festive moral outrage cancer special

The fans of cancer are back in full force over the xmas break, once more protesting the plans to vaccinate against HPV - the virus which leds to cervical cancer:

Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign pressure group, said: "Many people will question whether 12 is too young to be undertaking a vaccination programme that is important for when girls become sexually active.

"It could be seen as helping to promote or encourage sexual activity in girls before they are physically or mentally mature."

Hugh McKinney wins a special award for wilful misdirection and for missing (or choosing to ignore) the motive for giving all vaccines early in life: they're only useful if you're vaccinated before you get the disease.

He's also a fan of the all too familiar passive voice and mysterious unnamed and unseen supporters: who, exactly, are these many people who genuinely think like this? Do they also believe that seat belts and brakes encourage dangerous driving?

A second prize for  is awarded to "family rights campaigner Victoria Gillick" trying to suggest that cervical cancer is nature's revenge for promiscuous women:

"Trying to treat the disease rather than the behaviour that causes it is immoral. Promiscuity causes girls all kinds of problems - not just the risk of getting cervical cancer."

Ah, no, Victorian... uh, Victoria. Promiscuity does not give you HPV, but unprotected sex can - and the two are not the same thing. Fans of thinking will note that the choice between treatment and prevention presented here is entirely batshit crazy, given that both abstinence and vaccines are preventative measures. It's almost exactly as though she has no fucking clue whatso-festive-fucking-ever.

Finally, the largest medal for fuckwittery is awarded to John of Derby in the comment section:

This is sick. I'd rather my daughter got cervical cancer than be encouraged to sleep around at 12 years old. This article stinks of political correctness.

A man so unable to see past the Mail's faux moral outrage that he'd rather see his daughter die of cancer. A particularly merry xmas to you, too.

Back in regular posting habits later this week.

marriage under attack, not under attack, nothing to see here

Finding the lives of ordinary people where it wants to find lefty radicals, today's Mail tuts that single women outnumber their married counterparts, blaming the "feminist" wing of the Blair government for failing to suport marriage and instead scandalously insisting "that gays and single parents received equal treatment."

However, the trend away from marriage earlier in life among normal straight people started long before Blair and even longer before anyone in government was taking gay rights seriously. Marriage as a whole is still quite popular, though historically less than the peak in 1972 which can be explained by babies of the immediate post-war boom reaching marriageable age.

As the Mail even helps to point out, the current situation is a product of the long-term movement towards marriage later in life and the fact that:

difference between men and women is caused by the fact that men typically die younger than women. As a result there are nearly four times as many widows as widowers.

So possibly not the work of a devious feminist cabal.

girls will be girls: gender stereotyping and causational bullshit

I think it's time for that regular feature: things that journalists say that science doesn't.

Parents have long suspected as much. Now researchers have found that little boys really do just want guns and trucks while little girls want dolls. [...]

Researchers also found that even when boys were encouraged to play "house" they swiftly turned it in to a "cops and robbers" plot.

By contrast, the girls revelled in the domestic or nurturing roles. The findings, published in the latest edition of the European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, appear to confirm that gender differences are hard-wired into children's brains from birth.

And a fondness for trucks and law enforcement is genetically determined and cross-linked to sex how, exactly? This smells what I like to call "journalist's causational bullshit," an argument that's no more sophisticated than "group A like thing X and therefore thing X is an essential quality of group A."

The full-text of the article referenced isn't online but I'll bet it contains nothing like the claim of "hard-wiring" mentioned above - which is the press-friendly summary of the research which conveniently fits into exisiting conservative narratives about gender.

The argument here isn't that there are not differences between men and women which might be "hard-wired" (hello ovaries, how's it going testes?) but that this kind of study really doesn't prove anything of the sort.

The idea that a five-year old child is somehow a blank slate for testing when it comes to gender is faintly bizarre, given that their parents will have spent the last five years dressing and treating their offspring according to their own attitudes towards sex.

To The Telegraph's partial credit, a counter-point is given, even though the headline has already decided the issue is closed:

However, according to Jennifer Smith, a child psychologist, the study is inconclusive on the nature or nurture debate. She argues that children are now so socialised by the age of four, having spent time in nurseries, playgroups, watching television and with adults other than their parents, that the gender differences that appear to be inherent could well be constructed from what they see.

"Society in general offers a very gender-specific environment and it is impossible to get beyond that," she said. [...] You only have to look at virtually every toy magazine and every picture of an ironing board has a girl by it and every picture of a hammer has a boy holding it. Whatever the local expectations are, children will do it."

Smith is far from alone: the mountain of research discussing the ways in which we socialise children differently according to their perceived sex is fairly easy to discover. Again, it's not that gendered differences don't exist, but that the "girls like dolls and boys like trucks because they were born that way" argument is incredibly flawed.

If - as the article portrays - you have a five-year old girl talking about marriage (an entirely social convention) then it's because she has learnt or more likely been taught about marriage. The warning against "trying to censor children's 'natural' inclinations" is relatively pointless if decisions have already been made about what counts as "natural" on little more than the basis of social tradition: play is already being censored but it's just not recognised as such.

correlation, meet causation, meet vegetarianism

Make way for the latest mix of bad science and lazy writing:

It's official - vegetarians really are smarter. But it is not because of what they eat. Bright children are more likely to reject meat and opt to become vegetarians when they grow up, a study has shown. Clever veggies are born not made.

The finding helps explain how a team of vegetarians won the BBC Test the Nation competition in September, when they beat off competition from six other teams including butchers, public school pupils and footballers' wives to achieve the highest overall IQ score.

Wow.. that's.. wow. It's going to come as a great relief to researchers everywhere that Test the Nation is now a reliable source for hard research data. I'm not even sure why we even have universities. Golly, I hope there weren't any vegetarians in any of the other teams, or that these teams weren't highly self-selecting or this otherwise perfect test sample will be sullied.

This version of the story, by the by, is in The Independent, who find the time to contradict their lede in the following paragraphs:

Researchers from the University of Southampton who conducted the study agree. They suggest that vegetarians are more thoughtful about what they eat. But they say it is unclear whether bright children choose to become vegetarians for the health benefits or for other reasons, such as a concern for animals, or as a lifestyle choice.

So "clever veggies" aren't born, then, but are the result of multiple factors. Could this be one of those "correlation, no evidence for causation" moments?

It's also worth looking at the definition of vegetarian used in the research:

Now aged 36, the researchers found 366 [of those studied], just under one in 20, said they were vegetarians (a third of these ate chicken or fish but none touched red meat).

For the record, I have three degrees and haven't eaten red meat for fifteen years; my abilities, however, are entirely due to gin so can't be taken into consideration.

my flying spaghetti monster is better than your flying spaghetti monster

Seems that certain people are discovering the freedom of religious expression may involve belief systems that they don't like. From The Daily Mail, who have once again decided that they're in favour of freedom to choose provided everyone does as the Daily Mail tells them:

BA [British Airways] advisers have also warned that if the company allows staff to wear traditional Christian symbols then non-religious emblems would be permitted.

The suggestion that New Age crystals could be seen in the same light as the cross is likely to provoke fresh outrage over the airline's political correctness.

At this stage, there's absolutely nothing that can be done in the total sphere of human experience which cannot be described disparagingly as politically correct: it's a term almost totally void of meaning.

So, when we heard it was unfair for Christians to be discriminated against by a uniform code, it was only unfair for Christians: it wasn't a principled stance about freedom and it's entirely fair and equitable to ban other "religious" observances.

So why should one set of irrational beliefs be favoured over another? When one set isn't the proper kind of woo-woo:

Miss Eweida said: "I am only interested in religion. Crystals are not religious. Why are they putting conditions on Christianity?

"Why do they allow Muslims to wear the hijab. Christianity has never breached anyone's human rights. Jesus never killed anyone."

Well, I'm glad that's all wrapped up.

dogma for dummies

It's hard to summon support for supposed free speech martyrs who can't stomach being in the same room as printed material which contradicts their dogma:

UNIVERSITY chiefs have backed down after being threatened with legal action for stopping Christian students holding classes branded "homophobic" on campus. [...]

However, the Christian Union has rejected the university's offer of a room on campus after it was only made with the condition that other material, which offers a different point of view, is also made available. [...]

[Tim Goodwin, EUSA president] backed the university's decision to allow the course on the condition it incorporates material which offers alternative points of view to the stance taken by the Christian Union.

So it's the kind of claim to the right to free speech that's unhappy about the prospect of alternative views. A slice of irony for everyone on every side of this debate, I think.

It's also worth noting that the claim that the University has backed down is.. well.. kind of untrue, given that Pure is still not being taught on campus. It's also worth examining the problems for the grounds of this claim:

Laura Stirrat, vice president of the Christian Union, said: "Homosexuality is a very small part of the course.

"It's mentioned in the same category as fornication and adultery, not the way God intended relationships to be. It does not single it out as worse than anything else."

Once more, homosexuality is rendered as selective behaviour not pre-given identity - one, unlike heterosexual activity, which does not have a religiously sanctioned form. So not quite as equally condemned, no?

roundup

Check out this week's Scottish Blogging Roundup, which seems to feature me on several occasions. Hurrah, and more than making up for totally losing in the Verve weblog awards (congrats to Trunkguy and the other winners).

press complaint commission in favour of web code of practice (except when they're not)

Last week's first report that the Press Complaint Commission wanted a "voluntary code of practice covering blogs" demonstrated a rather sturdy ignorance of the difference between web and print cultures.

For one, the PCC operates on the basis of the deeply shared interests of a small number of major publishers who have far more in common than not. The same is not true of bloggers.

However, that argument's a little redundant because (in a rather beautiful moment of web zen) the story turned out to be unreliable. Try and follow the sense of the BBC's coverage:

Unless there is a voluntary code of practice covering blogs and the internet there is "no form of redress", a conference has been told.

Press Complaints Commission director Tim Toulmin told a London conference on race: "We're not in favour of regulating the internet. You can't regulate it.

"But unless there is a voluntary code there are no forms of redress. The flow of information should not be regulated by the government."

Mr Toulmin has since clarified that, contrary to the impression given in earlier versions of this report, his comments do not mean that he believes there should be a voluntary code of conduct for the internet.

Uhh... what?

If the PCC was genuinely interested in the right of redress for ordinary people, they'd campaign for legal reform of UK libel law - but I seem to have missed that press release.

a spot of victim blaming

Via I'm Not a Feminst, But..:

We had a rape talk from the Sapphire Unit (sexual offences) branch of the Met Police in school the other day. [...] To round it all off, we were given lip balms emblazoned with the words 'Drink + Drugs = Rape'.

And apparently without a man in sight.

Anyone starting to work out where the idea amongst jurors that consent is pre-given is coming from?

anti-discrimination law: hain forces kelly's hand?

For the sake of clarification - when Ruth Kelly's staff said they were "absolutely committed to bringing forward proposals that provide effective protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," they actually meant "our boss is trying to wriggle out of ways to bring forward proposals that provide effective protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Seemingly responsible for forcing the issue in Northern Ireland, Peter Hain seems to be doing a fine job of making Kelly eat her own words:

Mr Hain has insisted he is implementing a pledge in Labour's election manifesto last year. He argues that the Government might have missed the chance to legislate in Northern Ireland if it had waited until April, by which time devolved government may be restored to Ulster's politicians. The Rev Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, is due to become First Minister and is unlikely to bring in tough anti-discrimination rules.

Another cabinet minister said: "Ruth Kelly has gone ballistic because Peter Hain went ahead even though she told him not to. He has brought in a progressive set of rules but he has made her position more difficult."

Well, if you promise effective protection against discrimination then there's always a slim chance that someone might actually believe you.

The only person absent from the story is Pamela Munn, the junior minister previously flagged as responsible for the legislation and who is probably trying to keep her head down. A prize for the first journalist to ask here a direct question, and larger prize for a direct answer. Does Munn stand with her boss, or does she welcome the stance of the more progressive Hain?

More on Ruth Kelly's reluctance to act over at The F-Word blog.

love the sinner, hate the sin (warranty void in case of homos)

And here's the pinch in the "stop being mean to evangelicals" argument:

[Dr Rowan Williams] added: "To challenge behaviour may be deeply unwelcome and offensive in a personal sense, but it is not a matter for legislative action." [...]

He added: "They may need to affirm more clearly and credibly the distinction between declaring behaviour unacceptable and in effect passing judgment on a whole category of persons."

The problem is that this distinction between "behaviour" and "persons" isn't universally shared and is often confused. It's certainly far from an unchallenged belief that being gay (and enjoying same-sex sexual actvity and/or desire) is something you do rather than something that you are.

If you believe "being gay" is merely social behaviour and not a pre-given trait then the accusation of discrimination akin to racial bigotry sounds unfair. Believe that it's more than just a chosen lifestyle and something you're born with and the narrative of racial discrimination sounds horribly accurate. I'm not sure that this isn't a revamped version of love the sinner, hate the sin - which presents major problems if the two prove to be inseparable.

the godless free market of ideas

Two slightly feverish articles focus this morning on the "appalling" lack of religious Christmas cards: The Daily Mail argues rather predictably that it must be some kind of atheist/politically-correct conspiracy, with the ever obliging Stephen Green calling for a boycott of secular xmas cards. Take that, Clintons! In your face WH Smith!

The Telegraph enters the debate by claiming that the outrage is growing by quoting.. a number of people who agreed with one of their columnists and several bishops. It's the very model of balanced debate, I tells ya.

Hey - here's a crazy thought. Maybe there aren't many religious xmas cards because they don't sell very well? Could it possibly be that (once more) ordinary people are to blame? Maybe the ordinary cards with the jokes and the funny penguins are just more popular, and shops adjust their stock accordingly?

Also hidden in the middle there's this claim:

Stephen Green, of the religious group Christian Voice – which forced TV bosses to scrap plans to show the ‘blasphemous’ musical Jerry Springer: The Opera – called for a boycott on irreligious cards.

The musical that was on TV? The one I watched? The DVD of which I have in my hand? Truly, an xmas miracle!

arse

I hate to stand in the way of a good web implosion, but there's a degree of abuse of the English language I can't ignore:

I'm not going to accuse [DK] of being party to this [..followed two lines later by..] but it is time for him to come clean about his involvement or knowledge of who was behind this hack.

So much for no accusations. A lesser man than I would point out that this comes excitingly close to libel.

Using the same logic, I would also like DK to come clean about his involvement or knowledge of who was behind the Hindenberg disaster, the disappearance of Shergar and the events depicted in the popular film with Matthew Broderick, War Games.

No direct links for obvious reasons.

I gots your fucking civil blogging discourse right here

DK is a friend, a real-world acquaintance for pushing on ten horrible years. I really don't agree with him most of the time, but linking bloggers who write pseudonymously to their real lives when they know it might cause trouble is unacceptable.

Regardless of whether or not DK's real name is in the public domain, it's not common knowledge on the web: he chooses to blog under a different name and anyone hoping to retain a shred of credibility in the blogosphere should respect that.

There was no reason to reveal his name other than to harrass him, and I can't abide by douches who think that's an acceptable strategy for winning arguments.

blair and iraq: oh, if wishing made it so..

Pure unfiltered bollo.. uh.. Blair:

"There's a tendency, I think, sometimes, to see this as a battle between the idealists on the one hand and the realists on the other. In my view the only modern form of realism is one that has ideals at the centre of it."

What the... fuck does that mean? What next? The only modern form of fire has water at the centre? Any other diametrically opposed concepts we want to third-way into oblivion?

Either advice is practical and pragmatic and based in the real world, or it's not. If advice coincides with ideals it's fine and dandy, but let's not pretend that closing our eyes and clapping our hands loudly for a western style democracy in Iraq is going to have any effect.

why I really hate the f*cking daily mail: part one thousand

I was going to write about the bias in the Scotsman's coverage of yesterday's child welfare reforms ("Outcry at new laws allowing gay adoption") but the sheer loathing pouring out of the front page of The Scottish Daily Mail is in a class of its own. Let's start with the front page:

Top line reads:

Outrage as MSPs force through law that allows same-sex couples to become adoptive parents

A few minor corrections are due.

1. The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill was not "forced through": it enjoyed overwhelming cross-party support in the chamber, as well as support from the Church of Scotland and a large number of child and adoption groups.

The Bill passed 101 for, 6 against, with 6 abstentions. Roseanna Cunningham, author of the rejected anti-gay adoption amendments, abstained.

2. It helps to remember that gay and unmarried individuals have been able to adopt in Scotland since 1930. This Bill allows gay people to adopt as couples and to share legal guardianship, extending the safety net for those adopted.

3. The only outrage comes from the exact same minority who protested before and during the debate, represented here in its most virulent state by the Catholic Church - who give a hearty fuck you to anyone not in a family commissioned by their decree. Havn't got two biological parents? God must hate you because you're a slight against the natural order.

4. The claim that there has been "massive public opposition" is presented without support of any kind. The fact that a majority in the consultation prefer the notion of adoption by a straight couple is not the same thing as fundamental opposition to adoption by a gay couple on all grounds. It's not proof that a majority would prefer children to remain in care, which seems to be the Catholic Church's version of thinking of the children.

It's an error in logic that social conservatives embrace because it makes it sound like gay people are being routinely favoured over straight against the will of the majority. For more of the same, see the often quoted fact that nearly 50% of adoptions in Brighton are to gay couples, delivered without any mention that this might be because Brighton has by far the highest gay population in the UK.

Damn, I really hate the fucking Daily Mail on days like this - for deciding that a little bigotry and misinformation was the best way to sell papers.

poor bill of health for NHS PFI

Fresh research from Edinburgh University into the effects of PFI on the Scottish NHS doesn't spare the knife (pdf):

PFI buildins cost the NHS more than non-PFI buildings [...] This extra cost creates an 'affordability gap' which can only be met by diverting revenue from clinical services, staff and supplies. [...] PFI projects create a debt for the NHS which is far greater than the investment it provides.

Neither does Gavin Tait, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon whose letter in The Herald argues:

FOR students of the NHS in Scotland the renascent arguments over PFI are disappointingly familiar. [...] A contemporary series of articles in the British Medical Journal comprehensively destroyed any argument for PFI and predicted widespread financial harm to other NHS services as PFI costs rose disproportionately.

The present situation was clearly foreseen, but ignored by the Labour government first in London and later in Holyrood. It must be clear where the blame lies. [...] No real thought was given to anything beyond very short-term electoral gratification.

Read the whole thing, it's worth it.

professional mockery

Let's enjoy the sound of some fundamentalist brains going pop. First the right brain:

VIAGRA and other impotence drugs help switch on the immune system to attack a range of cancers, a study has found.

and then the left brain:

A chemical used to abort pregnancy could fight breast and ovarian cancer, say scientists.

Can we please now have the first round of concerned moral pundits arguing that treating cancer in this way will encourage sex and abortion? Or does that argument only work when we're talking about vaccinating young women for HPV?

breaking: cunningham amendments fail

Vote results now coming in..

Amendment 94: yes 8, no 101. Fails.
Amendment 95: yes 11, no 98. Fails.
Amendment 96: yes 12, no 95. Fails.
Amendment 97 & 98 not moved.

It's all over.

live blogging: adoption bill debate

The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill is being debated right now - watch live here. Roseanna Cunningham's amendments should appear some time in the next hour. I'll update this post if anything worth mentioning comes up..

10.51 Spoke too soon: she's speaking now.

Says that it's evidence there's a difference of opinion unreflected in the parliament and that there are (unspecified) concerns about gay parents
"Families matter" - well, buh - "the traditional family pattern is what prevails". "Little evidence one way or another so must tread cautiously" i.e. gay parents are suspect by default.

Someone pointing out that all her amendments do is prevent a same-sex couple adopting as a couple; same-sex couples can still adopt but only one person is named parent.

"two biological parents in low-conflict marriage is best" but still no real argument about why gay people are intrinsically dangerous..

Ah, finally gets to mention hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution..

10.57 Jackie Bailey gets up: speaks against.

Points out that remaining in care is not great for children; bill is for rights of children; gay individuals can adopt, have done since 1930s but only one is recognised as parent. Bill only affords right of both parents to be recognised as legal parents - does not change existing criteria for adoption suitability.

10.59 Margaret Smith: speaks against.

Amendments are ilogical and in the worst interests of children. Points out support of charities, adoption and church groups for exisiting bill. Bill just extends ability for gay people to come forward as couples, rather than single people. Gay couples often assessed as couples, but only one has legal status as parent.

11.00 Fiona Hislop: speaks against.

SNP to be voting against as Cunningham's views do not represent them. Hubbub. Provision of legal stability if one person in couple should die. Wants new modern progessive Scotland.

11.03 James Douglas Hamilton: speaks against.

Amendments are far too discriminatory; prevents the best and most suitable parents from being chosen.

11.04 Patrick Harvey: speaks against.

Prejudice is wrong..because it removes the possibility of making the right decision when a gay couple is best. Debate makes it sound as though gay couples are being picked at random, rather than as the product of a specific and careful process

Questions nature's design argument: it's a religious argument. In nature, sexual diversity is the norm. Same-sex always been around.

11.06 Scott Barry: speaks against.

Enduring family relationships also include gay people: "families come in all shapes and sizes." If we're serious about creating stable environments and best possible start for children, we should allow people to adopt as couples not just as individuals.

11.08 Phil Gallie: speaks in support.

Congratulates Cunningham for having strength to speak out and present balance. Firmly believes in the comments she made. Best way to bring up children is in heterosexual relationship; needs mother and father influence. Nastiness in the emails he's received.

11.10 Elaine Murray: speaks against.

1930 act allowed single people to adopt regardless of marital status or sexuality; extends adoption to homes with two people. Adoptive children often coming from dificult circumstances - to have two people who love them is terrific opportunity.

11:11 Ian Smith: speaks against.

Issues have already been addressed. Same stringent checks still apply; ability of applicants to provide safe, stable and loving home is paramount - rights of child, not right of parents. Bill improves existing rights of adopted child and clarifies legal status of parents where only one person had status in the past.

11:13 Linda Fabiani (?): speaks against.

Talks about emails: wrong emphasis, no understanding of existing law. Ammendments would restrict ability to have two parents.

11:15 Murdo Fraser:

Addressed wider debate. Many people believe chlidren need male and female role model. Those who express those views are not "religious nutters" but have genuine concerns and should not be dismissed with abuse. Listen, disagree then dismiss. :) in danger of hearing all opinions but those with which parliament disagrees.

11:17 Rosemary Burn: speaks against.

Losing sight of the work done in committee and earlier stages of bill; current legislation allows single person to adopt. Amendments actually leave children in vulnerable situation of having single parent die without further legal guardian.

Sexuality shouldn't matter if adoptive parents can provide security and love. Support for bill from many, many organisations. Discriminatory, not helpful. Everyone who wants to adopt is assessed indvidually.

11:19 Pauline McNeill: speaks against.

Amendments not in the interest of children. Doesn't address challenges facing Scotland. Taking on children is a hard thing and a huge commitment. Idea that huge numbers of gay people will come forward is untrue.

Extending elligibility not creating rights. Sexual orientation in itself should not be a barrier. Need to pass rigorous tests in order to adopt.

11:21 David McClinchie (?): speaks.. uh..

Against one part of the amendments, but in favour of others. Respects those who are married or in civil parternerships. Why should those who won't make a legallly binding relationship to each other be allowed to adopt? Against 94 in favour of 96.

11:22 Robert Brown responds..

Respect for Cunningham's abilities; service for allowig debate but disagrees with her. Amendments don't prevent single gay person from adopting; paradoxically, people in enduring civil partnerships could not adopt.

Amendments have nothing to do with testing suitability or enduring status of relationship, or the rights of the child - just the fact that people are gay. If gay couples are problematic (where only one is adoptive parent) why didn't Cunningham argue for the chldren in those situations to be removed? Or for single gay people to be barred?

Range of checks and balances, including where child doesn't want particular parents. De facto assumption that gay people are unsuitable is discriminatory.

11:28 Cunningham responds.

Adoption already an unstable proposition. Without debate, chamber would have woefully misrepresented public opinion. To have no debate would be ridiculous and that free speech wouldn't apply. There are arguments for and against this, doing what she believes is right. If she doesn't have the right to do that, what is parliament for?

Reads from email. Interests of children - fear of children taunted for having gay parents.

Now voting..

report shows rape juries believe silence is consent

Hidden underneath the headlines that juries are unsympathetic to women who claim rape after drinking is the far broader - and far more worrying - reason why:

[Juries] appear to believe that it is reasonable for a man to assume that a woman’s silence amounts to consent, even if it is due to her intoxication. Even if a woman’s drink has been spiked, they are reluctant to find a defendant guilty of rape.

You being to get a terrifying sense here of the extremely narrow definition of rape in operation here, a definition so specific as to preclude any victim whose experience doesn't fit certain pre-determined narratives. While The Times' headline handily summarises those "illegitimate" victims as those who binge drink, it's a misdirection that ignores an underlying problem.

It also doesn't matter if you've had one drink or twenty, or none at all if juries believe that a vagina is public access until further notice. With that logic, talk of women "taking responsibility" and not drinking is fairly irrelevant unless those same women announce publicly every ten minutes that they don't want to be penetrated, thanks.

Consent is not pre-given - and until people understand that, talk of responsibility and modesty on the part of women is away of "managing" the problem of rape rather than confronting it.

"marry me, john..."

A timely episode of White Ninja Comics with extra bonus happy gay marriage gags. For the uninitiated, White Ninja:

can be enjoyed on many levels. Scholars, Philosophers, and the like, who possess the intellect to analyze and break down the comics to their hidden, and often devious, roots, will enjoy White Ninja to its fullest degree. Others, like you and I, however, can still enjoy the comics for their light-hearted surface humour and funny drawings.

This one also made me laugh until brains leak out my nose. A ninja, but an idiot. :)

no show for anti-gay amendments? UPDATE: found 'em

Though MSP Roseanna Cunningham has said that she will introduce amendments to the upcoming Children and Adoption Bill (Scotland) to scrap the provision for adoption by gay couples, there's no sign of them on the Scottish Parliament website - either in the Business Bulletin or the list of Motions and Amendments.

As far as I can make out from the procedural regs,

where a member intends to move an amendment to a Bill at Stage 3, he or she shall give notice of the amendment by lodging it with the Clerk no later than the day (referred to as the final lodging-day) that is the fourth sitting day before the Stage is due to start.

The debate is on Thursday, so notice would have to already been given. That right?


EDIT: I must have looked before they were posted. The amendments are up here - thanks to anonymous commenter. :)

double reverse homo strategy for destroying marriage

That homosexual lifestyle we've heard so many warnings about also apparently includes.. a rush to monogamous commitment. It's an outrage, think of the children, fetch a hot towel etc. etc. It's clearly the beginning of the end of traditional marriage:

Dr Dan Boucher, of Christian group CARE, said the habit of government to equate civil partnerships to "gay marriage" and treat them as the same has led to "some unfortunate slippage" in the concept of marriage.

"This is eroding the distinctive nature of marriage, which we believe should be a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman," he said.

Bwaa ha haaa! To paraphrase the Robot Devil , the first part of our ridiculously circuitous plan is complete!

This will, of course, come to something of a surprise to men and women who are already in lifelong, committed relationships who do not realise that decisions take by some other people of which they are unaware that has no appreciable impact on their life has - in fact - begun to chip away at their happiness.

You'll note that it's impossible for gay people to win in this situation: get married and you're destroying an ancient institution that is bedrock of human culture, stay single and you're the living proof of "weak" love and promiscuity. Please note the absence of condemnation of the vast numbers of straight people who have been busy destroying marriage through divorce for over a hundred years. Clearly, teh queer has some catching up to do.

The preceding post may contain traces of mockery.

the magic of theatre: nuclear kabuki special

It's time for the traditional nuclear deterrent kabuki play, with a peak behind the curtain from Nick Robinson:

Just what were the Cabinet doing at their lunchtime meeting today? In theory they've been discussing whether to renew or replace our nuclear deterrent. I say "in theory" since it's hard to see what the point of the discussion was.

...A driving force in kabuki has been the desire to make manifest one frequent theme of kabuki theater, that of the sudden, dramatic revelation or transformation..

The White Paper outlining the government's proposals is being published two-and-a-half hours after the Cabinet meeting ended. An hour-and-a-half before that, journalists had been invited to read the document at a Ministry of Defence "lock-in" (so-called because you can read the document but not leave the building or use your phone or laptops until after it's published).

...A number of stage tricks, including rapid appearances and disappearances of actors, have evolved using these innovations. The term keren (外連), often translated as "playing to the gallery," is sometimes used as a catch-all term for these tricks...

Is it just possible that the document had been printed before the Cabinet met? When I asked the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, he insisted that he would not comment on "process".

...Also common are stage hands rushing onto the stage adding and removing props, backdrops and other scenery; these stage hands, known as kuroko (黒子), are always dressed entirely in black and are traditionally considered "invisible."

Stay tuned for act two: miming the welfare state.

gay adoption bill enters final stage

Brace yourself for a week of queer-baiting in Scotland as the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill hits the Scottish Parliament for the final time and the Scottish press race for the nearest "family" organisation to argue that it's better for children to stay in care.

The Sunday Herald has already reported that MSP Roseanna Cunningham has tabled amendments intended to scrap the provision for gay couples adopting, having apparently gone beyond her original claim to the "precautionary principle" to argue that it "goes against nature's design."

The Courier informs us that Cunningham is apparently going to argue the "think of the children" defence:

Ms Cunningham added, "I made an intervention during the stage one debate in which I made it clear that the issue should always remain one of the rights of the children, and that is the basis on which I will be arguing my amendments."

The idea that rights of children might in any be served by widening the pool of potential adoptive parents doesn't appear. Beneath this argument is the presumption that there are no circumstances in which gay parents might be better than remaining in care.

If you've got a little time, take a look at the original parliamentary debate from September where the bill received cross-party support - as it did overwhelming in the committee stages. I particularly like the part where Liberal Democrat MSP Iain Smith points out that the bill is supported by both the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church - asking "does the Bishop of Motherwell think that those churches are in conflict with Christian morals and values?":

The bishop implores MSPs to "choose to be the children's champion, protecting their interests and defending their rights."

I will do that by supporting the bill. To paraphrase the bishop, children must never be disadvantaged or deprived of a more wholesome home life in order to promote the interests of the Catholic Church.

That's quite a paraphrase. :)

Then there's the bit where Labour's Dr Elaine Murray points out the difference between the (factually inaccurate) submission by Bishop Joseph Devine, the Bishop of Motherwell - and that offered by the Catholic Church's parliamentary liaison John Deighan who was "looking forward to the bill." Regular readers will remember the fall-out from that particular spat. As the wise scholar once said, tee hee.

Finally, there's Liberal Democrat Margaret Smith - interrupting Roseanne Cunningham - to argue:

I speak as a parent of five children. As such, I totally agree that parenting is very difficult. I also speak as the only openly gay parent in Parliament. Other members have already pointed out that the legal right [for single gay people to adopt] already exists. All that the bill will do is extend that right to couples. Having brought up children on my own and as part of a couple, I must say that it is easier to bring them up as part of a couple, irrespective of the gender of one's partner.

To bring up a child on one's own is much harder. If a child is brought up by an unmarried same-sex couple or unmarried heterosexual couple, there will be more stability for the child because it is being brought up by a couple.

Cunningham's rebuttal, that the bill will involve "overturning tens of thousands of years of nature's design" is less persuasive - not least because this is the same argument that can be made against soap, electricity and democracy.

as seen on campus

No further comment. :)

"this shouldn't be a suprise" news: contraception reduces pregnancies

I know I'm a broken record when it comes to this issue but it's quite staggering how some people can continually miss the point:

Sexual abstinence as an effective tool in reducing teenage pregnancy is a complete "myth", the Government's advisory body on the issue claimed yesterday.

The Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy said that research from the United States showed that contraception was the way to bring down rates. Researchers from Columbia University and the Guttmacher Institute examined the relative roles of abstinence and contraceptive use in the "remarkable decline" in US teenage pregnancy rates, which dropped 27 per cent from 1991 to 2000. They said that 86 per cent of the decline in teenage pregnancy was due to improved use of contraception.

So contraception, used properly, does what it is designed to do - stop conception - and there's the possible handy side-effect with condoms of providing protection against STIs.

The response from social conservatives?

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said that in its zeal to promote contraception as the mark of sexual responsibility, the sex education establishment had "cheapened sex and lost sight of its purpose as an expression of the total self-giving of a husband and wife to each other in the context of life-long marriage".

Translation: I don't like contraception because it makes it harder for me to stop people from having sex outside of marriage, and sex outside of marriage is automatically a bad thing.

While Norman Wells is entitled to his view of sex, it's one that has nothing to do with reducing teen pregnancies - though I am slightly confused. If his problem isn't with sex so much as sex outside of long-term commitment, surely the more logical response would be to campaign for teen marriages? But then that would still have nothing to do with reducing teen pregnancy, no?

AIDS is a political problem

It's World Aids Day, with the theme of "Keep The Promise" - covered here by Alistair Coleman at Wanabehuman:

The theme of World AIDS Day this year is "Keep the Promise" - calling on governments to back up their pledges of money with action that will help stop the terrifying rate of infection and to help those already living with HIV.

The reaction of governments, NGOs and corporations has been vital in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and the political nature of this battle has been unfortunate in the extreme.

Head over to read the rest.

blackmail suddenly not a sin; thar be humanists

Can anyone point me to the part of the Bible which says that threatenening to withdraw services from needy people is "Christian" behaviour?:

A senior Church of England bishop have warned that Anglican youth clubs, welfare projects and charities may close because of new gay rights laws.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said that the Church of England's charities would be "affected" by the rules, which will force them to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

He declared: "It will be the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers."

Threatening the most vulnerable members of society isn't really a winning strategy - it tends to make the person making the threat sound like a bully and a thug. I presume those same religions will also renounce their favoured tax status in protest, unless they suddenly discover their "principled" stand doesn't quite reach as far as the bank.

On a more positive note, read these letters in The Times in support of anti-discrimination laws. Most interestingly, Meg Munn - the Deputy Minister for Women and Equalities in charge of the legislation - seemingly expresses support for the law without major religious exemptions:

The Government is seeking to strike a balance between protecting the rights of religious groups and preventing discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. [...]

No one is proposing that schools will have to promote homosexuality or that a priest will have to bless same-sex couples. But at the same time, it is wrong for gay teenagers to be refused emergency accommodation after being thrown out of their family home on the ground that they had chosen to tell their parents about their sexuality, or for lesbian and bisexual people to be denied access to essential healthcare.

Of course, this side-steps the popular conservative "logic" that merely recognising or talking about gay people as legitimate humans is the same thing as dangerous state sponsorship of homos.

Finally, check out this report from the British Humanist Association (via UK Gay News) which points to trends away from traditional religious observance that I've discussed here before: even though a majority of people identify as Christian, it appears to be a cultural rather than religious identification.

Overall, faced with the choice, 62% said ‘scientific & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe’ against 22% who felt ‘religious beliefs are needed for a complete understanding of the universe’.

Similarly, 62% chose ‘Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong’, against 27% who said ‘People need religious teachings in order to understand what is right and wrong’.

Meanwhile, the Mail lets us know that the most important thing about Christianity at Christmas isn't love or charity but making sure that council leaders stop using the word "winterval". What interesting priorities, and probably rather annoying for the majority of actual Christians.