice-presidential debate, Dad had said that he thought marriage and legal recognition of relationships was a matter for individual states to decide. He always acknowledged that President Bush ultimately sets policy for the administration, but he also made it clear that he personally did not support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Well, hopefully that deeply touching group family hug was also the equivalent of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.. what's that? It wasn't? Not at all?

Hmm.. what's the definition of a man who believes one thing and then helps campaign for another? I think it's the same word we use for a woman who justifies her participation in a campaign to elect a rabidly homophobic party by stating she disagrees so very much that all she can do is help them get elected: hyprocite.

the warming glow of fundamentalist religion

There's nothing quite so subtle as the threat of excommunication:

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said [stem cell] researchers would incur automatic expulsion under the same rules that any Catholic is excommunicated for procuring an abortion.

"Destroying human embryos is equivalent to abortion … it’s the same thing," said the Colombian cardinal.

Remember, for the Catholic Church all abortion - even those to save the mother's life, or in the event of rape or extreme, terminal birth defect - is murder. I suppose we can feel fortunate that the only punishment they can threaten is the confiscation of ultra-cool secret Catholic decoder rings.

But wait, there's more:

The cardinal singled out Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Nordic countries for "exporting" socially liberal policies, particularly granting homosexual and non-married heterosexual couples the same rights as married men and women.

"We are changing the definitions about life: male and female, father and mother are disappearing. Everyone becomes a 'partner'," he said.

Uh.. no.. the vast majority of children are born to a male and a female, who in turn occupy fairly traditional roles as mother and father. Besides, change is not the same thing as extinction - and social roles have been changing for considerably longer than since the recent recognition of those perfidious queers.

"Civil unions are a legal fiction, two people who promise each other nothing, who promise nothing to their children nor to the state but want the same rights as marriage." He said gay marriage was "absolute nothingness".

Uh... I'm pretty sure that lying - even about civil unions - is one of those sins we're hearing so much about.

blessed are the corpulent

Michael Winner, a man so insulated from the real world as to be almost totally useless:

As I’m on a diet, I’ve been eating £200 worth of beluga caviar every day for lunch. I’ve certainly stretched to £3,000 for dinner for two, including a reasonably good wine. My jackets are around £2,000 each.

I know I’m extravagant. But I couldn’t believe a recent survey by the Prudential showing that 1.4 million pensioners in Great Britain have an income of £5,000 or less each year. This means that after council tax, water and electricity bills, they’re left with only £3,092 per annum, which is £69.46 a week or £8.49 a day.

In fact, I was so astonished at how little this was that I decided to see if I could live on the food money of a real pensioner for two days. [...]

I set out with my trusted assistant, Dinah May, for my local Waitrose to see what I could get — yes, yes, I know there are cheaper supermarkets but this one was closest.

Usually, my cook does the shopping for me. Supermarkets frighten me. I don’t understand them. All those shelves and prices and then, invariably, a queue at the till to get out. [...]

For the rest of my life now, every time I eat in some grand place, every time I sample marvellously prepared food from a master chef, I’ll think of cloying sausage rolls and baked beans and sunflower spread.

I’ll see myself going round the supermarket looking not for what I want, but for the cheapest items. I’ll think of the old people who have to live like that. Who have no way out.

Those images are with me for ever now. You know, as I’m writing this, I’m crying. I really am. It’s silly, isn’t it? I should just go out and spend, spend, spend. But there are tears rolling down my cheeks. It started as a bit of a giggle. But life will never be quite the same again.

So when I take the private jet to Portofino in Italy tomorrow and lounge by the pool, the image of those less fortunate will remain with me. It won’t spoil my trip. But it will cause sober reflection. Which is no bad thing.

What a useless, patronising sack of crap. Can we have our MBE back, now?

james tait black prize awarded today..

Little to no posting today: copy-editing moutain to climb, as well as the prize ceremony for the James Tait Black. Will hopefully report on that later tonight..

the unbearable penis of being

PZ Meyers (who currently seems to my link of choice) manages to hit spider sex and fish porn in a post on the evolutionary link between survival and wang-yardage, a phrase I've been waiting far too long to use. It also contains the only dinner party line you'll ever need, as science enters your brain by stealth and naughty words:

If you have to be nimble and swift to stay alive, natural selection will cull out the males with oversized genitals.

Insert your own joke right here.

I suspect I am now to going to get some fairly strange hits through Google.

segal vs. levy: "sex is all about wanting to be objectified"

Lynne Segal's rebuttal to Ariel Levy - that sex is a "crucible of contradictions" - seems to partake in its own determinedly reductionist account of desire:

Let me share a little secret with you, something that hampers any attempt to rectify sexual behaviour: sex is all about wanting to be objectified, wanting to be the object of another's desire, another's gaze (even if, like a traditional straight man, we pretend that this is not the case). However, it is about wanting to gain this attention in ways that are reasonably safe from risk, harm or hurt - except, perhaps, for when these are the very things that turn us on.

That Segal might see sex like this is no guarantee that it's the experience of everyone else. It is, neo-academics, an almost classical Freudian/Lacanian account of desire that manages to ignore how such a relationship is also a relationship of power.

Put plainly, there is a rather large difference between wanting to be desired and wanting to be objectified or, rather, that it might be a cause for concern to discover that you can only become desirable by becoming a certain kind of object - a point which seems to inform much of Levy's argument. Wanting to be desirable is one thing; accepting a pre-given, narrow cultural definition of desirability and calling it empowerment is another entirely.

2nd Carnival Against Sexual Violence

Carnival Against Sexual Violence #2 is now up at abyss2hope, with a range of interesting posts - the best of those I've read so far is If You Can't Ask For It, You Shouldn't Be Doing It.

quis custodiet ipsos bastardes

When the government says "Freedom of Information," it doesn't actually mean "freedom" of "information". From The Guardian:

An influential committee of MPs will today condemn proposals by Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, to limit the use of the government's new Freedom of Information Act only 18 months after it became law. [...]

The MPs were critical instead of the delays by many departments in replying, within a 20-day deadline for an information request and the huge backlog of cases awaiting a decision by Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, on whether the government had been right to withold information from the public.

And then The Independent:

A secretive Whitehall department set up by the Government to handle sensitive and difficult requests under the new Freedom of Information Act is itself in breach of the new legislation, a parliamentary committee says.

The so-called "clearing house" brought in by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, shortly before the new laws took force in January 2004 has refused to release information about its activities.

Quite wonderful: so terrified is the government of the weak provisions in its very own FOI act that it's trying to reduce them further while concealing how it handles what little information it releases.

Anyone else just brimming with confidence right about now? Any politicians want to grow a spine and make accountability an issue again, refusing to take "I must stay on to fix my fuck-up" (aka the Charles Clarke defence) for an answer?

ordinary people to blame for decline in family life (part 2)

The Daily Mail's claim that a "decline in morals is eroding family life" depends quite heavily on ignoring the survey which the article is based on. It's an exercise in redistributing blame that never quite manages to point the finger in the obvious direction:

The traditional family unit is in meltdown due to plunging moral values and the rise of single parents, according to a survey of mothers. Nine in ten claim there has been a "breakdown in family life in Britain today", with the demise of the family meal and the rising popularity of video games among the worst culprits for driving rifts in the nuclear family. [..]

Most blame the Government for fuelling the breakup, with almost two thirds claiming that Labour "doesn't like traditional family set-ups and seems to favour single parents and working mums".

A quarter of mothers reported that the traditional family structure is under attack from the increasing numbers of unmarried couples and same sex parents.

Fans of reading will notice that the traditional monsters of unmarried, single and gay couples still enjoy prime position even though fewer than a quarter of respondents said they were responsible for the breakdown of family life. Even "ready meals and fast food" (25%) were rated more damaging to famliy life than same-sex parents (23%).

A glance at the top of the list of culprits, however, will tell you that it's the decisions that ordinary people make in their lives that are leading to the so-called decline of the family.  The top two results - not eating together and television - aren't directly moral issues, any more than choosing ITV over BBC or white bread over brown is a moral issue. It would be interesting to hear the reasons why families don't eat together - whether it's due to work commitments which keeps one or both parents out of the home, or simply because it's fallen out of fashion. The second is a much easier problem to fix - and at 72% of respondents leaves every other reason standing.

The idea that our morals are being eroded by video game consoles and television is ridiculous - as if neither device comes with an off switch, or cost money to buy in the first place. Worried that your children are spending too much time watching TV and playing games in their room? Then don't let them have a TV and playstation in their room. Think that the internet (19%) is a problem? Exercise some parental supervision and stop whining. Arguing that peer pressure forces parents' hands every time is a route to abandoning all responsibility - arguing that it's always someone else's problem.

It's also hard to frame "working mothers" (41%) as a moral issue - unless you assume that every woman who works does so for her own pleasure, regardless of the impact on her family (invisible husband, notwithstanding).

That economic realities might prevent familes from spending time together is a persuasive argument for change in our culture - however, it's also an argument that has exceptionally little to do with the dreaded queers, dangerous immigrants or even Grand Theft Auto. While it might serve the Mail's agenda to fabricate a moral crisis where one doesn't really exist, it doesn't help families who are feeling disconnected: it just gives everyone someone else to blame.

(part one of the ordinary attack on values is here)

EDIT: The Telegraph covers the same survey, but without reaching for the moral outrage.

absolutely shameless, I know

Oh, and in case anyone's concerned about the prospect of an influx of ads, I'll be recommending books very sparingly. Remember, your clicking love may one day pay for me to have a coffee.

EDIT: I really didn't mean that to sound like a reference to beetle-sex, but sometimes these things are unavoidable.

queer biology kick

While we're dabbling in the nature-nurture debate, why not try:

party like it's 1534: schism update

This is exactly what a schism looks like:

Dr Rowan Williams warned church leaders that there was "no way" the Anglican communion could survive the crisis unchanged. He said that he favours a new system where churches in the 70 million-strong communion could opt to form a "covenant" where they made a formal commitment to each other.

Those unwilling to join the covenant could choose to become "churches in association" which were still bound by historic links but did not share the same constitutional structures, he suggested. The relationship between the two types of province would be not unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, he said.

I presume by historical links that they mean that Jesus dude. I also think that we all need to work on cooler names for the new separate communions than "constituent" and "associated", when what we actually mean is "conservative fundamentalists" and "that other one with the women and queers." Sadly, "the Sharks and the Jets" has already been taken. Your suggestions, please..

(bonus marks for anyone who gets the 1534 reference)

biology and normality: more fun with queers

Here's some more research suggesting that homosexuality has a strong biological component:

Scientists in Canada have discovered that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, but only when these brothers are true biological siblings.

The link between having older brothers and homosexuality has long been established, but the new findings indicate firmly that conditions in the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, are responsible. [...]

The increased chance of homosexuality applied even where men had older full brothers who had been raised separately in a different home, offering further evidence for a biological effect.

"Only biological older brothers (reared with or not) and no other sibling characteristic predicted men's sexual orientation," Dr Bogaert said. "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth order effect, then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not."

I'm waiting to see if PZ Meyers has any theory how this might fit into his previous discussion of homosexuality as a evolutionary trait; it will also be interesting to read the responses of biologists (and cultural theorists) who have argued in favour of nurture: absent fathers and dominant mothers, oh my. I'm also suprised we haven't seen a "gay babies" tabloid backlash.

I'm deeply ambivalent (hah) about the impact of this kind of research, not least because it frequently leads to the "it's biology and therefore natural, so gay people are normal now" line of argument. I'm simply not interested in a "just as natural as thou" contest because it under-estimates the nature of prejudice at work here. Think that perfectly "natural" biological difference - being black, or a woman - isn't the basis of prejudice in the modern world?

The struggle to claim "natural" as the basis for the legitimacy of gay people is tied up in the same problems that surround normal: you end up buying into existing myths of essentialism, pleading to be accepted by the status quo without ever challenging how difference is put together in the first place. I'm also concerned that few people realise how deeply unpersuasive the biological origin argument for homosexuality can be - when the most fervent queer-bashers take pride in faith-based prejudice, no amount of science is going to change their minds. So, while it's very interesting science, I think it has a limited political use in confronting prejudice.

Thoughts?

post bag

A sample of the some of the email that I get sent:

You have to take your hat off to the person who penned the theory of Evolution. It is really amazing. Over the years we have had the Piltdown Man hoax, photographs of  fairies hoax  which was  supported by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, crop circles hoaxes, alien corpse at Roswell hoax, and the joker in the pack, the theory of Evolution. Scientists examined the Piltdown Man, and it was evident that the skull was a fraud. But where are the evidences, the missing links, the
proof to support the theory of Evolution  -  there are none.
  
For over a hundred years people have been searching for the proof - you would have thought if there was proof it would have been found by now.
  
For over a decade people have been offering large sums of money ($1m) to anyone who finds the proof - to date no one has claimed the money.

This argument is only compelling if you are entirely ignorant of.. well.. just about everything to do with evolution. I particularly enjoy how the Piltdown Man, the fairy photographs and Roswell corpse have been found lacking because of a lack of supporting scientific evidence and/or clear evidence of fraud - rather than through faith-based investigations. Yet somehow, this use of logic is argument against the use of logic: the theory evolution is persuative because of the morass of supportive evidence. The fact that faith-based theories have no evidence at all is merely the sign of incredibly assymetric grounds for doubt.

Oh, and in a display of irony that threatens to destroy all previous record attempts, this email - from an evangelical activist group - was also titled "How Gullible Are People?"

pope rocks out (to medieval chants)

The great moderniser speaks:

The Pope has demanded an end to electric guitars and modern music in church and a return to traditional choirs. [...] "It is possible to modernise holy music," the Pope said, at a concert conducted by Domenico Bartolucci the director of music at the Sistine Chapel. "But it should not happen outside the traditional path of Gregorian chants or sacred polyphonic choral music."

So that's modern and yet strictly traditional Gregorian chants, like all the cool kids listen to. No contradictions there, nosirree.

The Pope's supporters argue that the music played during Mass is a vital part of the communion between worshippers and God, and that medieval church music, with the liturgy, creates the correct ambience for perceiving God's mystery.

Correct ambience? Holiness requires mood music? Presumaby the theory is that hearing people chant in a dead language that you can't understand puts you in exactly the right frame of mind to believe any old bollocks in a language that you can understand.

Let me be the first to register no suprise at all that the soundtrack to Pope Benedict's Church is the medieval period: famous for awesome religious power fostered by fear and ignorance.

ariel levy interviewed..

Ariel Levy (of Feminist Chauvinist Pigs) is being interviewed on Radio 4's Today Programme right now: check for the lead interview download later this morning.

partial freedom of speech

ABSaaSC explores just what the Daily Mail means when it defends freedom of speech and lambasts "politically correct" discourse: watch your language. Ah, the illicit thrill of hypocrisy unveiled..

instant educational anxiety

Here's a speedy account of our gendered expectations regarding education:

1. Intellectual pursuits seen as acceptable, but potentially unmasculine; a class niche.
2. Women gradually enter education, and begin to do well at all levels.
3. Women begin to match or out-achieve men in some subjects; assume roles as educators in greater numbers.
4. Previous fear about feminine quality of study gains credence from apparent success of women - to be academically successful is to be like a woman, or merely less manly.
5. Creation of all new generation of masculine anxiety over study and rejection of intellectualism.

How's that for instant cultural analysis: gloriously oversimplified, no? Where are the problems?

educational crisis mortal combat: boys v girls

Here's an interesting theory for the supposed crisis of boys in education: boys aren't getting worse, it's just that girls are getting better, faster. From the Washington Post:

Using data compiled from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federally funded accounting of student achievement since 1971, the Washington-based think tank Education Sector found that, over the past three decades, boys' test scores are mostly up, more boys are going to college and more are getting bachelor's degrees.

Although low-income boys, like low-income girls, are lagging behind middle-class students, boys are scoring significant gains in elementary and middle school and are much better prepared for college, the report says. It concludes that much of the pessimism about young males seems to derive from inadequate research, sloppy analysis and discomfort with the fact that although the average boy is doing better, the average girl has gotten ahead of him.

"The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse," the report says, "it's good news about girls doing better."

Just how much of this panic has been driven by the implicit expectation that boys should be "ahead"?

The study's comparison of the improvement of pupil achievement in the US may well have parallels in the UK. For example, from the US study:

According to the report, reading achievement by 9-year-old boys increased 15 points on a 500-point scale between 1971 and 2004, and girls that age increased seven points, remaining five points ahead of boys. Reading achievement for 13-year-olds improved four points for boys and three points for girls, with girls 10 points ahead. Among 17-year-olds, there was almost no change in reading achievement, with girls up one point, boys down one point and girls 14 points ahead.

So improvements in both sexes with girls remaining ahead, right? Now a much smaller UK example, from the National Statistics office:

Throughout the UK in 2003/04, a markedly higher proportion of females (59.3 per cent) achieved 5 or more GCSE grade A*-C. This compares with 49.2 per cent of males.

Great Britain figures from 1993/94 reveal a similar pattern, with 48.2 per cent of females and 39.2 per cent of males achieving the same standard. This difference in achievement can be seen across all the countries and regions of the UK. In 2003/04, the gap between female and male success was the greatest in Northern Ireland, and the smallest in Scotland.

So we have improvement of both male and female pupils - but female pupils improving marginally faster. The claim that male pupils are being "left behind" is based on the widening gap of achievement, even though male pupils are still improving substantially year on year. Further complicating the picture is the knowledge that there are also significant variations by subject and geographical region - and, as ever and most significantly, social background.

It would be very interesting to look at the UK data over a much longer period as this is obviously only a brief snapshot - but one that tells a story quite different from the simple claim of male crisis.

Another thing to do when I've finished my thesis.. :)

the politics of choosiness

It's a fine day for the politics of choosiness, with Angela Phillips picking a fight over the alleged over-provision of places at single-sex girls' schools and the BMA releasing a survey of public opinion that shows people don't feel they are being offered choice in the NHS.

Phillips' piece highlights the frantic activity of parents trying to get their child into the best available school in their area - which in turn suggests the pointlessness of the government's emphasis on choice in education. In a system with a finite number of places in a finite number of schools, the ability of one family's "right to choose" is going to be bordered pretty damn sharply by the equal right of another family's. Even then, the kind of choice on offer will depend on where you live or can afford to move.

The most recent education reforms have attempted to vault that problem, promising parents the ability to choose "between good schools": a promise that manages to ignore how choice between schools is only a significant issue when schools are not equally good. When you're fighting to get into a good school or struggling to stay out of the local sink-establishment, the issue of "choice" is academic. Offer all parents access to good schools and the desirability of choice largely evaporates.

Similarly, the BMA's deliberately provocative poll on NHS choice underlines how the definition of "choice" exists first and foremost in the minds of the department of health - and that when it does reach the public it can mean something quite different. While central policy funds attempts to offer choice of hospital:

At the start of the year, patients were given a choice of at least four hospitals, one of which could be a private centre, for non-emergency surgery. This was expanded last month to include 32 foundation hospitals - run by elite NHS trusts which have been freed from Whitehall control - and 15 private clinics specialising in minor NHS surgery.

..patients are unsuprisingly more interested in when the treatment is going to happen at all:

Mr Johnson said ministers had been wrong to place so much emphasis on hospitals when in many areas the question of choice was academic as there was only one local hospital. In the poll, 69% of people said choice was very important in relation to "having a say in things generally" and "timing of treatment" - compared to 50% who cited the place of treatment.

Mr Johnson said: "There is clearly an appetite among the public to be given choice and for having a say in the NHS: in particular for those who have long-term conditions. But I think they [the government] were wrong to place the emphasis of choice on hospitals."

Still, a fine day for the politics of choosiness - that is, the politics of the illusion of choice.

the myths of single-sex education

Reports that single-sex education makes no difference to the achievement of pupils are only suprising if you assume that there's a universal divide between men and women which touches all part of our lives. There's an important distinction to be made here between common traits and universal traits - and cultural expectations versus essential qualities - that agitators over the supposed feminisation of boys by our education system frequently choose to ignore.

Least suprising of should be the revelation that "most parents seem to be looking for a good school regardless of its gender mix" - suggesting that gender panic lives mainly in the minds of the socially conservative media. If parents aren't worried, why should anyone else be?

evidence-based teaching and the tiny, tiny dinosaurs

A lovely Creationist letter in The Times:

Sir, Regarding the insistence of scientists that evidence-based teaching be the main thrust of education on how current life-forms came to be, let us not forget that certain assumptions are made which are beyond our ability to prove.

[Very true - though I'd add 'so far' to the end of that sentence, and point out that teaching that's not based on evidence has.. well.. no reliable evidence to support it all.]

If we assume the Big Bang theory and evolution are correct (there is evidence to support them though they are currently only scientific best guess), there are still many questions.

[Also true. Science is an expanding field of enquiry which develops as new evidence allows us to test, gain evidence for or reform accepted knowlege. Unlike religion, which is not evidence based. A best scientific guess which looks more and more accurate with every passing year of research is also preferable to a religious guess which has no basis for accuracy at all.]

Can we be confident nothing has affected the rate of expansion of the universe or the change of this rate? Is there evidence to show nothing affects the size of remains over millions of years that we might question the size of dinosaurs? What makes a species come up with strategies to solve the problems of its environment so quickly?

[I'm not sure what these rhetorical questions have in common - or how the possibility of differen evidence-based opinions makes logic and evidence free religion as or more reliable. Is there a tiny dinosaur Creationist myth?]

There is surely enough uncertainty in questions such as these (look at how estimates vary on the age of the universe) to suggest we ought to allow both science and religion to have their say.

[Does.. not... compute. Because science is evidence based and capable of self-critique and reform, religion - which is not - should carry equal weight? I'd like to volunteer the author of this letter to be an engineer at the first "faith-based" nuclear reactor.]

It is impossible to deduce with certainty even the major happenings in time unexperienced by man, merely by testing at one point in time.

*groan*

The fact that science doesn't have all the answers is not an argument that religious belief does or - more specifically, that science's expanding roster of evidence (which allows thinking to be continuously tested) is the equivalent of religion's total absence of evidence.

your monday melanie phillips fisking

Melanie Phillips' favourite rhetorical device of late is to claim that the world as we know it has been turned upside down. It's the starting point of both of her most recent columns (human rights law ".. has turned our most fundamental values on their heads.." and equality law has "turned our very understanding of prejudice and discrimination inside-out") and features heavily elsewhere in her work. The intention is clear: to polarise opinion between ordinary common sense and crazy, back-to-front liberalism. It's entertaining, but shallow.

For this to work, Phillips has to reduce, oversimplify and sometimes fabricate details - as in today's attack on human rights legislation:

[T]he idea that this country had no human rights — like fair trials or freedom of speech — before the European Convention was drafted just after World War II is clearly absurd. Our traditions of justice and liberty are ingrained in British history. Indeed, it was our lawyers who drafted the Convention.

But that very act of codifying rights into law is nevertheless foreign to the foundation of English liberty, the common law. This holds that everything is permitted unless it is prohibited. European law, by contrast, holds that the only behaviour that is permitted is what is written into statute. Human rights law thus actually diminishes liberty.

First, Phillips invents a straw-man - that we didn't have fair trials in the past - and the proceeds to knock it down, claiming that we have justice in Europe because British lawyers invented it. Presumably these are different lawyers from those that Phillips lambasts for interfering with our lives.

Phillips then proceeds to the idea that European law (without distinction between the Convention on Human Rights and anything arising quite separately from the EU) proceeds by listing permissions: an outrageous claim which is deeply misleading if not wholly false.

Even if we restrict her meaning to the Convention on Human Rights, that document does not define limited permissions for activity. Instead, it offers the grounds for individuals to challenge the role of government in their lives by enumerating certain basic freedoms: it is a means for individuals to address the shortcomings of public ( i.e. state) bodies.

Phillips may be echoing a rather older objection that appeared to the US Bill of Rights, that enumerating certain freedoms might lead someone to claim that they form an exclusive, limited list - but that argument too depends on a misreading of the Convention. The claim that human rights law "diminishes liberty" also depends on a belief that the rights of the individual are the same thing as the tyranny of the minority over the majority - another favourite Phillips meme.

Similarly, the claim that such law favours the criminal over the victim ignores the fact that most of the rights described in the convention are informed and qualified by the need for public protection - and that some of the more significant changes brought about by the convention have protected the rights of the victim, as in changes to protect rape victims from lengthy and degrading cross-examinations at the hands of those accused of attacking them.

Phillips chooses to reverse the function of the Convention by emphasising the minority of cases where, to follow another of her memes, judgments have interfered with the right of the UK government to deport criminals who pose a threat to national security i.e. the rights of the many have been overruled by the (criminal) few.

Even so, the oblique references to alleged abuses of human rightts legislation depend on a paucity of boring detail for their impact: the infamous story that the Human Rights Act forced prisons to supply hard core pornography to a convicted serial killer is defanged, for example, by the knowledge that although such a claim was made it was rejected by the court of appeal (Morton v Governor of HMP Long Lartin [2003] EWCA 644 Civ, I think).

The fact that the majority of those gaining the benefits of human rights legislation are wholly innocent of any crime (and not even under investigation) disapears into the ether. The notion of broadly positive outcomes for ordinary law-abiding people (or indeed any positive outcomes at all) is rejected for the simplistic claim that human rights legislation makes us less free.

The problem with confronting Phillips rhetoric is that you end up mirroring her arguments - either accepting her limited terms for debate or creating your own piece of polemic. The rather larger problem, however, is that reforming international human rights law requires more than that kind of empty posturing.

Phillips' challenge to Cameron's plan to "entrench" a British bill of rights is important - not least because it raises questions about the ability of future generations to practice future reform; it's also nice to hear her challenge the "excesses of government," though its soured by the presumption that such excess is the domain of dangerous Europeans and not our own more localised political culture - and more importantly, a blindness to the forms of government intervention that she heartily approves of.

"the last true feminist" is a man called nigel

The Telegraph's Nigel Farndale decides that he's "the last true feminist." No, really.

It's a spectacularly ill-informed column that's a little like being lectured by an elderly uncle, who makes up words for concepts that he's sure no-one else has thought of. While it's nice that Farndale is uneasy about the uncomplicated claim on pole-dancing and breast-enlargement as the tools of liberation, he's hardly the first person to think that: for many feminists, that concern has always existed.

It's certainly not a radical departure for feminism, unless you assume the media's stunted version of the movement to be the norm. Which he does. Sadly, Farndale takes a minimum of knowledge about feminism and then dribbles lightly into his pipe:

I suppose this new feminism can be seen as part of a continuum that began with the militant feminists of the 1970s, the ones who said there was no need for men, and progressed to the "lipstick feminism" of Natasha Walter - she who argued that it was acceptable for women to want to be feminine.

[A continuum of forms of feminism which strongly contradict each other? Not really much of a continuum, then. Oh, and bravo for the misleading reductivist accounts of just about everyone.]

There is going to be a Guardian debate on the meaning of the new feminism at London's City University tomorrow night and that might shed some light on this. Promisingly, one of the speakers will be an American feminist writer who has come up with the term "female chauvinist pigs". But we shall see.

I'm sure feminists everywhere are waiting for Farndale's approval of the event: only with his blessing can feminism move forward.

The "promising" American feminist writer is, of course, Ariel Levy - author of Female Chauvinist Pig - and whose name apparently doesn't warrant a mention, even though a cursory Google would reveal a mountain of argument and debate over her work - and a slightly smaller mountain pointing out how it's a contemporary extension of existing feminist thought.

Instead, Farndale decides that you should never send a woman to do a feminist's work:

Perhaps the last true feminists are men like me who want to complain when they see those giant billboards around London advertising Spearmint Rhino, but daren't for fear of being cast as killjoys.

Mix in a little loathing of women's bodies that don't suit his tastes ("One [Big Brother] housemate in particular has Zeppelin breasts that are repulsive to behold, and, probably, to hold as well") and we're done.

For the record, ignorance is not bliss.

admin

I've added a TTLB ranking to the side-bar: ignore it for now, as it'll take a few days to callibrate. It's part of an ongoing attempt to find out when people are linking to me, as I keep missing interesting conversations elsewhere.

catholic church versus amnesty international: considerably more holier than thou?

Via Alternet (and Feministing), the news that the Vatican has picked a fight with Amnesty International:

London-based Amnesty, founded by Catholic lawyer Peter Benenson in 1961, has begun consulting its 2 million members around the world on whether it should drop its neutral stance on abortion and start pushing countries to repeal laws that make abortion a crime.

"I have great esteem for Amnesty but doing this, they cut off their hands. I hope they don't do this because if they do, they are disqualified as defenders of human rights," Cardinal Renato Martino told Reuters in an interview during a visit to Singapore.

It's quite hard to stomach "disqualification" from human rights activities from a religion that, for example, concealed child abusers and attempted to buy the silence of their victims.

That aside, the fact remains that abortion rates are much, much higher in countries where abortion is illegal, as are the number of deaths (of mother and foetus) due to complications. While I'm not about to simply confuse correlation and causation, experience has shown that that the main impact of banning abortion isn't to bring down the rate but instead drive women to seek it from unsafe sources.

It's also not a coincidence that the criminalisation of abortion frequently exists in regions without reliable access to contraception: the one thing that might realisiically reduce the need for abortion and coincidentally item number two on the list of things the Catholic Church wants to ban.

It seems strange that a Church committed to a principal that currently causes more suffering and leaves more dead than the alternatives can accuse others of being unqualified to talk about human rights. Hmm..

fun with parasites

Via Slog, a story of the gentle, everyday mind-controlling parasites who live in half of the world's population:

For the vast majority of people, Toxoplasma causes no serious effects. It manages this feat by hijacking the body's cells and immune system, and establishing a careful harmony between parasite and host. "Once you get infected with Toxoplasma, you're infected for life," Kasper said. [...]

For decades, most scientists believed that people with healthy immune systems had no effects from Toxoplasma. But some studies in recent years have hinted that the parasite can exert surprising effects on behavior, at least in animals.

In 2000, British scientists demonstrated that rats infected with Toxoplasma lost their fear of cats. They proposed that this strategy increased the parasite's chances of getting into its final host.

Scientists at Stanford University recently followed up on these experiments, studying rats and mice. "They actually show a mild attraction to the cat odor," said Ajai Vyas, a Stanford neurobiologist. "It's not just the loss of an old behavior. A new behavior is being induced."

It's an area of intriguing - if not too easily alarmist - research that reminded me of a Dan Dennett lecture I heard a few months ago: he talked about a variety of parasites (including the lancet fluke) before suggesting parasitic infestation as a metaphor for powerful memes.

In other words, have you had your anti-religious-fundamentalist shots yet? :)

scottish exec to criminalise kerb-crawling

New legislation criminalising kerb-crawling is to be "pushed through" the Scottish Parliament. It's a significant development because it offers some balance to a system which has previously criminalised women for "soliciting" and men for the lesser crimes of breaching the peace.

It's not clear from the Scotsman's coverage whether the charge of soliciting will be abolished, as suggested when the legislation was first discussed last November. If those plans have remained intact then the new offence will be of causing "nuisance or harm" while trying to buy or sell sex. I'll link to the draft bill as soon as it's available.

The full statement outlining the upcoming legislative programme at the Scottish Parliament can be found here. In particular, I notice that mention of "The Adoption & Children Bill" passes without detail of why it will be one of the most strongly contended bills: the prospect of same-sex couples being able to adopt.

paying for other people's children?: tax allowances for married couples

Tom Utley's Daily Mail column chooses the least convincing argument for tax-allowances for "stay-at-home mums": it's unfair that he should have to pay the full cost of the four children he's chosen to have.

It's actually a little more specific - it's unfair that his wife is not rewarded for all the work that he and his children create for her. The fact that he and his children are the main beneficiary of that unmarked work doesn't really feature:

In my case, this was partly for the selfish reason that my wife was a stay-at-home mum for the best part of 20 years, looking after our four boys. That was before she was driven back to work last year by the parlous state of our finances.

If she had not been my wife but my secretary, typing for me eight hours a day, five days a week, she would have had a tax-free personal allowance that currently stands at £5,035.

That would have been a great help to our family. But since she was (and remains) my wife, attending to every need of the five selfish males in our household — 16 hours a day, seven days a week — she was entitled to nothing. Every penny that came her way had to be found from my fully taxed income.

That his parlous financial state might have been caused by the decision to have four children also passes without comment.

He then switches to the more traditional (and much more persuasive) argument - that our culture and economy might benefit from successful people who are most likely to be the product of "stable homes" and "who are turning the wheels of the economy, and financing the welfare state."

However, Utley then offers his own (tongue in cheek) contradictions to this simple model of pragmatism:

I must tread carefully here because one of my sisters is a single mum — and I admit that her daughter is an absolute model of everything a child should be: polite, intelligent, musical, sweet-natured... she is a lot less likely than any of my four unruly sons to end up behind bars. But I hope and believe that even they will become useful members of society one day.

Simply being a single mother is not the sign of either personal failure - or the promise of future generations of social incompetents who will be little more than an economic burden, to use the heartwarming language of the Mail.

At the very least, there's the recognition here that the social environments that create "succesful" and "productive" members of society is a little more complicated than a group of parents greater than one. Why will Utley's sister's daughter "succeed" where other sons and daughters of single parents will "fail"?

The point that I'm getting at is that any pragmatic reward of the two parent family needs to be just that, particularly when government subsidy is involved. Families, even two parent ones, are not homogenous and we need to be careful to confuse the apparent success of the two parent families with romantic or stereotypical expectations, particularly when we know that the relative level of education of parents can be as (or even more) influential in the future paths of their children.

David Cameron's tentative proposals are interesting because they seem to resist a straightforward line between traditional marriage and The Social Good. Rather than making a commitment to tax and marriage, Cameron has suggested transferable tax allowances to married couples — and couples in civil partnerships — with young children.

In the past, such a relationship has argues for the financial reward of marriage regardless of children, perhaps unfairly over other forms of long-term commitment which are no less valuable: children who care for their parents or siblings, siblings who co-habit, multi-generational households where grand-parents are involved in child-care etc. etc.

If we're genuinely interested in promoting social cohesion in a time when more and more people choose to live alone, or raise children outside of a relationship, then maybe we need to widen our sense of socially functional families when we consider the issue of tax relief. Simply arguing that "marriage is best" isn't a strategy that has had any success.

light posting today

Very busy today - seeing friends off to the airport, editing, proof-reading - so light posting. But tell me, what are you reading today?

unravelling the abortion debate

Media coverage of the recent calls for debate over abortion limits has been marked by a persistent failure to recognise an underlying distaste for all abortion as the primary motivation for change in the law. The result is that the "debate", such as it exists, has been unclear, misleading or plain dishonest.

The central problem is that claims to the health of women and foetal viability are entirely irrelevant if the underlying moral position is that abortion is murder. Though polls indicate there is a public interest in hardening access to abortion, that desire for regulation can most definitely not be simply reads the desire for a ban, or restrictions approaching a ban.

Yet the mainstream press curently seems unable to consciously differentiate between arguments based in complex ethical decisions (would this foetus survive birth?) and those based in simple moral condemnation (abortion is murder). The result is that the arguments for change in abortion limits don't seem to make much sense, shifting between moral and medical arguments even though the medical arguments have little to do with the moral case against abortion advanced by the Catholic Church.

Put more simply, not everyone arguing for a restriction in late-term abortion is actually interested in a reduction in late-term abortion: it is, instead, the means of advancing a rather more fundamental agenda. Late-term abortion is a wedge issue by which further curtailments on access might be achieved.

Though the interest in reducing the abortion limit is framed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as a moral awakening, that awakening is actually given as a "public revulsion" at pictures of a 12 week old foetus moving in the womb. However, no-one is arguing that the abortion limit should be moved to 11 weeks.

Instead, we have a mash of moral anguish and arguments about foetal viability, with one MP going as far as to claim on the BBC that "We are talking about fully-formed babies here that can exist outside the womb at that stage." This is, to put it mildy, a misrepresentation of the facts.

Though an argument can indeed be made that many more babies are surviving premature births now than in the past, that same research shows that a substantial majority do not survive and that a large proportion suffer from significant disability:

Yesterday Dr Huseyin Mehmet, of Imperial College London, who runs a neurobiological research clinic at Hammersmith Hospital, said advances over the past 16 years mean many more babies survive after very premature birth.

"At 23 weeks, ten per cent of babies survive," he added. "Although of that ten per cent a high proportion have very severe disability. At 24 weeks, around 25 per cent will survive and go home, and half of those will have a chance of a good quality of life."

Crucially, and even though the demand for fresh discussion is centred on access to late-term abortion, the primary argument for new restrictions from the Catholic Church is based on an objection to all abortion.

The rhetorical difference I'm trying to spell out here is that changing the abortion limit on the grounds of foetal viability has nothing to do with the moral argument that abortion is murder. If all life is sacred, then the question of week limits is moot. As LIFE opined yesterday:

Anyway, there is no moral distinction between early human life (up to 12 weeks) and later human life (12 weeks to term). A 12-year-old is not morally more valuable than a 5-year-old. Bigger is not better. The 5-year-old is no less human than the older child, and indeed, is more deserving of our care because younger and more vulnerable. [...]

Viability is irrelevant. It is a measure of doctors' skill in sustaining premature babies - not of their moral worth.

The loudest voices demanding a restriction in late-term abortion are motivated by an objection to all abortion; to LIFE's credit, they have shown no interest in the misdirection toward medical science being presented (sometimes unwittingly) by critics of abortion - they are, at the very least, honest in their objections.

If this "debate" is going to have any value, then we need to be very careful about accepting arguments of best medical practice - which in raising the question of viability recognises a complex ethical situation - as support for the advancement of absolute moral positions.

corrected link to evaluation of rape law reforms

I accidentally linked to the original Home Office report on reforming rape law yesterday - the new report, which evaluates the impact of limiting sexual histories in rape trials, can be found here (pdf). The abstract gives an indication of the scale of the study - and of the institutional problem:

This report presents the findings of research commissioned in 2002 to examine the operation and impact of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which was intended to control the introduction of evidence about the complainant’s previous sexual behaviour in sex offence trials.

The research tracked nearly 240 rape cases coming before the Crown Courts in England and Wales in 2003. The researchers also looked at 170 Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) rape case files, observed over 30 rape trials, examined Home Office statistical data and analysed recent reported Court of Appeal decisions. They also interviewed judges, barristers, CPS lawyers, complainants, police officers and those involved with supporting victims.

I'll be posting my own thoughts when I've had a chance to read it.

fresh "debate" on late-term abortions

The debate over abortion time limits raises its head today - though quite how you can have a full debate about access to abortion with people fundamentally opposed to abortion is slightly unclear. Here's hoping we can get beyond the usual reductionist posturing.

The BBC has a selection of different viewpoints, though not all of them appear to address the issue at hand.

However - and moving quickly past LIFE's combination of fundamentalism ("human rights begin when human life begins - at fertilisation" - which make nature the greatest abortionist of them all) and gross misrepresentation ("Women don't want abortion") - let's ask a Professor of Foetal Medicine what he thinks:

I would have concerns over reducing the time limit for abortions because of the potential impact on diagnosing abnormalities later on in pregnancy.

When considering the limits, we must take into account the stage of pregnancy where we can diagnose major fetal abnormalities. Less than a third of serious problems become obvious before 11 or 12 weeks.

You wouldn't diagnose abnormalities sufficiently well before 12 weeks. And you would remove the 'luxury' of seeing how things evolve.

So if you did see something at that early stage which led you to suspect an abnormality - and there was a lower time limit on when abortions could be carried out - decisions would have to be made immediately, without knowing whether the fetus was actually affected by an abnormality.

Reducing the time limit on abortions will reduce the informed choices that women (and men) will be able to take. Though it will affect a very small number of women - around 1% of those seeking abortions - it will impact on those in the most difficult circumstances, where women are unaware that they are pregnant, where young women are concealing their pregnancies, and where significant abnormalities develop beyond the first stages of pregnancy. To simply claim that ending late-stage abortion is "more ethical" is misleading.

The important thing to recognise here is that the argument for medical advances supporting fetal viability put forward by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and others has nothing to do with the reasons why women seek late stage abortion, and why medical professionals agree they should continue to have access to it.

gender stereotyping and rape justice: myths and facts

More news on the abuse of rape trial proceedings by barristers. From The Times:

"Findings from case files, trial observations and interviews raise the possibility that both prosecution and defence share stereotypical assumptions about 'appropriate' female behaviour and that these continue to play a part when issues of credibility are addressed in rape cases."

Defence lawyers still used evidence and "rhetorical devices" to impugn the character of rape victims and make their testimony less credible. They were often unchallenged by the prosecution or judge.

This would be what we'd call "institutionalised bias." I don't want to quote much more because the article - by Richard Ford - is very worth clicking through to read in full, not least because it seems to be written by someone who has actually read the Home Office report.

The most useful part, though, is the short list of rape myths which should be kept to hand for future, trollish arguments:

THE MYTHS

1. Rape usually committed by strangers
2. Real rape happens at night, outside and involves a weapon
3. There are always injuries to the woman who is the victim of a rape
4. Anyone facing rape or being raped will resist their attacker
5. Women "ask for it" by their dress, behaviour, or taking risks
6. All victims react in exactly the same way after they have been attacked and raped
7. A rape victim will report the attack promptly

THE FACTS

1. Mainly committed by men known to the victim
2. Rape happens at any time, most commonly indoors, involving coercion
3. Minority of reported rapes involve serious external or internal injuries
4. Many women resist, but many freeze through fear or shock
5. Most victims of rape know and trust their attackers
6. There are a range of responses, from extremely distressed through to quiet and controlled
7. Majority of rapes are not reported at all

court system ignores rape trial reforms, harasses rape complainants

The BBC is reporting that the court system is widely ignoring a change in rules that prevents evidence of past behaviour being used against victims of rape in court. Barristers are either ignorant of the new rules - which bar evidence which is not relevant to the case - or breaking them to harass the complainant:

Applications to admit evidence of sexual history were taking place during trials and being presented verbally, rather than in writing as they should be. The report said there was a "surprising lack of knowledge" about the correct procedure to follow among nearly half the 17 judges interviewed.

Ignorance of the new rules was also thought to be widespread among barristers, it noted. Some defence barristers were said to be timing their requests "just before or during cross-examination to create the most pressure on the complainant".

In one example a defence barrister asked a defendant if there had been blood on the bedsheets after he first had sex with a woman who made a rape complaint against him. "This was clearly intended to suggest that C was not a virgin when she first had sex with D," the report said.

Holy fucking shit - because only virgins get raped? This is a huge problem - it seems that the legal profession itself is making use of one of the most common myths surrounding rape (shown in the Amnesty report at the end of last year), that women who have had previous sexual partners are partly or wholly responsible for their rape. The Home Office report is here, which I shall try to read.

Please pass this story on: it failed to make the front page of the BBC's website and it could easily get buried in the next news cycle. Though it hardly need be said, this is important.

[edited to fix formatting and add links]

speed 3: anglican schism

In an attempt to raise the stakes of the Anglican "crisis that will be a crisis any second now honest" from "slightly dull" to "room temperature", The Times pulls out the stops:

THE Anglican Church descended into "ecclesiastical anarchy" last night as American traditionalists refused to accept the authority of a woman and asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead them instead.

The shocking revelation that the Anglican church is inhabited in part by sexist traditionalists comes as no great suprise. However, The Times does provide a handy time-line that indicates just how much longer we'll have to put up with schism-about-happen stories:

2006 ECUSA, at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, decides that it will in future be known as the Episcopal Church, prompting theories that it is preparing to become an alternative, liberal Anglican Communion. Episcopal Church elects first woman, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, as Presiding Bishop, equal in status to an archbishop. Delegates come close to fighting as they debate how far to go in complying with Windsor

2007 Archbishop of Canterbury will issue invitations to Lambeth Conference. He must decide whether or not to invite Bishop Robinson and any of the bishops who were consecrated. Bishop Schori voted for the election of Robinson but did not take part in his consecration

2008 Lambeth Conference will meet in the summer, when bishops and archbishops will agree either to "walk apart" or find a way of remaining in communion

2008? This is a schism that makes continental drift look hasty and unexpected.

the consequences of casual slurs

Here's the real problem with accepting the word "gay" as slang for "rubbish" - it sets the ground for unthinking homophobia:

Primary school children are using homophobic insults without realising it, paving the way for later bullying, an educationalist has warned. [...]

Speaking at the London conference, organised by the NASUWT teachers' union, Mr Jennett said: "It does matter if we are saying that homosexuality is a bad thing. If they were using the word 'girl' or 'Muslim' in a derogatory way we would challenge it and that would be the right thing to do."

Mr Jennett said figures showed 81% of primary school pupils identified the use of the word "gay" as "a means of attacking or making fun of someone".

He added: "By the time they find out that it means to be homosexual, they have already learnt that it means something bad."

Pretending that gay-meaning-rubbish doesn't foster negative associations toward homosexuality is laughable. As mentioned last week (and kindly picked up at Mind the Gap and a feminist..), the Liberal Democrats have launched a campaign to stop homophobic bullying - please go and sign it if you havn't already:

The [Liberal Democrat] education spokeswoman, Sarah Teather, said: "Homophobic bullying is an issue for the whole school, not just for a victimised minority.

"This is not a matter of 'political correctness' but about pupil behaviour and the right of parents to feel confident that their child will be safe in school."

Those who panic about children being "indoctrinated" into homosexuality at an early age are imagining a social agenda which doesn't exist and missing the point - which is to create an environment where children are not bullied for any reason, perceived or real.

ordinary people to blame for decline in "traditional family values"

A persistent lie that surrounds recent patterns of social change is that the traditional family unit is in dire danger of extinction. Discussion of new legislation that bars discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has been framed in exactly these terms: an attack on the family and the moral fabric of the nation.

However, a minimum of research reveals the true nature of social change and suggests that it has very little to do with the legitimisation of gay identity and relationships.

Though the number of people getting married has decreased since 1972, marriages in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have increased for the third successive year. It should be noted that the peak of marriage in 1972 can be explained by babies of the immediate post-war boom reaching marriageable age. Since that point, the age at which people get married has risen steadily - from 25 and 23 in England and Wales in 1971 to 31 and 29  in 2003 for men and women respectively.

Significantly - and this is something that's hardly ever mentioned - since 1992, there have been more civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies.

In 2004, 68 per cent of marriages were solemnised by civil ceremonies. The Marriage Act 1994 provided for civil marriages to take place in approved premises from 1 April 1995. In 2004, 31 per cent of all marriages in England and Wales took place in approved premises, compared with 5 per cent in 1996.

Those who choose the religious practice of marriage are in a clear minority, even though discussion of marriage in the media is dominated by Christian ideals.

By far the largest social change has been the increase in the proportion of people living alone, rising 9 percentage points between 1971 and 1991, and a further 2 percentage points to 29 per cent in 2001 and then remained at this level to 2005. Similarly, childless couples form the greatest proportion - 29% - of all households. Another notable change has been the increase in the number of adults living with their parents, to a level of 57% and 38% of young men and women respectively ( age bracket: 20-24, see table 2.5, pdf).

You'll notice that this social patterns have been in progress for the best part of 25-30 years - in progress or triggered long before more recent laws recognising gay rights. Given the picture these stats describe, it seems rather more likely that the most dramatic social changes are due to changes in the lives and habits of ordinary marriageable people, rather than the claims of minority sexualities gaining recognition.

It's about ordinary people who could get married in a church and settle down with two children but, more frequently and for a range of social and economic reasons, live differently. The overwhelming majority of those who have broken with the social traditions of the past - by choice or circumstance - are not perfidious queers or reckless single mothers, but ordinary heterosexuals. It's time to find someone else to blame.

melanie phillips: fun with religious bigotry

Melanie Phillips' claim that new equality legislation has "turned our very understanding of prejudice and discrimination inside-out" involves its very own game of rhetorical twister. First, the pretence to not being a fan of queer-baiting:

It should go without saying that gay people and other sexual minorities should be free to practise their sexuality without being picked on in any way. What they do in private should be of concern to no one else.

But equally, others must be free to voice disapproval of their lifestyles, particularly where this is a key element of religious faith. For like it or not (and this is, of course, an issue which is currently tearing the Church of England apart) the belief that homosexual behaviour is wrong is a tenet that is fundamental to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I do enjoy how Phillips and other critics of this change in law are determined to make religion all about the queer-bashing. Though a majority of the faithful might choose to ignore this tenet (amongst many, many others, such as the prohibition on contraception) it's the keystone on which love, charity and goodwill rest. If the rejection of homosexuality is a central, inviolate tenet of Christianity, why doesn't it appear in the Ten Commandments? Why is Christ (aka The Son of God) so silent on this issue?

Still, a commitment to gay people living without harassment is always nice, which is why it's a little strange to then read this:

So church schools, for example, are protesting that they will no longer be permitted to teach in sex education or RE lessons that homosexuality is at odds with the teachings of the Bible. They might have to comply with parental demands that there should be lessons promoting gay issues - for example, by taking part in the recent 'Lesbian, Bi-sexual Gay and Transsexual History Month'.

Somehow, teaching that homosexuality is sinful and abhorrent and the sign of mental illness in no way contradicts a world where "gay people and other sexual minorities should be free to practise their sexuality without being picked on."

Incidentally, "picked on" is a rather coy phrase to cover the gamut of experiences from homophobic bullying (with a very high suicide rate amongst gay teens) to homophobic murder. Still.. on we go:

Remember the epic battle over Clause 28, the law which forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools and which was eventually repealed, in a notable triumph for the gay rights lobby? Well, these new regulations would be a Clause 28 in reverse. They would compel the promotion of homosexuality in schools - and forbid the promotion of Christian or other religious beliefs on the matter.

We're back to the traditional claim that recognising homosexuality exists and will not send you to hell is the same thing as "promoting it", as if homosexuality is a dangerous teen craze. Hey kids, anal sex is the new rock and roll.

The idea of compulsion is actually the biggest piece of mendacity in the whole column: I'm fairly sure that the change in law would not forbid religious perspectives on homosexuality - only that teaching in exclusion of anything else, such as the radical alternative that being gay isn't sinful. It's the absence of alternative perspectives that makes purely religious teaching on homosexuality discriminatory.

Now things get very confusing:

We have therefore exchanged one deep intolerance for another. Behaviour that was once considered socially unacceptable and even illegal must now be promoted as an acceptable lifestyle choice, and anyone who disagrees is to fall foul of the law instead.

So the religious rejection of homosexuality is a "deep intolerance", but it's still preferable to anything else? How would Phillips defend a traditional but deep intolerance of black people? Or Jews, about whom the Bible can be less than kind? Do we bemoan the retreat of the blood libel, or was that too part of the good old days?

Was the persecution of religious minorities (Jews, Catholics, Muslims, you choose) not once the bedrock of British culture? Is religiously motivated hate acceptable where secular hate is not?

Pedants will recognise that we've actually exchanged intolerance for an intolerance of intolerance, at least in schools. Churches will still be free to teach whatever they like about teh queer; the Bible will not be edited. Well, not edited any further.

The underlying argument here is that sexual minorities should not enjoy privilege over religious belief - which, aside from echoing Phillips' rather dangerous belief that minorities should enjoy minority rights, is gloriously asymmetrical. It also ignores the huge privileges that religious life already enjoys in British culture and law.

The only part of religious belief being challenged is where it argues that a certain minority is less human than the majority. If Phillips wants to defend that, then she's little better than the fundamentalists that she finds so much vigour to denounce.

As it happens, the law is scrupulously even-handed: Phillips seems unaware that the Equality Act 2006 - Religion or Belief - extends the protections that she decries to much to religious communities, making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services, education and a number of other areas. It's funny, but she doesn't mention that.

on the illicit thrill of conference proceedings (oh, and teen sex)

Let's see if we can spot the moment at which conservative moralists miss the point. First, comments made during a conference in Prague that, if not for AP, would probably have passed without trace:

Teenage girls who get pregnant "behind the bikesheds" are only obeying nature's law and should not be condemned out of hand, an expert has said.

Dr Laurence Shaw said female humans had been programmed by two million years of evolution to have babies in their late teens and early twenties, when fertility is at its peak. Nature intended women to become mothers when young, and for their fertility to decline while they raised their children, he said.

Only in the past 150 years had it become commonplace for women to live many years beyond the menopause, said Dr Shaw, deputy medical director of the Bridge Centre fertility clinic in London.

And now the reaction, fished courtesy of The Scotsman:

Shona Robison, the SNP's health spokeswoman, whose constituency in Dundee has rates of teenage pregnancy far exceeding the national average, called the remarks "flippant".

"Maybe he should reflect on the effects of teenage pregnancy," she said. "In representing Dundee, I am well aware of the problems teenage pregnancy can cause girls. For many it leads to a life of poverty and a loss of opportunity. I doubt these are the things he would want for his own daughters."

The idea that pregnant teenagers shouldn't be dismissed as intractable sluts has morphed into the idea that Dr Shaw is in favour of teen pregnancy and thinks that teen pregnancy is without consequence - which simply isn't true, or at least isn't proven in any part by his conference remarks.

The problem is that Dr Shaw is completely right. The fact that there are social consequences to our biology doesn't make the biology go away. Still, on with the outrage:

Teresa Smith, chair of the Scottish Christian People's Alliance, said the comments were "completely outrageous".

"Many things are an occurrence within nature but it does not mean they are the right thing to do," she said. "Girls of that age are not mature enough to bring up a baby. If they choose to have an abortion, there are long-term effects.

"Teenagers having sexual activity risk catching chlamydia and causing fertility problems. We should be promoting abstinence, not telling young people this is natural."

Again, Dr Shaw hasn't commented on whether teen pregnancy is "right" or "wrong" or without consequence, but rather opined that pregnant teenagers shouldn't be condemned out of hand and that there are entirely apolitical, amoral biological reasons which explain why young people are so exceptionally fertile. Teresa Smith might might not like Dr Shaw's conclusions but as she can't actually challenge them, the best she can do is imagine an "outrageous"  agenda for Shaw that serves her own social agenda.

Speaking of outrageous comments, though, you might want to remember that chlamydia shows no particular preference for teenagers - and that abstinence programmes tend to lead to higher levels of STI infection.

The idea that comments made at a conference in Prague is going to encourage teenage sex is really very silly, as if teenagers rationalise their sexual activity in relation to reports on the evolutionary progress of human fertility. It's manufactured outrage of the cheapest order - unless, of course, there's some illicit thrill to be had from reading the proceedings of the annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology that adults can't detect.

the hurt that "may" be caused by false arrest

Slightly late on this, but I think we probably need to change the language of the default apology:

The Metropolitan Police has listened intently to the comments and concerns of those affected by last week's operation in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate.

I am aware that, in mounting this operation, we have caused disruption and inconvenience to many residents in Newham and more importantly those that reside at 46 and 48 Lansdowne Road.

I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused.

The hurt we may have caused? Yes, we arrested and accidentally shot you, and tore your house apart, but on balance, we presume you've taken it all in good spirits?

If the defence is that police acted in good faith in response to seemingly urgent intelligence, that speculation as whether or not being falsely accused of terrorism and accidentally shot is hurtful is slightly beside the point.

bishop of rochester: no fudge (or women or gays)

If it isn't the queers, it's the women - no, not this blog, but the latest round of Anglican crisis :

A woman was last night elected as the first female leader of the American branch of Anglicanism in a historic but divisive development that could hasten the break-up of the worldwide Church.

The Bishop of Nevada, the Rt Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, who is a leading liberal on homosexuality, is the first women primate in the history of Anglicanism. Her role as Presiding Bishop is the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The interesting thing about the narrative of schism is the relentless focus on conservative objections: interviews with liberal voices in the US church - who, given that they voted for the new Bishop of Nevada might be understood as the majority - are rarely, if ever, heard. Instead, we have the posturing of the conservative wing who keep threatening a grand divide, one which has still yet to appear.

In an outspoken interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said that divisions between liberals and conservatives were so profound that a compromise was no longer possible.

He increased the pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to take firm action against the liberal American leadership. "Anglicans are used to fudging things sometimes, but I think this is a matter of such seriousness that fudge won't do," said Bishop Nazir-Ali.

Outspoken indeed: no fudge.

annual fathers day feminist blaming

Neil Lyndon in The Telegraph argues for a coalition between feminists and fathers. It's an interesting idea - unfortunately, his argument is bollocks. For example:

In the past, movements for social and political change on behalf of groups who lack privilege have succeeded only when they have been taken up by the beneficiaries of privilege.

That doesn't make sense: being a mother, or the primary care-giver, has never been a social privilege. Those roles have involved labour which has been historically unrecognised or undervalued, have carried low status and social mobility and have even been rejected by men as dangerously "unmasculine". His comparisons to campaigns against ethnic segregation and slavery and for voting rights for women are similarly misleading: there have never been street protests demanding the male right to change nappies.

Lydon's attempt to rally feminism to the cause of father's rights involves a patronising challenge to feminism's motives:

If, therefore, feminists are serious - a premise that may be as plausible as saying "If the moon is made of cheese" - about equal pay, equal opportunity and the elimination of the glass ceiling, they will have to make it their business to ensure that fathers are equal in family law as much as in family life.

Top tip: insulting your future allies weakens the chance of ever acquiring said allies.

The idea that feminists aren't committed to equal family life is really quite strange. In fact, the argument for feminism's involvement in father's rights rather involves feminism doing what it has been doing for quite a long time now: arguing for equal responsibilities and roles in child-rearing, and challenging the stereotypes that surround that division of labour.

If you want to know where the problem might be - rather than the scarey child-snatching feminists - you might look at the stats that Lyndon himself quotes: that only one in 10 divorcing fathers makes an application to the court for an order for shared parenting. If fathers either don't see themselves as primary care-givers or don't want to fight for that "privilege", then no amount of feminist-blaming will change that.

chastity more important than education, apparently

Another attempt to claim that sexual sin is the centrepiece of mainstream Christianity that fails to hold water:

A group of teenage Christians have been banned by a secondary school from wearing "purity rings" as a symbol of their religious belief in chastity until marriage.

At least one of the dozen pupils, who all attend the same girls' comprehensive in Horsham, West Sussex, is considering legal action against the Millais School for "a breach of human rights".

Although the school allows Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear headscarves or kara bracelets as a means of religious expression, the purity ring - a small band of silver engraved with a Biblical verse and worn as a declaration of abstinence from sexual relations - is not allowed because it is considered to be jewellery.

It's a reasonable sounding comparision that might slip straight past your bullshit filter. However, we'd be hard pressed to find any mention of a chastity ring in any of Christianity's religious texts: St. Paul did not have a small mail order business selling jewellery to the Corinthians.

The silver ring thing is, above all else, a recent invention (most popular within the last ten years) intended to use peer pressure to stop young people from having sex. It doesn't work, thought that's slightly beside the point.

The kara, in comparison, is a tradition that has been around more or less since the start of sikhism and is a symbol associated with the Khalsa, or orthodox sikh movement. Similarly, the headscarf stems from Qur'anic injunctions to dress in a "modest" fashion. While these traditions are not followed universally or strictly by all Sikhs and Muslims, they would be recognisable to other members of their respective faiths.

The same cannot be said of the chastity ring, whose religious symbolism - such as it exists - exists only in the minds of the extreme minority who take adolescent vows of purity. If we're going to have an argument about discrimination, let's compare like with like. Would they be able to wear a crucifix? If we want to compare minority practice with minority practice - would Muslim girls at this school be allowed to wear a full body veil? - then we already have an answer: no, they wouldn't.

Does it matter that one set of religious practices is several hundred years old, and the other is rather less old than I am? Well, if you protect chastity rings then there's any number of fringe religious practices from the last 50 years which should enjoy the same protection - not least of which are the Frodo Ears of Supplication.

religion and the legitimisation of hate-crime

Gay-hate crime is apparently on the increase:

Two men who punched and kicked a gay barman to death as if they were " trying to kill an animal" were jailed for a minimum of 28 years yesterday.

The sentencing came as it emerged that the number gay-hate crime cases being dealt with by the courts almost doubled in the past year, to 600 investigations. But campaigners warn that the prosecution rate represents a fraction of the true scale of the problem. [...]

Following the sentence, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) disclosed it tried, between April 2005 and March this year, to bring 600 cases with a homophobic element to court. Of these, 346 resulted in a guilty plea and another 80 were convicted after standing trial,­ a conviction rate of 71 per cent.

I suppose the high conviction rate is some small consolation.

While I suspect that gay-hate crimes are underreported, I'd also note that they've only been recorded for the past few years: initial increases are sometimes related to the growing awareness of police and prosecution services to fully recognise new categories of offence - as well as the growing willingness of the public to report them. However, I don't think that accounts for the whole increase.

That said, let's look at the context for why homophobia is commonplace and even retains the veneer of respectability:

Church schools have applied for exemption from new anti-discrimination laws that would stop them from teaching children that homosexual acts are sinful.

They say the new rules will interfere with religious freedom by forcing schools to give equal prominence to values and conduct that are against the Christian ethos.

Now, the teaching that homosexuality is sinful isn't the same thing as violent crime against gay people and those perceived to be gay. However, it's most certainly part of the same continuum of values - of excuses for treating people seen as different as less valuable and less human. It's about the validation of simple prejudice.

Now the punchline we weren't waiting for:

The issue will be decided by Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in charge of the Government's equality unit. Miss Kelly, the former education secretary, is a Catholic and a member of Opus Dei, the conservative religious sect which regards practising homosexuals as sinners.

Relentless coverage of Ruth Kelly's appointment - and of the arguments defending her - to be found here:

women's rights, shuffled
ruth kelly's doublethink
fresh dogs, please: the hounding of ruth kelly

Apologies for so many links to old posts, but I'm fiendishly busy at the moment.

filthy bio-talk

Go read PZ Meyer's discussion of the possible mechanisms that might drive the prevalence of homosexuality. I also really like his introduction, where he points out that:

[u]nless you are a very strict religious fundamentalist, which most biologists are not, it's obvious that most sexual activity does not have a procreative purpose. [...] The key point, though, is that heterosexuality is not a guarantee that an individual will have children, nor is homosexuality a guarantee that an individual will not. Many heterosexual couples elect not to have children, and many homosexuals elect to have them.

This shouldn't be a surprise; all it takes to start a baby is a few pokes and a spurt, and it really doesn't take much effort to overcome an inclination for such a brief event. We are sex-obsessed animals, so redirecting an ejaculation to a particular orifice isn't that astonishing.

Who says biologists can't do romance? Why, PZ, your filthy bio-talk has us all a flutter. :)

On a related note, one of the more Romantic accounts of animal sexuality used to prop up the Marriage Is Natural 'Cos We See Commitment In Nature argument hit the curb last week:

Everyone knows that swans mate for life, staying faithfully together until one dies. Or do they?

The heart-warming image of the love birds has been shattered by veterinary researchers who say they are nothing more than feathered philanderers. Males in particular enjoy flitting from one nest to another for trysts with a string of females.

The findings come from a study of a group of black swans which live on the Albert Park lake in Melbourne, Australia. And the initial results have shown that a clutch of newly-hatched cygnets can have as many as three fathers.

Zoology lecturer Dr Raoul Mulder, who is leading the Melbourne University research, said: "Swans, it seems, like humans, fall a bit short of that idea of lifelong fidelity."

I notice the Mail is unable to write this kind of story without anthropomorphising the swans - I suppose we're lucky we avoided a headline along the lines of "Revealed: Love Birds Actually Love Rats."

the limits of evangelical politics?

There's an interesting article by Stephen Bates that suggests the limit of the Republican appetite for evangelical politics:

Cizik, an ordained minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian church and impeccably conservative on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and homosexuality, believes that concern for the environment arises from biblical injunctions about the stewardship of the Earth. The movement's political leadership, however, sees the issue as a distraction from its tactical priorities: getting more conservatives on the supreme court, banning gay marriages and overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling.

"It is supposed to be counterproductive even to consider this. I guess they do not want to part company with the president. This is nothing more than political assassination. I may lose my job . . . but I am a fighter," he said.

I'm not quite sure that a ban on gay marriage is a tactical priority in the same way as stacking the Supreme Court or overturning "Roe V Wade" might be: it's a wedge issue, whereas the others open up the potential for a series of reversals in law on privacy, abortion, homosexuality - and just plain old common or garden boinking.

The possibilities of a "Christian environmentalism" are extremely interesting - it's possible that this an area where some progressive campaigners could outflank their conservative counterparts, particular in regions where it's equally important to wrap yourself in the Bible as in the flag.

It certainly allows a more pointed discussion of the selective emphasis of much of the evangelical movement - that even though all parts of the Bible are supposed to be understood literally, some verses appear to be more literal than others.

Still, it's a hard sell when you're dealing with people who might think that God Will Provide:

Another Washington lobbyist on the religious right said: "Rich is just being stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but . . . people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?"

That's a gamble I'd imagine few are interested in taking.

cord blood "spare immune system" claims challenged

More on the banking of umbilical cord blood for stem cells (discussed here on Wednesday) - from Sarah Hall in The Guardian:

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said there was "insufficient evidence" to recommend the practice for families at low risk of passing on blood diseases such as leukaemia or genetic disorders. Those who believed they were obtaining "the elixir of life" for their child should realise that claims that stem cells can produce future cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ovarian cancer are "in the realm of speculation". [...]

The college said collecting stem cells for families at risk of genetic disorders, or from women donating altruistically, was acceptable but that this should be done through the NHS. About 200 families have had stem cells extracted for this purpose of whom 13 have had to draw on them.

The college refrained from suggesting GPs and antenatal clinics should not display promotional literature, which describes the practice as "like freezing a spare immune system". But Dr Bewley said: "Some of the commercial literature almost suggests it's offering the gift of life or elixir of life. Our view is that if there is a potential elixir of life it is needed for the public good.

More speculation masquerading as proven science: it's worrying that there would be medical professionals willing to tolerate the presence of such adverts. Would it possible to take those kinds of claims to the Advertising Complaints Authority? I can't remember how the law applies to false claims made about drugs and treatment - I'd certainly be interested to see how carefully the claims are phrased.

for all your schism needs

As the next round of religious conservatives plan to break from the Anglican church, I thought you'd enjoy these signs of an obsessive mind. Remember, these stories are all evidence of a schism that hasn't happened yet, oh no. You may also notice that it gets a little repetitive:

london welcomes gene robinson: try not to step in the idiots: the one where London evangelicals try to have a gay bishop barred from entering the city

here we go again: god hates gay people (and also shrimp): the one where the archbishop guts his own ceremony honouring inclusiveness

schism, what schism?: the one where the archbishop is accused of being a homo-sympathiser

nothing to see here, move along: the one where an evangelical bishops rates homo-sex below dog-sex.

those explosive queers: the one where homosexuality is compared to terrorism

and finally, schism update: move along, nothing to see here: the one where we learn that a number of provinces in the Anglican church have already broken away

So that's peace and goodwill to... ah.. maybe not.

this is not a blog about westerns

I seem to be on the receiving end of "grass-roots" marketing - where grass-roots actually means a marketing company emailing me about any old shit and claiming that it has something to do with something I wrote. Top tip for marketeers: if you're going to reference a specific entry while sucking up to me, you might want to read the entry so you don't appear to be utterly clueless tossers.

This is the second email I've had from the same company that makes absolutely no sense. I get a third and it'll be time to unleash the power of the blogger: unfunny jokes at your expense and badly photoshopped mockery. Marketing folk, you have been warned.

more superlative advertising: captions, please

As if she's thinking, "Peas! A heaping mountain of fuckin' peas! That'd work! No? Peas? No? Alright - then you cook, kitchen wizard."

sameness, normality and regulation

Following on from the debate on gay marriage, equality and challenging "normality" here at the Republic of T and here at air pollution, I want to step sideways a little to suggest how some "queer legal theory" might advance the discussion. Consider this fair warning of a theory heavy post. :)

I'll preface this by saying that questioning the claim on normality isn't about disparaging the very real political and material gains that have been achievd by forcing the official recognition of GLBT subjects. Instead, it's an argument that the claim on normality isn't without terms and conditions, that such conditions are frequently unmarked and unrecognised and that arguing for an alternative political reading doesn't mean abandoning any previous achievements.

Okay. That's enough rambling provisos. Now for the theory.

Paisley Currah, Janet Halley and Cal Stychen have written to demonstrate how legal discourses create norms which universalize particular modes of living, and specific identities and acts, while suppressing other practices and identities which appear deviant or abnormal. In the politics of "official recognition," an argument is made for the inclusion of the lesbian or gay subject in that order of the legitimate, and in doing so assumes that the modern constitutional state or court is the privileged site of political action (Bower, 268).

A queer critique of this position is that a return to legal categories serves to valorise a conception of identity based on "sameness," requiring us to recognise the "other" as like "ourselves," and activating a view of community as constituted by sure affiliates (Bower, 269). Correspondingly, the potential for a critique of the status quo is muted, deferring the position of critical marginality for empowerment through centralised recognition.

The dominance of official recognition might be countered by a radical and subversive deployment of identity, a notion that rests on the "queer possibilities of articulating non-identity." In her paper, "Queer Problems / Straight Solutions: The Limits of 'Official Recognition,'" Lisa Bower presents possibility of an alternative politics of "direct-address," which redefines the political to include the "everyday enactment of social practices and the routine reiteration of cultural representatives." (Bower, 269)

This strategy might also refigure the community so that it does not depend on a regulatory logic of sameness, "emphasising the importance of identification as opposed to identity." This redefinition of subjectivity argues primarily for the importance of patterns of cultural filiation, dependent on reiterative participation, in the place of a model where identity is set by life-long membership of or access to pre-demarcated categories.

Mild apologies to regulars for hi-falutin' theory on a weekday. :)

Reference: Lisa Bower, "Queer Problems / Straight Solutions: The Limits of "Official Recognition"," Playing with Fire, ed. Shane Phelan (London: Routledge, 1997)

crown office review of sexual offences in scotland: summary

The Crown Office has released the results of the review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences in Scotland.

There's a huge amount of very detailed information that I need to digest - and probably summarise into a couple of separate posts. If you have any interest at all in why rape prosecution rates are so low, then you need to read this report. It's very dry, but it's more than necessary.

The report contains fifty-plus recommendations for the future, and I'm going to briefly detail several of the seemingly most significant. If you've downloaded the report, the summary list of recommendations starts on page 17.

The report recommends:

- the development of comprehensive training, including a guidance manual within the COPFS (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service) that details all aspects of the law on sexual offences, evidence, the psychological dynamics of sexual offending and its impact upon victims.

- that the crime of sodomy against men and equivalent assaults against women and chlidren involving anal penetration be prosecuted in the High Court.

- a sterner approach to granting bail, with opposition to bail being the first consideration in all such cases and requiring that the Procurator Fiscal record the reasons for not opposing bail (i.e. refusing bail becomes presumptive)

- a restatement of best practice, including anticipation of likely defences, examination of inconsistencies in victim's accounts and apparent contradictions of victim's accounts in independent evidence. In other words, the lawyers representing rape vicims should learn to build stronger cases by approaching the evidence in a manner that is both forensic and analytical.

- that the conduct of the precognition (pre-trial phase, taking written statements from witnesses when investigating and prosecuting a crime or offence) must not undermine the confidence of the victim and leave him or her feeling she or he has not been believed.

- specialisation for staff should be achieved through a system of specific training and certification. Existing staff should undertake traiing to become certified.

- the prosecution case for rape should state that there should be a presumption in favour of prosecution where there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to prosecute.

- communications be developped that specifically address male victims of sexual offences and direct them to appropriate support organisations

- the views of the victim will be taken into account when assessing the "public interest" argument of accepting a plea to a substantially reduced charge or plea - e.g. the victim's views will be considered when a suspect agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge than rape during a rape prosecution.

Okay, that's more than enough for one post. In particular, I'll be coming back to the section on the difficulties of prosecution. Any comments?

comment not that free; shock and awe edition

Zoe Williams' argument for the need to reclaim the word "cunt" is up on Comment is free... but without the comments enabled. Given that her previous articles have attracted an unusual number of mouth-breathers, I'm not suprised. However, it's a shame that her more articulate critics (and indeed supporters) are also shut out. Hmm..  it's possible that the comments section will appear later..

Anyone know what the policy is on which pieces in Comment is free.. are opened up to the masses? Do individual columnists get to choose? I'll take anonymous tips from anyone currently working there.. :)

As for Williams' argument, I'm persuaded by her position that "ignore it until it goes away" isn't a functional political strategy for defusing a term commonly used to insult or abuse:

The mistake feminists make, when they object to the c-word but never approach it, and never use it, is to think that it will slip discreetly out of the language. Of course it won't! It's the rudest word we've got, in the entire language. It's like thinking the secret of nuclear fission is just going to disappear.

The fact that the presence of a single utterance of "cunt" can seemingly push a film rating in the UK from 15 to 18 tells you the kind of cultural power (shock and awe, anyone?) it retains. The presence of this particular word triggers a disproportionate response, often greater than the response to the depiction of graphic violence and murder. Doesn't that represent a persistently powerful taboo that can't be ignored and could perhaps be tapped?

cord blood bank announced: pro-lifers divided

One of those rare moments for the pro-life lobby where God is seemingly without clear moral advice . On the news that the NHS has funding to open a major bank of stem cell rich umbilical-cord blood

Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, backed calls for more cord blood banking. She said: "We support the idea of more cord blood storage. Given that we throw away cord blood there are no ethical objections to its use and we believe stem cells from cord blood are the best way forward.

'The more samples we have in the NHS bank, the more chances there are for finding successful matches for transplantations to help those suffering from disorders.'

A spokesman for pro-life campaign group LIFE said: 'We are very concerned about research into stem cells from embryos but we do not want to make a comment on cord blood banking.'

Unable to find a reason to reject the use of stem cells from umbilical cords quite yet, Life opts for silence rather than declare no moral objection. Given that the main objection to stem cell research was that embryos had to "die" for the cells to be harvested, you'd think this embryo-death-free method would receive their wholehearted support. Perhaps Life's implicit unease with science's involvement in sex and reproduction at all is much stronger than they'd like to admit.

The Mail's enthusiasm - though welcome - is also a little inconsistent. Given that these stem cells are by-product of birth which, if left to "nature", would normally die, shouldn't this provoke a Frankenstein-science style headline? Still, good news, particularly for families with a history of genetic illness.

Rather less pleasing is this note:

The [Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists] warned there is 'insufficient evidence' to suggest [privately storing cord blood] is of benefit to most families, echoing doctors' fears that private companies - charging up to £1,500 - are preying on parents' fears and women are being targetted by 'emotive literature.'

times leader smears terror raid brothers

Today's Times leader comment ("Cool heads," 14th June) is stunningly dishonest, engaging in smear tactics cloaked in the voice of moderation. First, there's the claim to sympathetic understanding

Abul Kahar Kalam and his younger brother, Abul Koyair Kalam, underwent an undoubtedly terrifying experience. Those who have never had a gun pointed at them will not know quite how it feels, let alone the effect of being shot. Likewise, few would wish to have the walls and floors of their homes drilled through and torn up. To hear about such indignities is, on a human level, compelling. Of course having one's home turned over by gun-toting police must feel like a violation.

Then the admonishment not to let the "human level" be taken too seriously

To try to make cultural mileage out of such experiences is not only misguided, but also potentially dangerous.

It's advice that The TImes has chosen to ignore, instead choosing to caution the brothers ("whatever their feelings, though, they would be well advised to tread carefully"), praise them... and then attempt to smear them as closet jihadists:

To his credit, Mr Kahar said that he had nothing against police officers. And he stopped well short of the asinine calls for Muslims to stop co-operating with the police, made by some purporting to speak for the local community. But the brothers revealed a fondness for "jihad", which was defined as providing support. It is to be hoped that they "support" a tolerant and multi-cultural Britain.

Ah, the scarequotes. So, is there some good reason to think that the brothers don't support a tolerant and multi-cultural Britain? Is there any reason to believe that they are in fact closet fundamentalists, and thus justifying their detention? Could it be something they said?

At this point, let's turn to the transcript of the press conference at which Abdul Kahar and his brother, Abul Koyair, spoke.  First, Abdul on Britain:

I'm a law-abiding citizen. I was born and bred in east London. I love my town. I ain't done nothing to this country. This is my country. I love everyone around.

But what about the scarey J-word? Here's Abdul again

My understanding of jihad is to strive and help people. I don't see jihad as the way these cults think. I don't class them as Muslims, I don't class them as representing Islam.

The way my father has taught me, the word jihad is the way we strive to help people. I do believe jihad is good.

Violence is not in my nature. It's not in my religion. Islam is alienating that. Islam has nothing to do with that. Islam is peace.

That's quite different from the Times' simple summary of jihad as "support", which an idle reader might even take to suggest the indirect aiding and abetting of violent fundamentalism elsewhere.

The definition offered by Abul Koyair rejects fundamentalist jihad as a cult - as both un-Islamic and unrepresentative of the faith yet somehow the Times thinks that this leaves some reasonable cause for concern. Presumably the call for cool heads to prevail actually means "fundamentalist until proven terrorist" - at least when it comes to the Muslim community.

well-established bigotry is still bigotry

I get emails from the Catholic Media Office - don't ask - which means I'm privy to this charming argument for religious freedom as a response to new anti-discrimination laws (see here for some context):

In their response, the Bishops argued that; "A fundamental principle that has to underpin any proposals for regulation is that the freedom of conscience of individuals must be respected.

It is not licit to force an individual to act contrary to his moral belief. It is a well-established and reasonable moral position to regard homosexual acts and the promotion of the moral equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual relationships as wrong."

Ah, so this kind of bigotry is well-established - nay, part of an organised religion - so it's okay. Even though it's based in religious doctrine and is a question of faith, it's "reasonable".

I wonder how the Church would approach the "reasonable" logic of Lady Whiteadder:

Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics.

Oh, and please note the supreme hypocrisy of the Catholic Church arguing that people shouldn't force their moral codes onto other people. Does someone want to let the Catholic anti-abortion group Life know that they're out of a job?

(For recent new-comers, I feel I should add that I'm not so much anti-Catholic as anti-religious-fruitcake, whose advice most of the "faithful" feel free to ignore. Leaders of religions based in love and acceptance who spend a hearty amount of time spreading hate and intolerance win no prizes here.)

unicorns eat children

I really love Threadless - it's even worth the international mailing costs:



This design is Tom Burns' appropriately named Unicorns Eat Children. Sweet.

dave hill on the obsession with gender stereotypes

Great post at Comment is free (and at his own blog) from Dave Hill in response to the seasonal panic that girls are outperforming boys at school:

This, of course, is part of a much bigger discussion about the very stupid and cliched way we now debate gender and the sexes as a whole. For now, let me direct you (as I have before) to a couple of studies (Young Masculinities and Sexuality and Schooling) that reveal how unhelpful it is to speak of "masculinity" as though it were purely some bedrock biological essence that animates all boys and demands we teach them differently from all girls.

What these studies show instead is that large numbers of boys would love to study more diligently - more like girls, if you will - but, as Will does mention in passing, feel under pressure from peers to do the opposite for fear of being labelled a "boffin", a "girl" or "gay". From this, we can see that there is no one masculinity but many, and that to proceed as though there were may result in creating at least as many problem for some boys as it solves for others.

Thank fuck for that - the Daily Mail front page has been annoying me all day, ever since I noticed that the Mail seems to be in favour of traditional standards of discipline in education (sitting quietly and working) because it "gets results," and simultaneously against demanding that pupils sit quietly and work (enforcing traditional standards of discipline in education) because it's suffocating for boys.

box o' thesis

Needs a copy-edit, an introduction, a formal bibliography.. and about a million other things. Getting there, though..

prayer and sex education in schools: quid pro quo?

The Scottish Executive's study on homophobic bullying in schools is quite substantial - and though I've already trudged through the conclusions - I wanted to pick up on the response of GLBT teens at Catholic schools ( section 5.6.1.). It's rather telling about the kind of general sex education on offer:

it is wrong in sooo many ways [homophobia] but teachers dont see that especially at a catholic skool ( which i go to ) they dont like dealing wif it cos its bad in our religion and even the deputy heads have started treating me differently because of what i am . . . now im not saw as [name of respondent] im saw as the gay kid to all the teachers who know and its not a nice feeling as teachers are there to help u learn and to give u advice. (S-M-14, Gay)

Teachers in Catholic schools really need to lighten up...I feel that their dismissal of it is very painful for those who believe themselves to be LGB or T. (S-F-20, Lesbian)

One focus group participant had attended a Catholic school where, she said, it was unthinkable that any kind of discussion around LGBT issues would take place.

In our school it's like in 1st year and 3rd year the girls get taken away for like a morning and get given the sort of like healthy living lecture and period lecture and all that but we never got anything about sex education or contraception or anything like that, definitely not we're a Catholic school. (FG-F, 16)

I mention this because the Catholic Church in Scotland has - within the last few weeks - strongly opposed the introduction of teaching on non-heterosexual relationships within sex education. Given the testimony above, it's even more obvious that such opposition has little to do with the welfare of vulnerable young people and everything to do with promoting dogma at their expense.

Given that Baptist, Anglican and Catholic figures are asking for action on the much-ignored obligation for schools to provide a daily act of collective worship , it would be nice if their newly rediscovered respect for the law would also extend to fulfilling both the letter and the spirit of the guidance on sex education.

If they want prayer in secular environments, I want comprehensive sex education in religious ones - on the grounds that two minutes of prayer to a deity of dubious providence is far less damaging to young people than an education that ignores rudimentary advice on preventing preganancy and the spread disease. :) How about it?

findings of study on homophobic bullying in scots schools

More on homophobic bullying in schools, this time closer to home in research from the Scottish Executive. In the Scotsman:

The Scottish Executive report found that "anti-homophobia is not seen as a priority by many schools", despite ministers' attempts to encourage equality and fight prejudice.

Victims said they were unhappy with the way their concerns had been dealt with by teachers, while the research also identified a "long list of damaging and distressing" incidents of homophobic bullying.

The executive summary of the report - "Guidance on dealing with homophobic incidents" - can be found here; the full report, including the literature review and description of methodology - can be found here. I'm going to highlight a few specific conclusions from the summary - first, the findings from consultation with schools and education authorities:

Nearly half (48%) of education authorities make make reference to homophobic bullying or sexual orientation in their anti-bullying policy compared to only 1 in 4 of the schools surveyed.

A common survey response was that a homophobic incident would be dealt with in the same way as any other bullying incident. However, homophobia and sexual orientation are often marginalised with greater emphasis on issues as race and disability.

In other words, GLBT issues appear to occupy a margin within margin. Findings from consultation with young people are more specific about the consequences and experience of bullying:

84% of respondents [to the online survey of young people] were aware of homophobic bullying in their schools and 52% had been homophobically bullied at school. Physical violence was more common in incidents of homophobic bullying than more general bullying.

Only 15% of survey respondents who had been homophobically bullied had reported it to school staff and none were satisfied with the outcome.

Focus group participants and survey respondents stated that homophobic bullying is not taken seriously enough and that current methods of dealing with homophobic incidents are ineffective. This is supported by the low proportion of young people who had ever reported the experience of homophobic bullying.

Focus group participants and survey respondents demonstrated extremely low confidence in school staff and their ability to tackle homophobic incidents: again, this is something reflected in under-reporting. A number of young people stated that schools do not care about their pupils or the issues which they face. 77% of survey respondents stated that the discussion of homophobia and LGBT issues 'never or 'rarely' took place in their schools.

And finally, recommendations for action:

Education Authorities ( EAs) and schools should explicitly make mention and mainstream homophobia into their Anti-Bullying and Equal Opportunities policies.

The existence of homophobia in schools must not be overlooked or underestimated. Homophobic bullying merits the same treatment as other forms of bullying in the school environment.

Mechanisms for young people to report homophobic bullying and seek support must respect confidentiality and deal with incidents in a sensitive and inclusive way. The importance of a commitment by young people to challenging homophobia should be encouraged.

A more preventative approach should be taken to challenging homophobic bullying in schools accompanied by a more proactive approach to raising LGBT issues in general

.

Finally, finally - and amongst the areas which need further study - is the issue of LGBT young people and denominational ( i.e. religious) schools. No kidding - and more on that issue later..

schism shmism

Yet more news of an approaching rift in the Anglican church that already exists: one of the minor miracles of the Church of England is that it has been perched on the edge of schism, rebellion, split, rift and divide for the best part of three years. Apparently, even though a sizeable proportion reject the outrageously liberal inclusion of women and gay people as clergy - going to far as to wholeheartedly reject such candidates and condemn them as wicked - we're still only on the verge of dogmatic cataclysm. Even though Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has recently announced that the church has "fallen apart" since he was in office, everything's more or less okay - the cloud is still on the horizon.

Why? Presumably because we're just so incredibly polite. Even if the heretics are going straight to hell, one wouldn't want to point it out in mixed company.

new calls for public debate on abortion limit

More mendacity from the pro-life lobby:

Labour MP David Drew, of the Parliamentary all party Pro-Life Group said: 'The graphic images of unborn children have shown that the time limit could and should be reduced. The evidence that is now available means we can have a much better informed public debate than in 1990 or 1967.

'We have got sick of waiting for the Government to provide an opportunity to stage this debate. Somebody has to push the issue and it is helpful if the Catholic Church join with others to say things should change.'

We could indeed have a much more informed public debate, but that would involve giving up the enlarged photographs of foetuses as "proof" of the sanctity of life.

Pictures of unborn foetuses tell us almost nothing about whether they would survive outside of the womb, or what health problems and reduced life expectancies might be the consequence of premature birth. The appeal to "high definition pictures of a 19-week-old foetus apparently sucking its thumb" is shameless pandering to emotion that has nothing to do with either the health of the child or the wishes and health of the woman carrying that child.

For reference, the British Medical Association voted last summer that advances in pre-natal and premature infant care do not yet warrant the reduction of the week-limit for abortions - and as a rule, I prefer my health care determined by doctors, rather than priests.

melanie phillips and the conspiracy of hacks

Melanie Phillips reaches the status of world-class fantasist as she invents a conspiracy of misinformation for the recent failings of the Met, primarily the anti-terror raid in London's Forest Gate which found no evidence of terrorist activity.

That raid is apparently part of a "serial failure" of the Met, a claim based on two examples, one of which - the shooting of Charles de Menezes - is about to be shown to be the result of serial operational failure (of communications and surveillance) by the police rather than terror cells planting false information.

Yet somehow it's still supporting evidence for a potential conspiracy of misinformation:

One has to ask why, when they received the tip-off about Forest Gate, both the police and MI5 were taken in. MI5, it seems, found other evidence that appeared to back it up.

It's possible, of course, that the tip-off did possess a core of truth, even if the Forest Gate information was wrong. But it's also possible that it was not just one duff tip from an informer, but a much more comprehensive sting designed to lead the security forces up the garden path.

This is because it is a core Al Qaeda strategy to use dissimulation and false trails to confuse its terrorist targets.

Phillips characterises both theories as "possible" without ever stopping to think which is overwhelmingly more likely, presumably because that would make for a far less exciting column.

Of course, for her plan of disinformation to really work, to become believable - for the police and public to start jumping at every shadow - they'd need some willing shills in the media who were prepared to report any off-the-record source, no matter how ludicrous the claim. Enter Melanie Phillips, indirectly aiding terror through her scare-mongering book, Londonistan: I'm not sure how she can live with herself, now that she's admitted her own role in this propaganda war.

Phillips is also determined to find proof of this conspiracy in the fact the raid took place to "prove or disprove the intelligence" - arguing both sides of the case to praise the police for acting and criticise them for jumping too soon:

Sure, they must not take any chances. But shouldn't they at least get the intelligence sorted before taking an entire house apart?

Clearly, the first mistake the security sources made was failing to run their operational procedures past Melanie Phillips. It is, I think, quite a common mistake amongst most people, everywhere.

While we're playing the game of what's possible or not - maybe, just maybe, and rather than terrorists, a false tip was given to the police by a very ordinary racist who wanted to cause police and public mistrust of the Muslim community.

Or maybe, just maybe, the security forces fucked up because their jobs are very difficult and their political bosses know that they'll never be forgiven for not following tips - even if, as one "source" argued, it turns out to be a dead end 95% of the time.

And maybe, just maybe, Melanie Phillips wouldn't both writing such spurious rubbish if she didn't have a book to sell.

joanna burke: the need for positive male erotics

There's a piece by Joanna Burke in Comment is Free on the cultural myths surrounding rape that's worth reading:

Not confronting these myths is bad for all of us. The politics of sexual pleasure has been displaced into the politics of sexual fear. Such negative politics leaves no room for anything save the paradox of telling women and other potential victims that they need to purchase freedom by investing in deadbolt locks. As we reduce tolerance for displays of macho sexual aggression in daily life, we need to educate men into positive male erotics.

So, how do we go about talking about male sexual identity in a way that doesn't involve recuperating "negative politics" - particularly the kinds of simplistic threats involved in the recent Home Office campaigns?

The comment section is also worth a look (having managed so far to avoid attracting the normal round of victim-blaming) for having gone straight to the issue of why securing rape convictions is so difficult. Beyond a persistent cultural tendency to disbelieve victims of sexual assault compared to other violent crimes, one issue that hasn't come up yet is the marked regional disparities in the provision of rape crisis units and specialist training for the police officers involved in processing such crimes.

UK Times leader: guantanamo is bad PR

Shorter Times leader comment: the Guantanamo camp should be shut because it's bad PR for the USA.

The leader is apparently a comment on the "shortcomings" of the camp yet manages to avoid mentioning that whole "permanent detention without trial" thing - a fact of life that has become so internalised by The Times that it's really not worth pointing out. In fact, The Times praises the Pentagon having held these "suspects" without charge in their pursuit of informaton, even though several hundred have been released as harmless.

There's even space for the "extraordinary response to extraordinary circumstances" excuse, but even that fails to recognise what might be so unusual about Guantanamo. Somehow, we've arrived at the point of perfectly ordinary extraordinary circumstances: it's a masterclass of double-think.

no link between MMR and autism

The bottom line on the MMR vaccine, despite acres of speculation to the contrary:

A top-level inquiry commissioned by the Medical Research Council examined Mr Wakefield's findings, and epidemiological studies were commissioned which found that children given the MMR vaccine were no more likely to become autistic than those who were not.The message from the medical establishment consistently said that there was no evidence of a problem with MMR.

Dr Andrew Wakefield is now facing four charges of unprofessional conduct.

rape prevention and "reasonable precautions"

Here we go again:

A POLICE chief sparks controversy today by suggesting the number of rapes in Scotland could be substantially reduced if women drank less.

Neil Richardson, assistant chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, bases his claim on new research which identified victims' alcohol consumption as significant in a third of attacks.

The senior officer said "a lot" of the 1,100 rapes a year could be prevented "by people not allowing themselves to be in a vulnerable position".

And we're back in the rhetoric of "reasonable precautions," which goes like this: if "people" (i.e women) would just moderate their behaviour then rape wouldn't be such a problem - which, in terms of actually addressing the underlying problem, is the equivalent of arguing "if people would just stop being born with a vagina and breasts then they wouldn't be putting themselves in such a vulnerable position."

For anyone about to point out that sobriety might indeed help reduce rapes, let's recognise that it would only help in the situations which the media focusses most strongly on, the situations which have accordingly become most prevalent in the public imagination.

Sobriety, full-body veils and chaperones all might reduce the risk of rape but they all a) involve the one-sided reduction of women's freedom and b) accept the behaviour of men who rape as something to be managed and tolerated.

The argument that "reasonable precautions" should be taken exists only when we've started to internalise our acceptance of a given crime: we can't stop it or meaningfully reduce it, so we'd better learn to "manage" it. Of course, those who have to do most of the "learning" are those most likely to be victims - women.

Even though only a third of the cases in this study involved alcohol, we're once more focussing on the behaviour of drunken women. The fact that the circumstances of the majority of attacks didn't involve alcohol in any significant way doesn't get any attention at all.

The fact that male behaviour is the primary problem - that we're dealing with a culture of apparently opportunistic rapists who would halt their behaviour if women were stoney-cold-sober - goes unremarked. The idea that there might be such "opportunist rapists" goes undiscussed because it would involve recognising that rapists aren't fang-toothed monsters hiding in the shadows: they actually look and live like other men.

It's certainly much easier to imagine the opportunist-rapist because that means we can frame rape reduction in terms of women's behaviour, rather than consider the far more difficult task of addressing the kind of men who apparently don't go out looking to rape but wouldn't avoid it if the opportunity presented itself.

My point? We're once more having a discussion about rape that entirely ignores the pathology of the men who rape and focusses instead on the behaviour of a minority of victims of rape - whose behaviour, incidentally, doesn't make them responsible for their assault. Rather than dealing with an apparent culture of opportunist-rapists - rather, one assumes, career sociopaths - we focus on the behaviour of women.

The main feature of this discussion, as ever, is the absence of any similar advice to men: don't try to have sex with women who are clearly drunk because it shows a collossal lack of respect for everyone involved. Don't let your male friends go off with someone who you think is drunk. Presumably, that would be a step too far.

on the homeopathic remedy for malaria: bullshit special

A small note on Susan Clark (also in the Times as Susannah Clark) and her advice on the side-effects of anti-malarial drugs:

You need to check the data sheet supplied with the drug to establish that these sensations could be side-effects but even if they are, I have had such a complete hammering in the past for suggesting any kind of alternative (including homeopathic and herbal remedies) to prescription drugs for malaria that I am afraid you will have to persist with this medication and instead, try to deal with the possible side-effects which, for a small number of people taking them can also include nausea and vomiting.

That's because your advice was just about the most irresponsible piece of "health" advice possible; it's the equivalent of telling someone not to bother taking the drugs at all. Seriously, a homeopathic remedy for malaria? If such a marvel existed, I'd hope that the enlightened sponsors of homeopathy would have stepped forward to prevent the many thousands of deaths each year due to that disease.

What's that? No-one has?

I'm amazed.

the reverse geneva convention

This has me sick to my stomach:

The suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amount to acts of war, the US military says.

The camp commander said the two Saudis and a Yemeni were "committed" and had killed themselves in "an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us".

Apparently, seizing and imprisoning someone permanently, without trial, doesn't count as an action which might provoke any response - either in the form of direct action or despair. It's so entirely reasonable, legitimate and unmarked that attempts to free oneself through suicide from this "tropical heaven" is unacceptable aggression. It's just a non-explosive variant of suicide-bombing.

I presume that anyone killed in Iraq as "collateral damage" can now be condemned as having given "assymetrical aid" to the insurgency.

EDIT: Under these terms of reference, exactly what behaviour on the part of the detainees (including demands for legal representation) could not be framed as asymmetric welfare?

family of freed terror suspects resist protest action

From The Guardian:

Earlier yesterday, the men's family foiled an attempt by extremists to hijack their protest against the police actions.

Around 35 men and 15 women attended a noisy demonstration opposite Forest Gate police station in east London organised by Anjem Choudary, formerly a close associate of the exiled cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. Mr Choudary had said hundreds of angry Muslims would attend the protest once they had left their mosques after Friday prayers. But the brothers' family sent a statement to at least 20 mosques on Thursday evening which was read to worshippers during prayers yesterday afternoon, urging them to disassociate themselves from the event.

Mr Koyair and Mr Kahar's sister, Humeya Kalam, said the police raid represented "barbaric and horrific actions" but an extremist protest would "only give another opportunity for our community to be portrayed in a negative light".

We're seeing an active attempt by the moderate, mainstream Muslim community to disassociate themselves from a small group of extremists - who, amongst other things, have demanded the introduction of Sharia law - a demand so entirely unlikely to be fulfilled as to be rendered merely symbolic. It's a demand intended to rile opposition and pull the faithful together in defence: a strategy which seems to have failed spectacularly on this occasion.

In turn, this suggests a resistance to the activity of some members of the Respect party (notably Yvonne Ridley) in arguing for the Muslim community to withdraw their co-operation with the police - a move disowned by the party leader, George Galloway.

terror suspects released early without charge

Abul Kahar Kalam and Abul Koyair Kalam, arrested during an anti-terrorism raid in which Kahar was shot, have been freed without charge. The police had permission to hold the pair until Saturday afternoon - they actually were released late on Friday night, possibly to avoid the presence of demonstrators and a media circus.

The circumstances of the shooting are still unclear, though it seems increasingly unlikely that the shot was fired during a struggle as the brothers sought to flee the scene. The Times' current summary of events runs like this:

It is understood that the officer involved told independent investigators that it was an accident and that his sub-machinegun went off during a struggle on a staircase.

However, lawyers for Mr Kahar said there was no tussle and the officer did not issue a warning before he was hit as he emerged unarmed from his bedroom, dressed in pyjamas.

For earlier accounts from "police sources" and the lawyers of the accused, go here. the News of The World's talk of "DNA testing" to prove who fired the weapon is sounding more and more like bollocks fed to a gullible hack. The alleged absence of a warning as armed police entered the premises is also a detail that needs to be followed carefully.

facelift

A couple of hours of breaking the template and I've arrived at a slightly cleaner version of this blog's design. I've introduced a technorati link for each post, and reformatted the ads so that they're a little less obvious - though that might defeat the purpose of having them at all.

Please let me know if anything is hopelessly broken.

action on homophobic bullying

The Liberal Democrats have launched an online petition against homophobic bullying: please go and sign it. I'm never sure of the direct impact of petitions, but I figure your signature and time is worth even the smallest chance of reducing the misery of being bullied at school for the crime of perceived or real difference.

Speaking from experience, the worst thing about being bullied at school is that it's an environment over which you have little control, and little chance to escape from without damaging your own prospects. It's a misery you have to face every day, hoping that you won't draw the attention of your persecutors with your mere presence.

For context, the problem with homophobic bullying in school is that the historical precedent of Section 28 has left many teachers and schools feeling unwilling or unobliged to face the issue. This situation is also informed by religious schools which - as a matter of doctrine - do not challenge the condemnation of homosexuality and provide legitimacy, if not encouragement, for this kind of bullying.

Movements to teach about all kinds of relationships, not just heterosexual ones, have helped change that environment, but both students and teachers still face routine abuse.

Further information on homophobia within anti-bullying guidelines can be found here at the Teachernet site. There's also EACH (Educational Action Challenging Homophobia) which is a national charity providing support and training:

EACH provides the freephone Helpline for young people affected by homophobia: 0808 1000 143. Available 10am to 5pm weekdays and 10am to midday on Saturdays, it gives callers the opportunity to receive confidential help and support.

EACH's freephone number also provides a confidential homophobic incident reporting Helpline for adults, funded by Bristol Neighbourhood Renewal, Bath and North East Somerset Council, Safer South Gloucestershire and its Council, North Somerset's Community Safety Team, Avon and Somerset Constabularly and Lewisham Police.

suffer the little children (fathers ride free)

Another invisible man story:

[The Institute for Public Policy Research] published research that admitted babies and toddlers sent for long hours in daycare learn less quickly, have worse health, and behave worse than other children.

It also suggested that the children suffer because mothers who return home from work tired and unhappy are less able to give them the time and full attention they need.

The impact of lacklustre parenting on the part of fathers is apparently of little concern - either because ensuring the happiness and health of young children is women's work, or because fathers have no discernable effect on their children.

Once more, "research" by a think-tank about the impact of a single parent caring full time for a child is framed as the importance of a woman in a "traditional role" that completely fails to talk about the role a father might play.

happy birthday to me

This blog is now a little over a year old - having started before last year's general election at journalspace and made its way to blogger earlier this year. A couple of false starts means that I still have little idea just how many people have visited - but I do know one thing: I've managed to write and quote well over 200,000 words and receive a couple of hundred comments and emails. Polite commenters have referred to me as "prolific" - I think that this might just count as excessive.

I always planned to keep this blog going for a year before considering whether to continue: the year's up and there seems to be little chance of me shutting up yet. So, once more, thanks for reading and commenting - and know that I'm planning some changes in the near future.

home office drops plans to criminalise forced marriage

The Home Office has decided to postpone indefinitely plans to make forced marriage a specific criminal offence. The formal announcement is here:

The Government's Forced Marriage Unit consulted with 157 organisations and individuals on the issue, and based on that input recommended that no law should be written at this time specifically outlawing forced marriage.

If such a law were written, the unit was told, the already secretive practice could be driven further underground, making it harder to find and protect women victimised in this way, and more people could be hurt in the process.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's version of the announcement is here. There's a final report (pdf) giving the conclusions of the consultation process begun last September, which I will try to find time to read. I've written about criminalisation several times before: I argued broadly in favour of it.

police cleared of menezes shooting: media ethics whitewash to ensue

Now:

The circumstances of [Charles de Menezes'] death have always been shrouded in confusion and controversy after initial suggestions that he was wearing a suspicious padded jacket and vaulted the station barrier to escape police later turned out to be unfounded. [...]

He was not wearing a padded jacket as some early reports claimed and did not vault the station ticket barrier. Instead he walked down to the platform after picking up a free newspaper.

Initial suggestions? If I recall correctly, those "suggestions" from the police were reported pretty much as fact. Any "confusion and controversy" was entirely due to the willingness of the media to trust off-the-record sources whose version of events was curiously self-serving. From the BBC's account:

Police said their suspicions were raised because Mr Menezes was wearing a padded jacket in warm weather, which could have been concealing a bomb belt.

Mr Menezes was followed from his flat in Tulse Hill to Stockwell Tube station. Police said Mr Menezes was ordered to stop but he fled into the underground, jumping over a ticket barrier. [my emphasis]

I'd add that this BBC story (quoted here back in July of last year) changed slightly after the original version was posted. For example, in the first draft:

Police saidtheir suspicions were raised because Mr Menezes was wearing a padded jacket in warm weather, which could have been concealing a bomb belt.

The "updated" version:

Police said their suspicions were raised because of Mr Menezes clothing and behaviour. An eyewitness had said Mr Menezes was wearing a padded jacket in warm weather, which could have been concealing a bomb belt.

The second version shifts the lie from the police to a flawed witness report - though you might notice it's still a police account of that eye-witness report, selected (one might suggest) because it fitted the most favourable version of events for the police. Get the feeling that the bomb belt suspicion is something that occurred in the mind of the witness / police after the first bombs had gone off?

Still, isn't it just wonderful how we arrive at a definitive version of events from a nameless source, a source that continues to be protected even though we know now that they were bold-faced liars? These would be the same sources who fed the story that Menezes was a rapist - a charge later shown to be wholly false.

Expect to see several national newspapers printing a story that carefully avoids their own role in the circulation of the original false story. Do not expect to see the names of any of the original sources who lied, or any kind of apology from the press to the family of Charles de Menezes - after all, the press were "just doing their jobs" when they blindly printed unsubstantiated lies.

Oh, look, the World Cup. Hopefully that will distract our attention.

new guidelines on rape sentencing announced

There's some worrying language in the legal review of rape sentencing:

The Sentencing Guidelines Council directs judges that "date rape" or "acquaintance rape" is as serious as "stranger rape" - but it said there should be less severe punishments in cases where the victim "said 'no' to sexual intercourse at the last moment". The Council said that this could be a mitigating factor in cases where the victim was over 16.

What the fuck? So the severity of rape punishment is now due to timing? Could the sentencing guidelines council provide a time-sheet that indicates at which point during a social encounter a woman surrenders her right to withdraw consent? I'm also not happy that the language suggests that consent is always pre-given and has to be actively withdrawn - rather than the other way around.

Ruth Hall, from Women Against Rape, accused the Council of "talking out of both sides of its mouth" and creating a two-tier system for rape allegations. "They have no right to be telling men they are less culpable for rape in these circumstances," she said. "Women have a right to change their minds, or to go so far and no further, perhaps because they don't like what they are being asked to do or because the man turns violent."

Above all, these guidelines create wiggle room for the entire prosecuting case to be challenged: it supports the stereotype of men "unable to stop themselves" and creates a precedent for men to be found less culpable of rape, even when their victim has said no.

Though these guidelines should only apply to sentencing - i.e. after guilt has been determined - I have an unpleasant feeling that they will feed back into the public understanding of the original crime and consequently guide jury discussions and decisions.

However, part of this review also contains stiffer sentencing guidelines for spousal rape:

Under these draft guidelines the 'starting point' sentence for a rape committed by a man who is a stranger to the victim will be five years' jail. A husband or partner found guilty of rape in the courts will get the same treatment.

But if they are judged to have abused the trust of their wife or girlfriend they will be dealt with in the same harsh way as as a member of a gang which attacks and rapes a woman picked at random.

I need to read through all of the new guidelines, now posted on the Sentencing Guidelines Council website, as there are a number of entirely new recommendations relating to voyeurism and public exposure.

Oh, and rather sadly and predictably, the Mail's comment section is filled with men arguing that main problem with reforming rape law is that vengeful women will file false accusations - cue usual rubbish about carrying tape-recorders and getting written permission before sex. The false accusation of rape isn't a problem of any significance in this country: the chronic under-prosecution of reported rape is, and reform of sexual offence law has to recognise that first before anything else.

EDIT: More detailed coverage in The Times:

Last year the number of rapists successfully prosecuted fell to a record low despite a rising number of attacks. One in 18 reported rapes end in a conviction, while in the ten years to 2004-05 reported rapes rose from 5,136 to 14,002.

Rapes where victim and offender know each other are thought to make up 80 per cent of the 14,000 reported rapes a year. Of those “acquaintance” rapes, the ones that involve previous sexual activityare hardest to prosecute. Juries often believe that victims “asked” for it — because of behaviour, drinking or clothing.

more on the politics of "normal"

I've been thinking about politics of tolerance and normalcy versus the equal protection of difference lately. More specifically, I've been trying to find a way of articulating how a challenge to limited definitions of legitimate identities and sexualties need not be the same thing as a claim on being "normal."

I think the weighted phrase "minority status" in Melanie Phillips' ass-hat article from yesterday describes the necessity for this kind of thinking - a need for a way to oppose this notion (that deviation from a majority norm is uncomplicated moral grounds for discrmination) that doesn't disavow difference.

A challenge to Phillips' specious argument for discrimination can't be made by just about claiming to be normal. It has to be about arguing that a lack of cultural normalcy doesn't make a person less human, less deserving of privacy and respect - short, less deserving of the freedom to live as they see fit so long as they don't disenfranchise another.

All this and more prompted by this post at Air Pollution (via Winter at Desperate Kingdoms).

catholic church warns of threat to family: polite fundamentalism is still fundamentalism

The short version of the Catholic Church's document of moral panic:

Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today's culture.

The Church only wants you to have sex for the purposes of reproduction, with someone you've married in a specific ceremony that one of their celibate representatives approves of. The same celibate Church alone gets to decide what passes for "true love" - only that between a man and a woman. While God gave you free will, he didn't expect you to actually use it.

Yet somehow, this overwhelming desire to control our bodies and happiness isn't a threat: the decision to resist this religious authoritarianism is.

Fundamentalist belief sees difference from the strictures of that belief system as an intolerable threat. That threat is then articulated as a danger to the wider culture - believers and non-believers alike. So gay marriage and adoption - for example - doesn't just contradict Catholicism, it threatens the fabric of civilisation.

Fortunately for civilisation, the concerns raised by the Catholic Church are frequently exaggerated, unfounded or false. To take just one of the signs of the coming "eclipse" of god - which might sound like a good thing if you don't believe anyway - let's consider gay adoption, and children with gay parents.

Leaving aside the claim that it's "unnatural" - which if true, would apply in different degrees to all adoption and child-rearing by non-biological parents - opponents of gay adoption argue that:

1) children with gay parents will grow up with a distorted sense of what's normal and will experience gender confusion;
2) the "gay lifestye" is incompatible with and damaging to children;
3) the children of gay parents will experience bullying and prejudice at school;
4) it's a dangerous experiment of which we cannot tell the consequence.

Answers to all four points of concern come in the form of actual, existing research. To take one recent example: in October 2005, at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference, researchers presented information from 15 studies on more than 500 children since 1985, "evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths."

The study, led by Ellen C. Perrin, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, found that "children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way ."

Crucially, this verdict was praised by the former president of the American Academy of Paediatrics for its use of evidence-based studies - in contrast, one might note, to the "truth" of religious doctrine or pre-given prejudice.

Similarly, though opponents of gay adoption cite the instability of same-sex households (as in the Rekers study) as proof of their unsuitability, only candidates who can provide the most stable environments are allowed to proceed through the adoption process.

As such, rigorous examination of individual circumstances and candidates is far more important than analysis of a group of as a whole: straight, Catholic married couples are not given a free pass to adoption because they enjoy statistically more stable relationships.

Yet the Church persists in arguing that their version of the family alone is tenable - a belief that draws upon a dogmatic characterisation of marriage as a holy institution rather than the reality of individual homes and relationships.

The unthinking claim that any religion knows best should be challenged whereever it emerges: while blind faith might satisfy the devout, it shouldn't be used to dictate the lives of the vast majority who are not. Polite, well-funded and long-established fundamentalism is no less dangerous than any other kind.

inter-denominational grudge match wrestling

The Catholic Church has increased pressure on the Church of England:

A VATICAN cardinal has told the Church of England that to consecrate women as bishops would make unity "unreachable" and shared Communion impossible. Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the Council for Christian Unity, has urged the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and his fellow bishops not to proceed towards women becoming bishops without support from the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

Cardinal Kasper said that the ordination of women as priests had led to a "cooling off". Women bishops would cause a "serious and long-lasting chill".

Snapping his fingers in Cardinal Kasper's face, Dr Williams responded "No, beeyatch, it is you what has to get our support."

I might have added that last bit. Still, it's entertaining to hear who is whose bitch, ecclesiastically speaking. "Full church communion" is possible if it's not shared at all - i.e. if Anglicans agree to sit quietly and do what the Catholic Church tells them.

The Pontifical Council for the Family has also found time to issue a condemnation of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilisation and same-sex partnerships - a suitably comprehensive list which - aside from being bad for sexual health everywhere - alienates most of the women and men in the developed world. More on that later..

a brief guide to "values"

Following on from comments here, a handy diagram (click to enlarge):



I hope that clears everything up.

times leader: we're morons and we think you are too

The Times has produced a superlatively stupid leader comment:

America-bashing is in fashion as it has not been since Ronald Reagan accurately described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire". Anti-Americanism is not confined to the usual radical chic suspects of the Left; in Britain, it infects the High Tory Establishment, "good Europeans" and little Eng-landers alike. So why are we all anti-Americans now?

We're not, you fucking fool. Let's make this simple: objections to the reckless and poorly managed foreign policy of the current US administration is not the same thing as blind anti-Americanism . Objections to US foreign policy have little, if anything at all, to do with America's "music, its culture, its self-confident exceptionalism."

Simply saying it would be worse if America stayed home (which will never, ever happen), or that criticism might "weaken the resolve" of the US is not a response to an ill-planned war mounted on spurious reasoning. It's a rhetorical sidestep that avoids addressing either past or current events. Likewise, the idea that critics of US foreign policy have "lost sight of the real enemy" - terrorism - is a self-serving piece of sophistry, as if objection to an Iraq in ruins is equivalent to a preference for suicide bombers over American soldiers.

Uncritical support of any ally or regime is pointless if the UK is to be more than a gutless cheerleader.

melanie phillips: civil rights activists to blame for spread of radical fundamentalists

Melanie Phillips lets us all know the root causes of Islamic terror in the UK:

Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or "anti-racists" who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people's livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer.

That's right: apparently, civil rights campaigners are to blame for giving moral justification to Islamic terror. Here, Philips manages to loop the loop and claim that the demand for equal rights for gay people is the same thing as insisting that everyone take up same-sex relationships. A refusal to accept minority status - less protection in the law than the majority - becomes the same thing as attempting to "convert,"  Islamicise, castrate or homosexualise, oh my, the majority.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of equality activism will have noticed a gradual shift in emphasis from tolerance - which wasn't worth shit when AIDS kicked off - to a demand for equal protection under the law. That's equal treatment, not special treatment - and certainly not the enforcement of a single lifestyle on everyone. While Phillips and her ilk might like to frame the claim on equality as an attempt to brainwash the masses, the truth is that minorities don't give a fuck what Philips believes: they have no interest in "converting" her, only that she stop denying them the same rights to work, love and live as everyone else.

Unlike religious fundamentalists, activists for gay and women's rights don't care what anyone else consents to do in their bedroom: despite the tabloid meme of a culture "under attack" from activist minorities, the claim on freedom ends where it disenfranchises others. The key difference that Phillips chooses to ignore is that radical fundamentalists have no such concerns.

rationalising the response to threat

It's going to take a while for this kind of rationale to start making sense:

A counter-terrorism official said: "If the intelligence was right there was a serious risk to the public. We did not know if it was right or not until we went in." Another official added: "Intelligence is patchy. Even if it suggests a 5% likelihood of something nasty, we can't take that risk".

So even if something is 95% unlikely, then we act - even, apparently, when we have a single uncorroborated source. Hmm.. Now, how much fear is the product of genuine real world risk, and how much is the product of our response to things which have a likelihood of 5% or less?

reporting terror: creating the "backlash"

More slippage in the "unnamed source" version of events. From the NoTW on Sunday:

A highly-placed Whitehall source told us: "We understand the officers are adamant that they did not pull the trigger and have told bosses at Scotland Yard the DNA evidence will prove this.

Not quite sure how DNA will prove that, but there you have it.Then, today, in the Daily Mail:

There was also an extraordinary suggestion from police sources that thick rubber gloves worn by firearms officers in the raid may have been to blame for the shooting.

The special chemical-proof gloves, it is suggested, may have made handling the weapon very difficult. Police sources have insisted the shot was fired 'accidentally' during a scuffle.

Well, no, that's not quite what they've insisted. They've actually blamed one (or both) of the brothers. Who'd have though that unnamed sources briefing off-the-record would prove to be so unreliable?  Or rather, who'd have though that unnamed sources briefing off the record would prove to be so unreliable again? Just about anyone who isn't a tabloid editor, whose wilful naivety has long stopped being charming.

The Daily Mail leads with the story of police facing a "backlash" from the Muslim community, which chooses to empasise the minor radical groups supposedly seeking to "take advantage" of the situation - without quite realising that very situation, an atmosphere of anger and frustration, is due in no small part to the Mail's own editorial stance. Though Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has only spoken of a deterioration of community relationships with the police, the Mail chooses the word "backlash" and begins to frame an issue of trust as the threat of reciprocal violence, revenge.

Anger for having been unfarly accused of radicalism becomes de facto proof of radicalism: those wily terrorists are using non-existent terror plots to whip up support for terror. The fact that Muslims in London might be justifiably anxious, angry or upset is ignored for the meme that the anger of Islamists is merely proof of religious extremism. The persistent irony is the Mail's role in creating the environments where extremism can find a home: if a preacher tells you that Muslims are hated and feared in the UK, little in the Mail is going to challenge that.

gay marriage debate live now

The marriage ammendment debate is taking place right now - listen and watch live on C-SPAN 2 (posted 7.20pm UK time).

NSPCC: sex education lacking information on law and abuse

More evidence that more sex education, rather than less, is needed if you want to raise healthy, happy and safe children:

Incomplete sex education in schools is leaving children confused about sexual abuse, according to an NSPCC survey. Some 93% of 2,000 children surveyed said their lessons did not include any information on sexual abuse.

And 82% of them did not know it was illegal for a 30-year-old man to sexually touch a 15-year-old girl. The NSPCC is calling on the government to make sure 14 to 16-year-olds are taught about sex in the context of law, relationships and peer pressure. [...] The survey found that, although 92% of children knew the age of consent, 88% did not consider a 23-year-old woman having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old as abusive.

It is quite staggering that sex education doesn't include information on sex in the context of the law. At the very least, it's hard to stop people from having underage sex if sex education - either at home or in school - has never addressed the issue.

If you want teenagers to say "no," or exercise control over when they say "yes," then they have to be informed enough to either protect themselves or know when to seek help - either in the form of advice from a parent or teacher, in access to contraception or, where necessary, in child protection services.

This survey describes a failure of the moralising of "sex bad" - which, in its oversimplification of sexual morality, fails to teach anything about when sex might be good and leaves people unable to differentiate between the two kinds of situation. The unmarked problem of a socially-conservative agenda that implies sex should be avoided until marriage is that those who reject it have little to fall back on. It's stupid to berate young people for inappropriate sexual behaviour if the only education in appropriate behaviour they've received has been a lecture on biology and the virtues of abstinence. We need to be a lot better at this.

mutant pregnant princess news

Let's all count the things that are badly wrong with this headline and story: Pregnancy test on Diana's DNA .

the ol' gay marriage flim-flam

One step forward:

THE Western Isles is preparing to reverse its controversial ban on gay weddings in the Outer Hebrides in the run-up to new anti-discrimination legislation. The council says it will now find someone prepared to conduct a same-sex ceremony even though local registrars have until now refused to perform them.

A bill which will make it illegal for businesses and public authorities to discriminate against homosexuals has forced officials in the islands to re-think their ban on civil partnerships involving same-sex couples. [...] A spokesman for the council, which prefers its official - Gaelic - title, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, said: "We are aware of the legislation, and we will meet our obligations under the law."

and the threat of a rather larger step back:

US President George W Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Mr Bush used his weekly radio address to deliver a plea for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman.

He said the measure was needed because "activist courts" left no alternative.

There's something spectacularly ugly about the use of an amendment banning gay marriage as a wedge issue: given that it has no chance of passing, its only role is to separate the god-fearing queer-bashers from the godless infidel. The rhetoric of protecting the family and preserving social stability is paper thin: notice that no-one is proposing an amendment banning divorce, which wouldn't have nearly the potential to divide and demonise. For rival pointless showboating to a rabid base, imagine an ammendment banning sex outside of marriage.

However - and I'm aware this might be unduly optimistic - this attempt to amend the US constitution may backfire.  A growing number of small-government conservatives and libertarians are already pissed at an administration that thinks the separation of powers is more of a guideline than a founding principal. There are also already voices amongst the religious right arguing that Bush has only provided minimal lip-service to the issue and that such a lack of interest does not deserve their faithful support.

While a senate that's already seen as incompetent and out of touch might be thinking they don't have anything to lose, the key is that fundamentalists who feel they've been taken for granted are outnumbered by ordinary people who pay tax and drive cars - and are starting to resent the sound and fury of what passes for mainstream politics.

It's hard to care about gay marriage if you can't afford the gas you need to get to work, afford health insurance for the family you already have, or don't know when your son, daughter or spouse is coming home from a war zone. It's only minimally comforting to find a queer scapegoat when you're still left with the same unpaid bills and mortgage at the end of the day.

The queston is this: just how transparent does a ploy by an unpopular President have to be before it starts a backlash?

carnivalia

The seventh Carnival of Bent Attractions is now up at Ron Hudson's blog.

london terror raid: three different accounts?

For some much needed clarity - and before the accounts of what happened change again - here are three versions of the shooting incident during the anti-terror raid in east London on Friday. First, detail from The Guardian's report:

Mr Kahar's solicitor, Kate Roxburgh, said the 23-year-old Royal Mail worker had been shot in the upper right hand side of his chest, with the bullet exiting through his shoulder on an upwards trajectory. She said his brother had been standing behind Mr Kahar at the time.

Both solicitors said there had been no struggle before the shot was fired without warning, but Ms Roxburgh said Mr Kahar had grabbed the gun after he was shot fearing it would be fired again, leaving him with a burn to his hand from the hot barrel.

It's worth noting that this account is substantially different from the police source / News of the World version - where Kahar's brother, Koyair, is in front of him:

Security sources say the cops were confronted by the Muslim brothers, who were trying to run down the steps, and a scuffle broke out. This is understood to have climaxed with 20-year-old Abdul Koyair making a grab for a police firearm, which already had its safety catch off.

In the desperate struggle that followed, the gun was fired and the bullet hit 23-year-old mail worker Abdul Kahar in the shoulder.

Now presumably the 'DNA evidence' being gathered in the NoTW's story would show that Koyair had handled the gun, thus strengthening the struggle/misfire account. However, that leaves us with the inconsistency of the burn to Kahar's hand: why would he put his hand to a gun immediately after he'd been shot if he was a bystander to the struggle?

However, The Independent's version - quoting Julian Young, the solicitor representing Mr Koyair - doesn't even have Koyair in the same room when the shooting took place, suggesting that if he touched the gun at all it wasn't until after his brother had been shot:

Mr Young denied reports that Mr Koyair had caused his brother to be shot in a scuffle. He said: "There was a bang and a flash. He went down on to the next floor where his brother's room is and saw his brother on the floor.

The client was upset, trying to find out what was happening. He was frightened. He then saw a man with a gun and, after a few seconds, the man with the gun shouted to get on the floor and pulled him away. A second gunman pulled the client to the ground."

So, three different versions - and still no sign of any incriminating evidence at the property. Thoughts?

off the record

Doesn't this all seem strangely familiar? First, there's off-the-record briefings on a shooting which incriminate those under investigation:

Miss Roxburgh also said that claims in a Sunday newspaper [the News of the World] that Kahar was shot by his brother during a scuffle with armed police were 'absolute nonsense' and that he was shot in the chest without warning. [...] Police sources say there was a struggle during which the gun may have been fired accidentally.

Then there's a refusal to go on the record to address those specific allegations:

Mr Kahar's solicitor, Kate Roxburgh, said one of the 250 police officers involved in the raid was responsible for firing the shot. But police have not confirmed they fired the shot. The Metropolitan Police have never said a warning was given - an official statement said only that a 23-year-old man had received a gunshot wound.

A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said it was inappropriate for them to comment while the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the incident was under way.

No mention of how it might be inappropriate for officers to comment off-the-record, though, or for the media to report those allegations during an investigation because that would bring the whole convenient arrangement down, Samson style.

Then there's the fetishised detailing of weapons of terror, despite the admission that said weapons might not exist at all. Once more, from the Daily Mail, paragraph 2:

The dramatic raid on the property on Friday came after an MI5 informant drew a detailed sketch of a poison bomb and a vest or jacket that could be used to smuggle it into the Tube network or a pub crowded with World Cup fans

Then, much, much later, in paragraph 23:

But it was reported last night that some security officials had admitted the intelligence may have been flawed. Sources told the Guardian newspaper that the chemical weapons may not even exist.

Or, from the BBC:

Security sources have told the BBC that the potentially fatal device thought to be in the house could produce casualty figures in double or even triple figures.

Or no figures at all, if it doesn't exist, which is looking a little more likely with every day that nothing is found, despite 'reliable' intelligence.

My point isn't whether the two men who have been arrested are involved in terrorism or not: on that point, time, investigation and possibly even a trial will tell. The issue here is whether their guilt or innocence - or the accuracy of the early accounts of the alleged plot and shooting - will have any impact on the media's willingness to trade in highly speculative off-the-record security sources - particularly when said sources have previously engaged in such tactics to smear defendants and cover their own mistakes.

On the basis of this display, probably not.

"trauma induced groin infection"

Ouchie: send your wishes for speedy recovery to Jamie at Blood and Treasure, the best non-pirate themed blog that still has a pirate-themed title.

will hutton: modernity is such a bitch

Will Hutton's theory that the problem with boys is that they can't cope with modernity is an impressive bit of blame redistribution - run through with the kind of claim to dire urgency only middle-class pundits can generate.

First, his apparently good news is that girl problems are much less worrying - because at least they don't stop you from getting into university:

Girls have their particular problems - they suffer disproportionately from anorexia, self-harming and bulimia to mention just the most obvious - but the figures on examinations and university entrance tell a different story.

Having quickly established that straight A grades are worth a little binge and purge or a few scars, Hutton leads with the revelation that teenage boys facing their exams can be disaffected, unsettled and sometimes angry or rebellious.

The idea that stress and hormones might be responsible - or even that Even Nice Middle Class Parents Can Fuck Up Their Kids - is ignored for a far more significant disorder. Oh no, watch out: it's modernity.

In fact, Hutton goes out of his way to make sure we know that parents aren't to blame:

Today's education, emphasising tests with the GCSE as the ultimate test, does not mesh with boys' internal emotional lives. They are offered little vocabulary and few role models to aspire to. Their peer groups relentlessly punish signs of softness. When they see threats - perceived or real - they feel vulnerable and, without the emotional equipment to balance themselves, respond like cornered animals.

No role models? I'm sure many young men aspire to being newspaper columnists who write opinion pieces presuming that the life of the London middle class is the life of the rest of the world.

The sudden aggression and angry violence that upsets so many parents of teenage boys is not a sign of poor parenting or an appetite to be macho. It's an expression of boys' inability to live up to today's highly managed demands.

Highly managed demands which do not - do not, y'hear? - include the expectations of middle-class parents for their children to go to university and settle down into nice middle-class lives. No, it's the education system, and modernity, and sun-spots.

I supposed I should give ritual acknowledgement that the Patriarchy Hurts Boys Too, though Hutton's willingness to reduce girl problems to background noise makes me rather less sympathetic - as does his claim to define the true nature of the gender divide:

In this culture, deferring gratification - working hard for today's exam for later rewards - is harder for boys to sustain. Girls, however, see more opportunity. Femininity is not so bound up with making a demonstrable immediate impact.

Clearly, previous generations of men who excelled through the examination system or built businesses from scratch in their garages or embarked on five year degrees to become doctors, or were self-motivated to pursue ground-breaking research, or literature or music were all anomalies. Similarly, Hutton's own list of girl problems - anorexia, self-harming and bulimia - having nothing to do with a desire for a "demonstrable immediate impact," okay?

The notion that rewards may be less certain, more diffuse and more distant does not challenge the essence of a girl's being in quite the same way it does a boy's. Girls, in short, are better at deferred gratification than boys.

Boys feel the disempowerment of modernity more acutely.

Not the poor, not ethnic or religious or sexual minorities, not people working in sweatshops but the sons of the middle classes. Modernity is such a bitch.

So - boys want instant gratification and even though the real world won't give them instant gratification we should still change the education system to falsely reward them for behaviour that won't work when they get a real job?

Of course, it's not entirely the fault of the schools - there are some parents who can be easily blamed:

One ardent feminist mother of boys whose behaviour took my breath away told me that, for all her despair, she still felt her sons had an internal swagger, an inner belief that they still could be masters of the universe that few girls possess. Her sons would come good in the end. And, indeed, they might, as many do, but they will have lost a decade.

Short of any explanation of the breath-taking acts of ardent parenting, feminism is left hanging as the proof of upbringing which is anti-male and robs children of ten years of living: they fuck you up your mum and dad, but not nearly as badly as feminism will.

Do some young men have problems coping? Yes, and as long as their parents continue to write articles which minimise their own role in raising "emotionally balanced" children they will continue to struggle.

it's a lovely sunny day

More compelling ads here.

religion is not an excuse for prejudice

Well, duh:

Hotels and bed and breakfasts could face prosecution for turning away homosexual couples under new government proposals to protect gays and lesbians from being denied "goods, facilities and services" because of their sexual orientation. [...]

The proposals were attacked yesterday by a former Lord Chancellor and a senior Church of England bishop, who warned that they would hit Christian businesses, charities and faith schools.

More specifically, the proposals would hit intolerant, socially conservative Christian businesses, charities and faith schools. Give that religious intolerance towards gay people is a prime source of "legitimate" homophobia, you'll forgive me if I don't cry a river. On that note, boo-fucking-hoo:

They could affect schools that are accused of failing to deal with homophobic bullying as they would other bullying, or golf clubs that turn down applications for membership on the grounds that the applicants are gay.

What's the argument here? That schools shouldn't be made to deal with homophobic bullying, which goes on regardless of whether the student is gay or not (or knows, or not)? That if I terrorise someone with religious or racist taunts, I'm in trouble, but homophobic taunts are okay? Why do organised religions apparently want special protection?

It's mildly entertaining to have social conservatives explain the consequences of these proposals as if no-one understands what might happen. My well of sarcasm is a litte dry of late, so let's go with - newsflash: these have always been the intended consequences:

Lord Mackay said: "For people of religious faith who believe that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, these proposals seem to me to carry a serious threat to their freedom in their voluntary and charitable work and in relation to earning their livelihood in a number of occupations."

This is only true if you insist on making the rejection of teh queer the corner-stone on which you've built your entire church - which would come as a suprise to a number of relaxed liberal religious types, including Jesus. Being an intolerant bigot and raising money for AIDS orphans in Africa doesn't make you any less of an intolerant bigot - but, fortunately, the two activities are not intrinsically linked. You can give up the first without damaging your ability to do the second.

Our broader culture is arguing that intolerance towards gay people is not acceptable merely because it comes under the banner of religious thought. One might make the argument for polygamy, child-brides and the burning of widows as privileged religious practices, where a ban would infringe on freedom to worship. However, we recognise that some things are just not acceptable in our culture: it would be nice if holy queer-bashing could be one of them, too.

Finally, for anyone thinking this amounts to unjustifiable persecution, let's recognise the asymmetrical quality of this prejudice: the lesbian and gay lobby is not campaigning for the right to deny goods and services to the religious, however distasteful their particular "religious lifestyle choices" might be.

(also see crying tiny tears for bigots)

no exceptions

If you allow an exception to the law for bigots, then you're admitting that any claim on equal treatment is a pipe-dream:

CATHOLIC adoption agencies yesterday asked MSPs for an opt-out to placing children with gay couples if new laws come in allowing same-sex couples to adopt.

Legislation proposed by the Executive would allow gay couples to adopt children jointly for the first time in Scotland. At a meeting of the education committee yesterday, campaign groups Gay Dads Scotland and Rainbow Families argued what was important was the care adopted children received, not the sexuality of potential adoptive parents.

But Catholic adoption agencies insist the best option is for youngsters to be placed with heterosexual couples and called for an opt-out from the new law.

Having discovered that no-one is buying their particular brand of homophobia, the Catholic Church is seeking permission to pick up its ball and go home: rather a full care-home than a single child with gay parents.

Once more the claim is made that vulnerable children need to be protected from disadvantage and discrimination - disadvantage and discrimination that, one notes, originates from the oh-so concerned Catholic Church. It's an act of generosity: the Catholic Church is campaigning to have children protected from the consequences of its own bigotry.

You should also note that the Church opposes the proposed legislation because it will allow unmarried couples to apply to adopt, though this is seemingly less worrying than teh queer.

Would the Scottish Executive listen so respectfully to a group unwilling to place a white child with non-white or mixed race parents?