elections are for penises and sometimes men too

Margaret Cook does her best to explain why elections are for penises.. uh, for men:

THERE is a reason why elections fall in the spring. The sap stirs then in even the most urban male breast, urging him to puff and strut and engage in combat; behaviour deeply hard-wired in the male psyche.

That voting - democratic elections - might actually represent an alternative to survival of the fittest in mortal combat seems to slip past Cook.

Every man I've ever known believes he knows how to put the country/world/universe to rights, and for this reason votes for a tribe rather than an individual.

But - if we're following any kind of coherent argument - wouldn't such self-belief mean he'd want to vote for a very particular individual - himself?

For the man who already walks the corridors of power, allegiance to the tribe is profound, for it has got him to these dizzy heights. If he is within shouting distance of the top spot itself, his loyalty to the person occupying it knows no bounds.

And there certainly hasn't been a recent history of rivalry and backbiting in all the major particular parties for the leadership spot. What? There has? For many, many years?

So having established.. well, I'm not quite sure what.. Cook turns to women - who are apparently too fucking stupid for words, and vote like they pick bad husbands:

It is, then, no wonder that women's voting patterns are different, for most of us have too much down-to-earth sense to want to be a political leader. We would all love to select a man to whom we can leave the mighty decisions; with just the same whimsical castle-in-the-air fancy we employ in seeking the ideal partner.

Subliminally, females follow the leader and are destined to be disappointed quite as often in the civic scene as in the domestic. But we never learn that the promises and vows of the courtship phase seldom translate into reality.

The idea that a woman could vote for another woman is apparently preposterous beyond words - there are certainly no words wasted on it here.

And even though women vote with "whimsical castle-in-the-air fancy" they also have "too much down-to-earth sense to want to be a political leader" - in other words, the women who want to lead are the stupid ones.

Please, save me from patronising, tongue-in-cheek sexist dribble.

my own personal (milk chocolate) jesus (update: except for the penis)

More faux-outrage:

A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ.

The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross.

Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever".

One of the worst assaults ever? Wow: it's almost as though as Donohue is some kind of reactionary, media-hungry blow-hard. Oh, wait.

That this is an art-work that very few people would have heard about (outside of the New York art circuit) that's now receiving international attention is an irony lost on the Catholic League.

EDIT: From the comments "Is there a list of acceptable modelling materials somewhere in the bible?" Well, it seems (from the Guardian's coverage) that the objection comes in two parts:

The group objected to the fact that the sculpture is made of more than 200lbs of chocolate and that the figure's genitalia are on display.

You see, when the Bible teaches that God came down from heaven in the form of a human man, it actually meant "a human man, excepting the winky."

The sculpture also falls foul of scriptural precedent of which I'm sure you're all aware:

Revelations 1:11, And you must not make images of the Lord using more that 198lbs of edible materials.

It's those US size portions that get you into trouble every time.

not in defence of gordon brown

Look, Gordon Brown might be very bad at his job, he might be a control freak and he might be hugely ambitious in his drive for power. His economic stewardship might be foolish, or even dangerous.

However, it would be nice if we could stop comparing him to Stalin - the dictator fond of purges, forced labour camps and show trials, with victims of his repressions (gulags, executions and deportations) conservatively estimated at around 4 million people.

While it's convenient journalistic shorthand for control freakery on the left, it's also ridiculous and lazy hyperbole which - in its disproportionate attempt to demonise - diminishes the actual victims of Stalinism. And it's not just journalism on the right - it's spin repeated in the Independent and the Guardian.

Please, call him a fool, a liar, manipulative or power hungry, but maybe hold back on the comparisons to mass murders, hey? There are plenty of other, real grounds for criticism without jmping straight into Godwin's Law territory.

government backtracks on freedom of information?

This sounds like good news - though I'm slightly depressed that "government decides not to be secretive and illiberal" is the definition of a good news day:

Ministers are backtracking over plans to restrict the public's right to request official documents under the Freedom of Information Act, it emerged yesterday.

The retreat follows opposition from MPs, the media and campaigners, who say the proposals would drastically curb the release of politically sensitive and controversial documents.

Lord Falconer, the constitutional affairs secretary, has wanted to make it easier for government bodies to reject requests on the grounds that they are too time-consuming and expensive to answer.

Instead, the department has announced another three months of consultation with the public - an addition to a three-month consultation which has just finished, and a vast improvement on the original plan to introduce the proposals without any public consultation at all.

That said, I'm also remembering that this government's attitude to public consultation can sometimes be best summarised as "fuck you" and "la la la not listening." Still, a move in the right direction.

small moments of compassion

Quickly, everyone: the best time to pass uninformed judgment on a working mother is exactly when she's being held hostage by a hostile foreign power.

the art of protest

Mark Thomas: "Any law that means you can get arrested for a cake deserves to be played with.." - the law, of course, being the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which prevents protest in the environs of Parliament without police permission.

Superb in all qualities, including the explanation of why surrealism is under attack and the campaign to abolish footbridges: go and listen now while it's still online.

maybe it was because you were married to an arse

Dr Louann Brizendine's account of the impact of menopause - I'm sorry - the deadly, deadly menopause attempts a biological explanation for why some women wake up one morning some time in middle age and realise they want a divorce. The short answer is that they're married to arse-holes.

Brizendine's biological account is interesting, but cuts a few suspicious corners in determining that hormonal factors are exclusively responsible for behaviour:

Fifty-one and a half years is the average age of menopause, the moment 12 months after a woman’s last period; 12 months after the ovaries have stopped producing the hormones that have boosted her communication circuits, emotion circuits, the drive to tend and care and the urge to avoid conflict at all costs.

At all costs? What about the social and cultural expectations that a couple remain together until children are grown?

That's not to say that biology doesn't play a powerful role in our behaviour, but rather that you don't actually have to stop ovulating to realise that maybe you're better off without a partner who behaves like this:

She was tired of listening to his tirades and fed up with his demands. But what really pushed her over the edge was when she found herself in the hospital for a week for an intestinal blockage and he visited her only twice. Both times he came to ask questions about running the house. [...]

He said she had snapped at him at a party two nights before, when she offered a suggestion about investing in a group of stocks and he told her to stay out of the discussion because she didn’t know what she was talking about.

While the influence of hormones is indeed mighty to behold, let's not discount the awesome and majestic power of the self-centred arse-hole.

beating a dead (religious) horse

Remember how I've been arguing that the sexual orientation regulations are no more than an extension of the rights and protections offered to the religious? I've mentioned it once or twice - you might even think I've been a little obsessive, though maybe it's because few other bloggers were covering it.

So why bring it up yet again? Just this little speech from the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor accused Labour of "legislating for intolerance" in his most outspoken attack yet on the imposition of gay rights laws on church bodies. [...] "We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights."

And yet the Church attempted to block another minority from receiving the exact same protections in the law as the religious.. which looks exactly like the zealous pursuit of illiberal privilege.

enough mediocrity for all

DK uses the announcment that Polly Toynbee has won Columnist of the Year at the British Press Awards to lambast the mediocrity of the mainstream press and their dire "Leftist sympathies." A quick look back over the last few years of the British Press Awards tells a slightly different story:

Columnist of the Year

2007 Polly Toynbee (Guardian)
2006 Lucy Kellaway (Financial Times)
2005 Peter Hitchens (Mail)
2004 Boris Johnson (Yes, that one)
2003 Robert Harris (Sunday times, Telegraph, Observer)

Or rather more explicitly:

National Newspaper of the Year

2007 The Observer
2006 The Guardian
2005 News of the World
2004 The Independent
2003 Daily Mail
2002 The Daily Mirror
2001 Daily Mail
2000 The Sunday Telegraph
1999 The Guardian
1998 Daily Mail
1997 The Daily Telegraph
1996 Daily Mail
1995 Daily Mail
1994 The Daily Telegraph

Truly, the left holds so much sway over the mainstream media that the Daily Mail has won paper of the year no less than five times in the last fourteen years, with other right-leaning papers winning on another five occasions.

To characterise Toynbee's win this year as simple proof of the mainstream media's alleged widespread sympathies for the "Left" is, at best, misleadingly simplistic (which is not to say that I think she should have won).

If there's one thing that bloggers who cover the media agree on, it's that there's plenty of mediocrity and outright hackery for the entire political spectrum.

voting vs. praying

Remind me how the separation of the church and the state is a bad thing? This isn't an argument about whether religion has a part in public life or political policy - but why one particular church of one particular religion should enjoy privileged access and power.

home office policy review ("blue sky" or "out of bottom" thinking)

There's some unintentional comedy in the Home Office policy review on security, crime and justice - start with section 2.88 where identity cards and a DNA database of all suspected offenders are proposed as examples of "cost-effective crime detection technologies."

There's certainly a lot of "blue sky" (aka "out of bottom") thinking - a significant proportion of which depends on technologies which either don't exist in any reliable state, or would be tremendously invasive and illiberal if they did (automatic facial recognition via CCTV, anyone?).

Strangely - and despite last year's desperate spin - the section on terrorism is entirely absent of any mention of identity cards, which are saved for the following chapter on immigration - where biometrics will be used to detect people with funny, foreign looking eyes. Or something. Rather chillingly, there's more discussion of "electronic systems" and yet more databases - as if it were an approach for which our government had shown any aptitude or sense of self-control.

I can't help think the whole thing would be more convincing if someone had edited out at least some of the authoritarian tech-fetish approach to criminal justice, particularly given that the central planks are politically odourless and could be embraced by just about anyone ("reduce crime and improve public confidence, ensure security and manage immigration effectively"). Worth a read for early indicators of how Labour's policies on crime will take shape in the run-up to the next election.

parasites flee carcass

Like Tim Ireland, I too have saved copies of the queer-baiting propaganda video - which seems to have been the smart move given that individuals claiming to be its creators are doing their best to remove all trace of the film from the public sphere. Who knows where it will turn up next? You might want to speculate, but I couldn't possibly comment. :)

It doesn't say much for the convictions of those who created it if they're both too embarassed to identify themselves and unwilling to let it stand as a public argument for their case - but instead are fleeing from the toxic waste-dump of their own creation. And you know, it's almost exactly what Jesus would do.

No? Not at all? Funny that.

story on hpv doesn't moralise, shock

A very special prize for Roger Boyes, writing for The Times from Berlin, for a report on the HPV vaccine in Germany.. without carrying a single quote from the Catholic Church or any other conservative pressure group which thinks that prevention of cancer will encourage people to have underage sex. It's slightly tragic that failing to repeat the idea that death by cancer is better than consensual sex is worthy of special merit, but you take your victories where you find them.

"It not only prevents cancer," says Lutz Gissman of the German Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg, "it also takes away the fear of many thousands of women waiting for the outcome of tests for the illness". Some 6,500 women a year contract cervical cancer, and 1,600 die from it. "That is an unacceptably high rate for a developed country like Germany," says Dr Gissman.

The vaccine will be available for free only to girls within the 12 to 17 age group. The aim is to inject the vaccine before they begin to have sexual relations.

Curiously, Boyes suggests that the emphasis on immunising young women seems to also indicate a decision not to immunise young men, even though neighbouring Austria has adopted that measure on the grounds that men can carry and pass on HPV. Thinking ahead to the almost inevitable battle in the UK, why should the immunisation of young men be more controversial than the immunisation of young women?

the sound of one politician clapping

Witness the zen theatre of the political photo-call:

THE plan was simple - get dozens of Tory activists to speak into megaphones all at the same time, illustrating the party's desire to be Scotland's "voice" at Holyrood.

David Cameron, the party leader, and Annabel Goldie, its Scottish leader, were posing for pictures, waiting for the cacophony of noise to break out from the ranks of activists behind them: but nothing happened. There was no "voice". Then someone realised none of the megaphones worked because no-one had put in any batteries.

You also know you're in a moderate amount of trouble when you have to explain your slogans:

The real aim of yesterday's launch was for Mr Cameron to announce the party's election slogan: "Your Voice in Parliament". The idea is to give the impression that the Conservatives speak up for the disillusioned and the unrepresented.

...represented by a pack of people baying to the press through powerless megaphones. Possibly not the metaphor they were aiming for. For context, here's the polling report on ICM's most recent monthly poll which has:

constituency voting intentions of CON 16%(+3), LAB 29%(-2), LDEM 16%(-1), SNP 34%(+1) and regional voting intentions of CON 15%(+1), LAB 28%(+1), LDEM 17%(nc), SNP 32%(-1). Using Weber Shandwick's swingometer this would leave the SNP and the largest party and the current Labour/Lib Dem ruling coalition unable to form a majority alone.

A new ICM poll should be out at the beginning of April.

Suddenly realising that I should be writing about the Scottish elections, not just reading about them.

excellence in journamalism

The Mirror - celebrating the dismissal of Ruth Kelly's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission - seems to be a little too excited, reporting "KELLY LOSES 'PRIVACY' BATTLE AGAINST BATTLE."

Elsewhere in the Mirror, and under the category of "I Can't Believe This Is News," is the revelation that - ZOMG!!!! - TV companies film seasonal specials ahead of schedule. I blame The Telegraph for starting the faux-outrage in the first place - leaving them with precious little space that could have been dedicated to stories about 100mph collisions with wild fowl. Now that's journalism.

catholic schools turn blind eye to homophobic bullying

James Meikle in The Guardian draws together a few threads in the bullying report to point out a fairly specific criticism of Catholic schools:

A report from the Commons education select committee singles out Catholic schools, which, it says, should be forced to make public their commitment to stop gay pupils being bullied. The Catholic church has refused to follow government guidelines urging schools to set up specific policies against homophobic bullying.

The reluctance to stop gay pupils from being bullied seems to stem from the belief that preventing such intimidation would be to endorse homosexuality - it might even lead to the recognition that the Church's own behaviour can be little better than that of a well-funded bully.

Previous discussion of the Church's stance on homophobic bullying in schools back here.

new report on bullying: lack of data and teacher training barriers to solution

The Education Committee report on bullying is out, and most of my predictions yesterday were accurate. Amongst the recommendations:

We have, through the course of the inquiry, become convinced that a lack of accurate reliable data on bullying is one barrier to more effective anti-bullying work. We recommend that the Department introduces a requirement for schools to record all incidents of bullying along with information about the type of bullying incident.

We urge the Department to ensure their guidance to schools makes clear that the focus of anti-bullying work should be on changing bullying behaviour rather than on how victims can change their own behaviour.

As a result of the evidence we have taken, we believe the Department should require schools' anti-bullying policies to specifically mention disability-related, race-related, faith-based and homophobic bullying.

We are concerned that there is insufficient focus in teacher training on bullying; especially given the negative impact bullying can have on the attainment and well being of children. [...] We recommend that that all ITT courses include a clear focus on how to prevent and address bullying.

Read the complete list of recommendations here.

woo news round-up: astrology still nonsense, hell still not real

While I'm not sure it's "news" that astrology is total and unmitigated bollocks, research showing no correlation between star signs and partner choice neatly demonstrates the attitude of those involved in pushing it:

Dr Voas [at the University of Manchester] however, believes the popularity of astrologers such as the Daily Mail's Jonathan Cainer, Mystic Meg and Russell Grant will continue regardless of such examples and his study.

Woops. So that's the Mail admitting that its own "top" astrologers are charlatans. So they're cancelling those features? No?

"I'm under no illusion that these findings will undermine astrology's popularity," he said.

"The enthusiasm for zodiac-based personality profiling seems undiminished by hundreds of previous studies debunking astrology.

"The appetite for horoscopes makes media astrologers wealthy. These results won't put them out of business. When it comes to love, people will try anything."

And there's the Mail's bottom line: as long as manipulating the hopes and desperations of others is profitable, it's acceptable. A kind of curious blind-spot for self-appointed moral guardians, no?

However, first prize for sheer galls is awarded directly to the astrologer and charlatan Liz Fielding:

Astrologer Liz Fielding responded to the research by saying: "I would like to look at the methodology used.

The scientists should also look at divorces to get the full picture, as studying marriages only tells half the story."

Being confronted on standards of methodology by astrologists is like being lectured on table manners by a pack of feral children. To have a study sample of ten million and find no correlation beyond random chance sounds pretty conclusive to me, and just about anyone else in te reality based community.

Elsewhere in woo-news:

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

Followed without a trace of cognitive dissonance by..

God had given men and women free will to choose whether "spontaneously to accept salvation . . . the Christian faith is not imposed on anyone, it is a gift, an offer to mankind".

So the threat of an actual fiery eternal damnation doesn't represent coercion of any kind? Remind me, which circle of hell is reserved for those who conceal child abuse? Just checking..

polls and framing the gay adoption debate

Trawling around various polling sites I discover this YouGov poll on gay adoption for The Daily Telegraph from back in January. Two major observations: first, there's a clear generational divide in attitudes - 51% of 18-34 year olds opposing an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies and 56% of those aged 55 plus in favour of such an exemption.

The second note is that - as we've come to expect - the poll question failed to point out that the primary effect of the Equality Act is to protect against religious discrimination. Instead, the poll chooses vague and factually misleading language - "Parliament passed the Equality Act which gives people the right to be treated equally in a variety of circumstances. These include the rights of gay couples to adopt children" - the effect of which is to frame the Equality Act as a gay rights law in opposition to religious freedoms.

In other words, the picture presented by a poll paid for by The Telegraph ignores the actual situation in law to advance a socially conservative agenda. What an enormous suprise.

Still, they lost.

education stories about the ex-education minister are fair game (PCC rules against Ruth Kelly's complaint)

Hey, look, it's the Press Complaints Commission saying to Ruth Kelly what bloggers have been saying for a couple of months:

Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly has lost her complaint against the Daily Mirror, over its coverage of her decision to educate her son privately. [...]

"The fact that a Cabinet minister - who had previously been Secretary of State for Education and Skills - had elected to remove her child from the state system to be enrolled in a private school raised important issues for public debate," [the PCC] said.

"Even if government policy included an acceptance of private schooling for those with special needs, the fact that the complainant did not feel that the current state system could meet her child's requirements raised questions about the nature of publicly-funded schooling and its ability to cater for children with special needs - including those whose families would not be able to pay for private schooling."

Full marks for recognising that someone who used to be a cabinet minister for education might be expected to have their own choices and statements examined rather more closely than anyone else. As I argued back in January in response to the Time's piss-poor defence of Kelly

Kelly is obviously entitled to do whatever she thinks is best for her family (or indeed, the welfare of her soul, as we've seen previously) but to pretend that those "personal" decisions are beyond examination or reproof when she is also a government minister making the same kinds of decision on our behalf is fucking ridiculous.

schools bullying report: likely issues?

I'm reading Education Committee evidence ahead of a new report on bullying in schools to be published tomorrow and a few things have jumped out at me from this section. The first is that - unlike racist incidents of bullying - there is no requirement to log homophobic incidents. Secondly, only a very small number of schools - 6% - make any kind of specific reference to homophobic bullying in their anti-bullying policy.

The other major concern is the supposed difficulty of defining homophobic bullying: is it bullying that involves language that could be homophobic (including the use of the word gay as a generally negative word) or is it bullying that explicitly targets individuals who are gay? If this is bullying tied to identity - like racist bullying - how do we deal with students who are either closeted, or uncertain.

One problem here is that we're dealing with young people who may not have acquired an explicit sense of sexual identity; that said, victims of homophobic bullying don't actually have to be gay, or openly gay.

There is something about the whole way in our culture that boys perceive themselves to be men. If you have this terrible pressure that there is now for boys to be macho, to be tough, not to show their feelings, to treat girls as sex objects, to be harsh and rough and all the rest of that, then obviously somebody who does not fit those parameters, whether they are gay or not, is likely to be at risk.

There's also a tension between having specific policies for racist and/or homophobic bullying

Another issue I expect to see in the report is that there's no specific training on bullying - or the issues surrounding bullying in ITT, or Initial Teacher Training. There are also a few outstanding reports commissioned by the DfES, including one by Stonewall, which should make interesting reading. So, likely findings?

My brain says: that the available data on identity-based bullying is often either based on quite small samples, or is more than a few years old; that the absence of a requirement to record homophobic bullying makes it hard to gauge the size of the problem and even easier to ignore; that some headteachers, still working in the shadow of section 28, are fearful of explicitly confronting homophobic bullying for fear of being accused of "encouraging" students to be gay; that ITT should present a more proactive approach to training new teachers to deal with bullying.

more sexy ignorance

Further bluster over the channel 4 documentary on sex education, with more than a little dishonesty from moral dudgeons Family Youth and Concern:

Its director, Norman Wells, who refused to say whether he had seen the programme ahead of tonight's broadcast, although he has seen the three schools' programmes, said: "We do have concerns about the content of the programme and its timing, which is before the 9pm watershed.

You'd think that this would be the point at which a newspaper would refuse to print comment - given that Wells is complaining about the content of a programme he hasn't seen, but no..

"But we are also bothered about the claim in the programme they are showing tonight, that they turn to the Netherlands and say we need sex education of this kind in the UK - that it is the golden bullet that will solve our problems with teenage pregnancies."

Such a pity that the programme didn't make that claim, but simply considered how the UK might learn something from sex education in other countries - other countries which seem to have low STI, abortion and pregnancy rates.

Mr Wells said research carried out by his group revealed that the way sex education is delivered in schools in the Netherlands is just as varied as it is in UK schools.

Excepting, of course, that even when allowing for local variations, sex education not only starts at a far earlier age in the Netherlands but is more explicit and comprehensive than in the UK - and takes place within a culture which is far less paranoid when it comes to talking to children about sex.

total purity balls

The Telegraph's feature on US "purity balls" glosses over most of the creepier elements of the concept..

For all the dating couples were made up of fathers and their teenage daughters.

They had come to a Purity Ball, to celebrate the father-daughter relationship and to take home written promises to each other. The girls' pledge said they would remain virgins until marriage, while the fathers vowed to love and protect them. [...]

It could have been a wedding reception, and at some events fathers place "purity rings" on their daughters' wedding finger, which are to be removed only at marriage.

.. and entirely fails to recognise that no-one dare try to pull this kind of faux-religious, sub-incestuous crap with young men. That said, there is space for a reminder that abstinence pledges don't work:

A government study of 12,000 young people found that a majority of girls who pledged abstinence, either at the balls or at church or religious rallies, went on to have sex before marriage.

Abstinence-only programmes have also been repreatedly show to leave young people ill-prepared to protect themselves from either pregancy or STIs - in other words, more likely to engage in riskier sexual behaviour.

home office to sign convention supporting victims of human trafficking

Good news - after a lengthy period of resistant, the government is about to sign up to the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. From the BBC:

Freed victims of human trafficking are to be granted the right to stay in the UK for at least 30 days, the Home Office is expected to announce.

The government is to sign a European convention giving victims more time to recover from their ordeal before deciding whether to help police.

It's a certainly a step forward from the Home Office's previous non-position reported in The Guardian back in April 2006:

A Home Office spokesman said: "We too want to see widespread action to tackle this abhorrent trade at source. The UK has not yet signed the convention but that doesn't mean that we won't sign it."

Also see this post for more on the issue - with further coverage in The Guardian of how the current law can act to criminalise the victims of the sex-trafficking.

suddenly attack of christian modesty?

The Christian Congress for Traditional Values - who were previously promoting the video discussed below - seem to have scrubbed their website of any mention. However, there's a collection of surviving videos with some rather familiar voices.. hmm..

UPDATE: Bloggerheads provides an extensive discussion of the sock-puppet antics of the CCTV.

As ever, I'd encourage you to actually read the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 to see if you can find the part which dictates the content of sex education classses. A small clue: it doesn't exist.

The jump in scaremongering logic seems to stem from the provision that "it is unlawful for a local education authority (in England and Wales) or an education authority (in Scotland) in the exercise of their functions to discriminate against a person."

This provision - which in protecting gay students may prevent educators from condemning homosexuality out of hand - seems to be the source of so much panic, particularly given that an absence of fiery condemnation is presumed in fundy-logic to be both wholehearted endorsement and irresistible encouragement.

Given that the only legal requirement for sex education of any kind in the UK is a description of biological functions (and even the provision of that can be sketchy), the idea that children will be instructed in "being gay" or in the mechanics of gay sex is ludicrous beyond words.

mirror talks sense on sex education, shock?

I may have to eat my words - from today's Mirror:

Sex education isn't compulsory in Britain. By law, we have to teach the biology of sex. And that is all.

There is good guidance on what we might do in terms of teaching about relationships, sexual responsibility and the mechanism of contraception. But it's up to the headteacher to decide what is taught - and most are reluctant to stick their heads above the parapet.

The government would like us to consult with our local religious leaders, but wouldn't it make more sense to have that discussion at a national level?

EVERY headteacher faces demands from some parents not to tell youngsters anything about sex for fear we will destroy their innocence.

And that's the biggest difference between Britain and Holland - the parental response. Dutch parents see sex education as an important part of growing up - they were incredulous that some British parents wouldn't see it that way.

They believe young people should be given all the information and trusted to make the right decisions with it. They think it is too important NOT to arm their youngsters with all the knowledge they might need to cope. In Britain, the view persists that providing such information is teaching children to have sex.

Yet right now they are not being told - and they still are doing it. We must convince people that information about sex does not lead to promiscuity.

Wow. That's refreshing, and not what I was expecting.

your friday homophobic propaganda bulletin

Some particularly fetid lies about the sexual orientation regulations, in the form of a youtube video picked up over at Bloggerheads. From Manic's transcript:

[START]

[WHITE SUPERS OVER BLACK BACKGROUND WITH VOICE-OVER]

SUPERS: CAUTION - The following film contains scenes that many viewers may find disturbing and should not be viewed by anyone under 18.

V.O./SUPERS: The government is determined to pass a law that will, among other things, force schools to teach homosexual sex and relationships to children of all ages in all schools.

V.O./SUPERS: 14 Primary Schools in England are currently running pilot schemes to introduce children to homosexuality. This will become law on Wednesday this week so there is not much time.

A couple of the most traditional misdirections (or "lies") - the regulations will not "teach" homosexual sex, unless you believe that recognising that it exists is the same thing as a pop-up guide to lube.

V.O./SUPERS: This law is called the Sexual Orientation Regulations and it is being rushed through so Parliament cannot even debate it and no-one can protest.

Whoops. Someone seems to have forgotten that these regulations were debated when the religious protections were succesfull introduced. Are lies of omission a sin, or not? They are? Oops.

V.O./SUPERS: If you are fed up of being insulted by homosexuals as being "homophobic," "bigoted," and equivalent to a racist, just because you don't agree that children should be taught about gay sex and relationships, then be at: PARLIAMENT SQUARE at 12 NOON, WEDNESDAY 21ST MARCH for 1 hour.

A splendid bit of sophistry: "I am not prejudiced against gay people, I just don't think anyone should recognise that they exist, are real people or should have the same protections as everyone else."

V.O./SUPERS: The film that follows is an enactment of what will happen to your children at some time in the near future and is based upon direct evidence from teachers.

V.O./SUPERS: We have created this using camera trickery, but soon it will be a reality.

[FADE TO BLACK]

[FADE UP TO: A FEMALE TEACHER ADDRESSES A CLASSROOM OF 20+ CHILDREN AGED 6 TO 7. THE CHILDREN ARE OF MIXED SEX AND RACE. DIGITALLY-INSERTED POSTERS THAT READ; 'CHILDREN, BE GAY' DON THE WALLS OF THE ROOM.]

TEACHER: Now today, children, we're going to learn about relationships and the importance of not believing that you have to have either a Mummy or a Daddy to have a proper family. Now if you think that alternative families are not good, then you're a homophobic; and that's a very bad thing... it means that you're not normal... OK?

[CHILDREN NOD]

TEACHER: It's important to find out whether you're gay or bisexual, as all of us are really bisexual; which means that we enjoy having sex with either men or women. Some people are just gay, and some people only have sex with the opposite sex. The important thing to remember is that a family can be anything that you want it to be; it could be two Daddies, or ten Daddies... or you might have two Mummies or lots of Mummies, and lots of Daddies, all enjoying having sex with each other.

['JANE' STARTS CRYING]

TEACHER: Now, you're only crying, Jane, because you're homophobic, and we're here to help you change that... OK?

The video has now been removed, though Manic has a copy - click through for the rest of the transcript.

I'm pretty speechless. I'm pretty conscious of volume of lies and hatred that pours from the mouthes of the Xstian right when it comes to deadly deadly homos, but the time and effort taken to produce this little bit of propaganda is astonishing. Still, they lost. Repeatedly, and in every vote.

Meanwhile, the Mail reports that Catholic adoption agencies may continue to operate by refusing public money and depending on private donations. Again, not that much of suprise to those of us who have read the legislation:

Equalities Minister Meg Munn admitted the nine Catholic adoption societies in England would be released from the demands of the Sexual Orientation Regulations if they forego cash from state-run social services and instead rely entirely on collections from supporters.

The announcement caused speculation that the Catholic Church could launch an appeal to England's one million Catholic churchgoers to make up the £10 million agencies get from local councils.

That's only £10 each, or a few paintings from the Vatican art collection. Dig deep for prejudice!

sexual orientation protections pass into law: ruth kelly turns on catholic church shock?

Ruth Kelly has apparently dropped her vow of silence:

New gay equality laws which are opposed by the Roman Catholic Church are a "major step forward", the Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly has said.

Peers voted against an amendment to throw out the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, brought by Tory peer Baroness O'Cathain.

Ms Kelly, herself a Catholic, said the measures would deliver "dignity, respect and fairness for all".

How refreshing, and indeed unexpected - given that Kelly has remained silent on the matter of policy for which she is responsible throughout the last two months of debate. Still, it's nice to hear the government minister for equality actually sounding like the government minister for equality without embarassment:

She said afterwards: "This is a major step forward in ensuring dignity, respect and fairness for all.

"These measures will help tackle the practical barriers and real, every day problems faced by lesbian, gay and bisexual people."

Ms Kelly added: "It cannot be right in a decent, tolerant society that a shopkeeper or restaurant can refuse to serve a customer because they are gay.

"It cannot be right for a school to discriminate against a child because of their parents' sexuality or not to take homophobic bullying as seriously as they should."

It's almost as though she's suggesting opponents of the legislation are neither decent or tolerant, nor take homophobic bullying seriously. Who'd have thought Kelly would be such a trenchant critic of the Catholic Church?

I think there's time for one last display of ignorance, though:

At prime minister's questions earlier, Tony Blair said critics were effectively backing discrimination.

Tory MP Bill Cash told him: "You have given more preference to those who stand for gay rights than those who are concerned with conscience, with family and with religion."

Cash presumably doesn't know that the sexual orientation regulations only extend protections as far as those already offered to the religious, and no further. It's almost as though he hasn't read the legislation he's complaining about either.

the daily mirror: rentaquote, or "cash for outrage"

Following close on the heels of The Daily Mail's outright lies about a new channel 4 programme on sex education in the UK comes the Daily Mirror.

While I've regularly argued that the supposed "moral outrage" so often reported in the tabloids is manufactured by hacks looking for headline, it's not often we catch a fishing expedition when the boat is still out of the harbour. An old friend passed me an email received today from the Response Source network, which reads:

I wondered if you could help with a really urgent piece for the Daily Mirror newspaper. It is in light of Davina McCall’s new Ch4 programme about sex education. She says that kids should learn about sex earlier and that way stop teenage pregnancies, etc. I just wondered if there are any other mums out there who take a more traditional or standard view that kids shouldn’t know about the birds and the bees from their teachers until they are into their teens.

If you fit the bill, or have a female relative who is happy to express their views that children should not know all about sex until they are older, maybe they can help. It will just involve a short phone interview with me, sort out a quick photo and you even get paid for your time and trouble.

It's hard to imagine how this could be more transparent without a script. And though the use of agencies like Response Source is fairly common, the reader is never told how the seemingly genuine opinions of the public have been sought or shaped to fit a pre-written feature.

You might notice in the is example how early sex education is misleadingly framed here as knowing "all about sex," without any context or argument as to why the position McCall advocates might be a good idea.

This would be part of the liberal media conspiracy, I presume.

"is stalinist that bad?" asks scotsman

It's a novel way of defending someone, I grant you that.

could someone in the press actually read the equality act (2006)?

More coverage of the sexual orientation regulations passing through Parliament, now reaching the Lords, now with recognition of the fact that these regulations stem from earlier legislation. But, despite referring to the Equality Act by name, no-one seems able to report what that Act actually does.

Can it be that no-one in the media reporting on the Equality Act has actually read the Equality Act?

Meanwhile, bishops are invited to speak on the radio about the "injustice" being served without either being challenged to their selective commitment to freedom from discrimination, or as with the Today programme, without anyone providing an alternative view. No mention of the fact that the primary purpose of the Equality Act is to outlaw religious discrimination there either, by the way.

plans to extend STI vaccines for teens induce brain fever

Some strains of stupidity have turned out to be particularly resistant to treatment:

Schoolchildren should be given up to six new vaccines to fight diseases, medical experts have said.

Three would tackle sexually-transmitted infections, which critics claimed could encourage even more risky sexual behaviour.  [...] Proposals to vaccinate children as young as 11 against HPV have been criticised by family values campaigners who say it could encourage young people to have sex earlier.

However, unlike the brain fever that believes disease prevention actually encourages riskier behaviour (because it makes sex.. uhmm.. safer? what?) we can innoculate against a number of STIs. And unless we want to follow the belief that cervical cancer is god's punishment for slutty teens, it's probably - hey, let's say definitely - a good idea.

See The Times for less stupid coverage of the proposals.

McBooHoo

Those poor multinationals can't catch a break:

The UK arm of McDonald's is planning a campaign to have the dictionary definition of a McJob changed.

The Oxford English Dictionary says it is: "An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector."

But Lorraine Homer from McDonald's said the firm felt the definition was "out of date and inaccurate". The fast food chain is planning a public petition to try to get the definition changed.

Sadly, no. Dictionaries are not popularity contests, which is one of my less successful aphorisms but true all the same. Dictionaries are not used to bring about changes in the public perception of words, but rather they other way around: dictionaries reflect the public, shared meaning of a term. McDonald's might not like what we think of them, but changing the definition in the dictionary isn't going to change our minds.

whereon basic reading skills apparently make your humble blogger a frickin parliamentary scholar; or "hypocrisy as usual"

As predicted, the vote in the House of Commons on the new sexual orientation regulations passed without a hitch:

The draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which require businesses and services not to discriminate against homosexuals, were approved by 310 to 100 votes, a Government majority of 210.

To its credit, the Telegraph reports both Cardinal Cormac O'Connor's protests..

The Cardinal said the way the regulations were being pushed through the Commons without a full-scale debate by MPs was an "abuse of parliamentary democracy".

and why - even before the issue of hypocrisy - that protest is hot air:

As regulations, they can be approved by the Commons without debate because they form part of the Equality Act, which passed into law last year.

However, no major news outlet has reported - through deliberate omission or outright ignorance - that the primary purpose of the Equality Act was to outlaw religious discrimination, and that regulations applying to sexual orientation can be introduced without debate because of that precedent. Once more, you only have to read the Act to discover this. It's called secondary legislation, and has been an accepted part of parliamentary procedure for more than a hundred years.

The BBC's report manages to quote Meg Munn to that effect, but they too are unable to mention the purpose of the original law that makes this step possible. So that's the Mail, The Times, The Telegraph and the BBC - all of whose correspondents seem able to report the protest that the regulations have been "rail-roaded" but none of whom seem to really understand either why the objections of a religious minority are both hypocritical and full of crap. If these secondary regulations are so dangerous, then voting for protection from religious discrimination in the first place when that law was laced with deadly deadly homos was also both hypocritical and stupid.

Expect more of the same as the regulations move into the Lords.

i would have got away with discovering the new world if it wasn't for you indigenous kids

I'm sure the indigenous Australians - who arrived 40,000 to 45,000 before either map - must have been very impressed by Europe's cartography.

those shocking filthmongers (pictures pages 3-17)

AH, the convenient, reactionary prudes of The Daily Mail:

The U.S. fashion firm Abercrombie & Fitch, which has been blasted for its use of sex and shock is coming to Britain this week. [..]

The company is announcing its arrival with advertisements showing a rear view of a male model, whose trousers are so low they reveal a bare behind.

Shorter Mail: we're so shocked and disgusted by this that we insist you look at this photograph of it.

That the Mail is unable to provide any examples of alleged "blasting" is in no way indicative that they are the journalistic equivalent of a hackney cart of horse manure. I do, however, imagine that the people at Abercrombie & Fitch are very greatful for the free publicity - they couldn't have wanted anything more.

Oh, and here's that bare behind, sadly not in full:


Please feel free to .uhh.. I can't do it... insert your own blasting joke here.

last throes of bigotry: some minorities are more equal than others

The last-ditch attempt to block sexual orientation regulations in the House of Lords suggests we're about to discover that there's no hypocrite quite like one in an ermine-lined mitre. Apparently, some anti-discrimination regulations are unfairer than others - even when the powers which define them are identical in the letter of the law.

First, take a look at The Time's religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill, who manages to ignore or forget one or two important facts in reporting the plans of a socially-conservative, unrepresentative minority:

Bishops of the Church of England are being urged by their flock to turn out en masse on Wednesday for the Lords debate on equal rights for gay couples  wishing to adopt.

In an open letter sent to all the diocesan bishops of the Church, more than  one fifth of the lay members of the General Synod urge the 26 bishops in the Lords to help to overturn the Sexual Orientation Regulations at its final  vote.

Many peers and MPs from across all parties are unhappy with the way the changes to adoption law have been processed through Parliament.

It's a pretty strange argument, given that the Lords is supposed to the close-reading, attention--to-detail, think-of-the-big-picture chamber and that even without those elevated powers, I'm able to read the Equality Act (2006) where - in plain English - the powers to introduce those regulations are clearly stated in part three of the act.

The Mail repeats this fallacy, turning the last-throes of bigotry into a New Labour vs. Newer Tory bunfight ("Conservative backbenchers will demand a vote in the Commons amid an outcry that Labour has forced through the laws without proper parliamentary debate"). While it's nice that the Conservatives have a free vote on the issue, they still have - well - substantially fewer MP's, and are exceptionally unlikely to pick up support from the Liberal Democrats in any numbers on this issue.

So why didn't anyone - particularly those bishops - protest more vehemently at the time? Two reasons, one small and one large. First of all, there was protest and discussion. Then there was a vote: they lost. Why then, didn't they perhaps protest more loudly?

The main function of the Equality Act (2006) is to outlaw religious discrimination.

In fact - as I've discussed here before - the law authorises nothing more than the possibility of the kinds of protection to gay people already given to those with religious beliefs.

So, when concerned Xstians rally outside Parliament and demand that their bishops block the new regulations, remember that it's actually a rally for prejudice, as for one group to deny another the protections they have gladly claimed for themselves is the living definition of the idea.

holiday (it would be so nice)

I'm heading out of the country - on holiday, no less - so no fresh posts for a week or so. Please feel free to take this opportunity to roam through my inestimable archives. :)

So, some old favourites:
Tits out For the Girls: Feminism and Raunch Culture
The Daily Mail and "The Rape of Common Sense"
A pair of posts: Debunking the Gender Divide, Part 92 and Nothing So Stupid It Can't Be Repeated.
And finally, one of my best titles: Wang Magic and Other Anti-Feminist Tales.

daily mail lies about sex education documentary

The Daily Mail reaches for some extraordinarily bold-faced lies and claims "Outrage as Ch4 show gives condom lesson to youngsters." There's no part of this headline that isn't an outright fabrication.

The TV show in question is, in fact, a documentary series fronted by Davina McCall that deals with the chronic lack of sex education in the UK. Even ten seconds of the programme (which you can watch on the channel 4 website) reveal that it's not a sex education programme marketed to young people: it's about how we deal with the issue of sex as a whole and the consequences of current failures in education, not the mechanics of contraception.

The first five minutes actually deals with McCall repeatedly arguing that having sex at a young age - before the age of consent - is not a good idea, recalling her own negative experiences and talking to young people about theirs. Having argued that early sex is not a good idea, McCall expresses shock that for many it's not even protected sex.

And as for the condom lessons for youngsters, which actually sounds like a good idea given the context? As the Mail's own story recounts:

In the programe, McCall calls on the Government to learn lessons from the Dutch. She visits the Netherlands with a group of 15 and 16 year-olds who watch graphic videos about sex. These are shown in Dutch classrooms to children as young as 13.

So 15 and 16 year old students, in another country, being educated by a system for which their parents have given consent. A system which, incidentally, has led to the Netherlands having a pregnancy rate five times lower than Britain.

And the "outrage" - that's before fishing expedition for people to respond to the Mail's own lies - looks like this:

Norman Wells from the pressure group Family and Youth Concern has argued that Davina is urging parents to embrace an untypical example of what is taught in Dutch schools.

So not outrage at all, but a rather sober claim that McCall is partially misrepresenting her case. In short, the hacks of the Daily Mail are a pack of lying fucks.

Incidentally, McCall's documentary is pretty damn good and well worth watching if you have any interest in the issue - though you might need to use Internet Explorer to get C4's website working.

those honours meetings: what was levy's role?

Further clarity, from The Guardian:

[Levy] had an advisory role in the submission of honours nominations. The shortlists are drawn up before they are presented to the Lords Appointments Commission. Typically, those meetings would include Downing Street staff and senior members of the party. But the final decision about who is to be nominated is taken by the prime minister.

Political sources said yesterday it would be perfectly legitimate for Lord Levy to attend meetings at which honours were discussed. Loans or donations given by party members should not preclude anyone from being considered for an honour by the prime minister, they said.

It is understood that Lord Levy did not contribute any names to the lists nor offered honours to any financial backer, but was simply asked for his opinion on potential peers.

I'm having more and more trouble with the defence being offered a few days ago that Levy had "nothing" to do with the honours process; even if he did nothing wrong, it's an odd claim to make if you can be shown to have attended honours nomination meetings. It's not proof of Levy having done anything wrong, but it's a nonsensical denial.

However, there's an emphasis in the language used here and elsewhere that he was "asked for his opinion," as opposed to having offered it - though quite why he'd be at the meeting (even in a perfectly legitimate sense) if he wasn't planning to take part in any form is another question.

a therapeutic arse-kicking for Patricia Hewitt

Some good news, about which I'm sure Dr Crippen will have more to say later today. From The Telegraph:

Concerns about the Medical Training Application Service, (MTAS), which was introduced in January, came to a head at the weekend after The Daily Telegraph gave a voice to angry and dismayed junior and senior doctors.

On Monday night Mrs Hewitt met members of the powerful Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. She agreed that the review should take place and that the academy, which represents 14 royal colleges, would lead it.

The decision gives back to the royal colleges powers they lost over regulation of specialist medical training when Modernising Medical Careers, the new training scheme for hospital registrars, was introduced.

I think, perhaps, that they kicked her arse a little, with the promise of further kickings to come from the BMA.

fresh cash for honours pickings

Some fresh details that haven't appeared before. From the Daily Mail, who keep pretending the nickname "Lord Cashpoint" isn't exclusively their invention, the question of timing is raised:

The meeting between Miss Turner and Lord Levy was said to be about his account of how a list of names to be recommended for peerages was drawn up. It was still unclear last night whether it took place before or after his first arrest last July.

The memo she wrote details her 'worries' about the version of events presented by Lord Levy, and her belief that the issue was so serious Mr Blair should be told about it, according to a BBC report last night.

The Times reports:

Downing Street again broke its silence on the affair to make clear that Ms Turner's document had not been passed to Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair's chief of staff. The BBC claimed that Ms Turner had said that she was worried about Lord Levy's version and believed that Mr Blair should be told about it. Downing Street insiders said that if Mr Powell did not get the document, it was unlikely Mr Blair had been told.

So we're back to the email existing but not having been sent, which fits the BBC's stubborn preference for "document" (hey, philosophers, is an email an email if it's never been sent? If a spam bounces from a full mailbox does it make a sound?)

Given that Turner has been twice arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, I can't help wondering when in the course of the police investigation that the existence of this document was revealed - and indeed whether its discovery was cause for one or more of the arrests (including that of Levy).

Then there's this from The Scotsman:

There was also a suggestion from Lord Levy's rabbi that anti-semitism could be behind the "smear" campaign.

Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet said: "It does become very damaging to Anglo-Jewry in particular... and the wider public when we have this running on." Rabbi Schochet said he did not believe the leaks came from No 10, but rather other "sinister" corners.

and The Telegraph:

The long-running saga took a dramatic twist after Lord Levy's rabbi hinted that there was an element of anti-Semitism, with "one Jew being hung out to dry".

Hmm.. really not sure what to make of this. Is it possible that unnamed sources are motivated to spin against Lord Levy because of anti-semitism? Yes, certainly, but that doesn't change the claim of interference allegedly made by Turner, which is either true or false. That said, even false claims raised against Levy may be rather horribly standard arse-covering and political retribution that has nothing to do with his faith.

While Levy may indeed turn out to be a fall-guy, I'd argue it's because he's the most conveniently placed - not because he's a Jew.  As a standard disclaimer, that's not to say that anti-semitism doesn't exist and hasn't motivate people in this kinds of narratives, but that when a man who happens to be Jewish is being attacked in the press, it does not automatically mean he is being attacked because he is Jewish.

lord levy and cash for honours: "no role at all" versus "offered his opinions"

A little more reading between the lines, courtesy of the BBC's new-found ability to report on the Turner emails - new stories seem to be appearing on the website every couple of hours.

So here's a little divination based on the most recent addition, beginning with an obvious contradiction in the accounts:

No 10 aide Ruth Turner was concerned a version of events put to her by Lord Levy was untrue, the BBC has learned in new cash for honours developments.

Ms Turner was concerned about the Labour fundraiser's account of his role in drawing up the Honours List. [...] In the document, one source has told the BBC, Ms Turner, Downing Street's head of government relations, said she was worried by Lord Levy's words and she believed the prime minister should be told about it. [...]

Lord Levy has always maintained he played no role in drawing up the list of those to be recommended for peerages - although he has accepted he may have given his opinions about individuals who appeared on the list.

Given that Levy's argument has been that he played no role at all, Turner's supposed discomfort with that version of the events would logically stem from her belief that he did, in fact, play some kind of active role.

In other words, what Levy has downplayed as "offering opinions" may have seemed to Turner as a rather more active participation in presenting the case for one candidate over another. Re-phrased yet again, did Turner (and now the police) have reason to believe that Levy's opinions were more than inconsequential footnotes? In fact, if Levy's opinions and role were so irrelevant to the selection process, why was he circulating those views?

The version of Levy's defence offered here also suggests that he only gave an opinion after the list had been drawn up, i.e. that he was not instrumental in getting names onto the list in the first place. The case for Levy's innocence in that situtation would also presumably be that even those opinions might have corresponded with final decisions, they were not part of the decision making process: it's merely a case of an un/happy coincidence.

john snow interviewing levy's rabbi?

Neither Lord Levy or his solicitor are willing to go beyond their earlier terse no-statement statement... so John Snow is happily interviewing Levy's rabbi. Why, exactly, is Channel 4 news dedicating five minutes of primetime to what is essentially a character witness statement?

bbc injunction lifted

The injunction on the BBC has been lifted, allowing them to report what we've pretty much been able to piece together from newspaper reports:

The story is that No 10 aide Ruth Turner had expressed her concern that Lord Levy had put to her a version of events which she believed to be untrue.

Strangely absent from both the latest round of The Guardian and the BBC's continuing coverage is the name of the person to whom the email was allegedly addressed - Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. There's something about that detail which bothers me: has Powell given a statement to the police that he received no such email? (EDIT: Has Turner given a statement suggesting that she had no such concerns?) Hmm..

I'm also mildly entertained by this:

Neil O'May, from Lord Levy's solicitors Bindman & Partners, said he "categorically denies any wrong-doing whatsoever". He said that the "current round" of media reporting was "partial, contradictory, confused and inaccurate".

Sadly for O'May, the fact that the media reporting has indeed been inconsistent and contradictory is in no way proof that Levy is innocent.

EDIT: I'd also note that the BBC is still stubbornly referring to the evidence as "documents," rather than as emails as is the case with pretty much every other media outlet.

cash for peerages: three versions of the turner email story

A little attention to the various versions of the latest episode of the cash for peerages suggests that Downing Street is trying its best to prepare a pre-emptive defence via willing (and unwilling) surrogates in the media.

The BBC's original version, bound by the first injunction last Friday, reads like this:

This means the BBC can report that the document which sparked the police investigation into an alleged Downing Street cover-up was written by head of Government Relations Ruth Turner and was about Tony Blair's chief fundraiser Lord Levy. It cannot, though, give any details of the content of the document.

The Guardian, having narrowly escaped an injunction of their own, clarifies the expanded BBC account that emerged when that injunction was partially lifted yesterday:

The BBC said yesterday that Ms Turner sent an email to the chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, but other sources available to the Guardian suggest there was no such email.

The challenge to the BBC narrative offered by unnamed sources fits rather too conveniently with Downing Street's protests that they have not, in fact, been acting as unnamed sources. From the Guardian, again:

The prime minister's official spokesman said: "Suggestions that we leaked or were trying to leak this information are just plain wrong - and that's not based on my personal hunch. It's because there are inaccuracies in reports which mean it can't have come from No 10."

And, of course, it's unthinkable that Downing Street would leak a partial or inaccurate version of events that best served their interests, or lie afterwards to conceal that leak - or use surrogates to do the same. Unthinkable, I tells ya.

Interestingly The Daily Mail's story on the 6th repeats the email-does-not-exist argument but with a slightly and crucially different spin:

But contrary to BBC reports, the message was never actually sent to Mr Powell.

Here, the email exists but was not sent. Fortunately, we don't have to look very far to see where this version of the story comes from - no further, in fact, that the Mail on the preceding day:

But Downing Street questioned the accuracy of accounts at Westminster and it was claimed that Miss Turner's e-mail might never have been sent at all, but merely stored on a computer database.

All of which makes me wonder what kind of pre-emptive defence is being wrangled here. Turner wrote the email/memo, but never sent it, therefore its contents should be disputed? Curiouser, and curiouser.

So, there are at least three versions of the story in circulation: that the email doesn't exist, that the email exists but was never sent and, finally, an email written by Ruth Turner - suggesting that she had been asked to change her evidence by Lord Levy - was indeed sent to Jonathan Powell.

EDITED FOR FORMATTING AND TO ADD: That last bit is wrong - the email seems to show that Ruth Turner had expressed her concern that Lord Levy had put to her a version of events which she believed to be untrue. See here for more.

new! christian feminism: just like regular feminism but without the reproductive autonomy

There's an interview with Pia de Solenni (a US academic who won the 2001 Pontifical Academies' Prize for her study of Christian feminism) that's worth reading before it circles the feminist blogosphere. The distinction between secular and religious feminism is a little vague, though the passing demonisation of the former by her interviewer as responsible for "abortion, broken families, etc." is probably clear enough.

It only really gets going when the issue of evangelism is raised:

Christian feminism offers a much healthier understanding and appreciation of difference than Islam. Muslim women throughout the world are dealing with serious concerns. Our constructive and creative approach will do substantially more for Muslim women, and all women, than some of the so-called pro-woman initiatives that include "reproductive health."

So-called pro-woman? What, actually anti-woman?

Those initiatives communicate to women that part of them, namely their fertility — and vulnerability — is not acceptable. In order to be happy, they have to deny that. Most women don´t want that. They do so only because they feel that they have no choice.

And suddenly offering women choice - through education about and access to contraception and abortion - is somehow the denial of choice. The idea that women's health initiatives might help women to enjoy their fertility rather than view it as an inescapable burden doesn't seem to feature. Instead, there's the attempt to spin the restriction of choice into greater choice:

We have to be very careful about how we communicate our message.

Our message isn't about what you can't do — no contraceptives, no abortion, etc. It's about what we can do. That's why the other "side" is so effective.

It's been effective because it's been both accurate and empowering. The protest that "message" has been misunderstood or badly presented is nonsense: unless there's been a major shift in organised Christian belief in general and the Catholic faith in particular while I've typed this, a key part of the message is that abortion and contraception are unacceptable.

The decision to emphasise those issues of sexual morality comes from the Church. No pro-abortion activist bases their support for abortion in the fact that it challenges Christianity and pisses off the Pope: that's just what some of us call a happy coincidence.

If it comes down to what "we can do," the only choice here is between having sex and accepting that you might get pregnant everytime, or not having sex at all. In fact, this version of "choice" seems to goes beyond recognising women's fertility as a positive thing to making sure that it's a biological destiny that can't be avoided or even managed.

Combining with the corresponding tendency to default on difficult questions for the tenuous judgments of god above ("She's a rational creature made in the image of God. Whatever she does in her life has to be understood in that context if she´s going to be happy") is the argument that religious feminism will somehow provide a "fuller" response for women:

A lot of men aren't all that happy with the results of secularized feminism either; so the time is ripe for offering a more substantial feminism.

Yes, it's the unhappiness of men which should trigger the reform of feminism: good luck with that argument.

forced marriage to be criminalised in uk

Good news as the government changes its mind over the issue of forced marriage, though the legislation introduced in the Lords by the Liberal Democratic peer, Lord Lester of Herne Hill will make forced marriage a civil rather than criminal offence.

Offenders would not go to jail, but victims could sue for damages. Lester's bill also allows for a third party to bring charges. [...]

Forced marriages tend to come primarily from Muslim and Sikh communities, and around 30 per cent involve minors. Lord Lester's private member's bill, co-authored by the Southall Black Sisters pressure group, would make it unlawful for people outside the immediate family to aid and abet forced marriage.

You can read my original argument in favour of criminalisation here on my old blog where I deal with some of the arguments against the move. As I argued at the time, making forced marriage a specific offence seemed to be the logical extension of the government's exisiting position, which recognised such marriage as "a form of domestic violence and an abuse of the human rights."

marriage rates in decline 30yrs before tax break removed

Though David Cameron's commitment to "support marriage and [...] back it through the tax system" is still gloriously light on detail, the larger problem is that the argument relies on some muddled and untested logic.

The argument that "family breakdown is the chief cause of society's ills" presumes that tax relief will help families stay together - in other words, that financial stress is a key reason for separation. However, tax relief is also being presented as an incentive for co-habiting couples to get married.

The problem here is that the belief in the power of such an incentive tends to ignore the long term trend away from marriage, and religious marriage in particular. Marriage rates have been dropping steadily since the early 1970's - in other words, long before the decision by Labour to remove tax breaks for married couples in 1998.

While it might make good politics, the emphasis on marriage as the remedy for "social breakdown" in the UK presumes that the clock can somehow be turned back, and that change to marriage isn't part of a series of other social and economic changes - including, but not limited to, contraception, abortion and the liberalisation of sex, the rise of women in work outside of the home and the f8cking ridiculous price of housing for first-time buyers.

The emphasis on marriage also tends to carry with socially conservative - even regressive - values that include Women Should Not Have Sex Before Marriage Or Work Afterwards. That's work after marriage, not sex, though you might want a few minutes to get your breath back.

more MMR scaremongering

The Telegraph's contribution to MMR scare journalism leads with the worst fears of anxious parents. Reporting on the "potentially dangerous side-effects of the MMR vaccine," we learn:

Katie Stephen was a healthy baby girl when she was injected with the MMR triple vaccine. Ten days later she was vomiting, delirious and running a fever.

That was in 1990. Seventeen years later, she is deaf in one ear.

It's not until much later in the story that we discover that this case - for which we're offered no further evidence beyond the dramatisation above - stems from a version of the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus.

A version of the vaccine which hasn't been used in the UK, we also learn, since 1992.

So it's the "potentially dangerous effects" of a vaccine that isn't being used anymore, and hasn't been used for 15 years.

While the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act referenced in this story do reveal evidence of concerns over health risks that were not made public at the time, these concerns have nothing to do with more recent fears which you'll recall relate to an unproven link between MMR and autism. And, of course, relate to a different version of the vaccine.

Still, I supposed, technically, that there might be vials of the old vaccine on a shelf somewhere which continue to pose a "potential" threat. Scary, hey?

angry, angry atheists

Another minor problem with the "atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists" argument:

"We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism," says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. "Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell."

Excepting, of course, for that atheists don't believe in hell.

"we particularly like your large powerful legs.."

Moved from my del.icio.us links: George Takei responds to NBA player Tim Hardaway's homophobic remarks.

australian court rules: speech both discriminatory and protected

This is what freedom of speech looks like, for better and worse:

Calling one of the stars of the television series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy "a pillow biter" and a "pompous little pansy prig" was offensive but permissible, an Australian tribunal ruled today. [...]

"We rule unanimously that the statements that Mr Laws made constituted homosexual vilification, because they incited severe ridicule of homosexual men on the ground of their homosexuality," the tribunal said in their judgment.

"By majority, we rule further, however, that his publication of these statements on the radio fell within an exception established by the (Anti-Discrimination) Act that is designed, within appropriate limits, to preserve freedom of expression. Our majority decision is accordingly that the publication was lawful."

A concern here is when such a principle is applied selectively: would the same ruling apply to racial or religious epithets?

The urge to police discrimination and protect freedom of expression is always going to produce tension, not least because speech tends to occupy a space touching both thought and action. Here, the fact that hateful speech has been challenged may ultimately be more productive than a seemingly unthinking attempt to quash it.

Burns [who raised the complaint] said he was disappointed by the decision and had gone to the tribunal to "stand up to bullies".

He added: "I took this action because I believe it’s important to stand up and erase hate in society."

And that, perhaps, is how you begin to change minds.

Oh, and in the spirit of free exchange, John Laws is a fuckwit for spouting bigotry for the sake of a cheap joke.

the zombie will of the people

Unintentional resurrection reference of the day: "Diana death: the people WILL decide."

breaking news: c19th composer was perhaps some kind of transvestite, possibly

Some truly awful reporting as the Mail speculates whether Wagner was some kind of transvestite, maybe, perhaps:

His rousing music stirs the passions of many a redblooded male. But it seems Richard Wagner may have had more interest in the garb of Isolde than Tristan.

A previously unpublished letter has emerged to throw the Wagnerian faithful into a regular tizzy - their operatic hero may have been a cross-dresser.

So what's the story: straight male opera fans like Wagner with their vaginas, therefore the suggestion he might like women's clothing is a problem? How, exactly?

And then there's the "evidence":

The letter was about an outfit ostensibly for the composer's wife, Cosima, and was described by the Wagner as "something graceful for evenings at home".

But he goes on to exhibit an intimate knowledge of female fashions of the time. [...]

"He obviously had a very pronounced feminine side," said Mr Millington. "There was this whole business with silks and satin underwear.

"He had to wear silk next to his skin, ostensibly because he suffered from erysipelas."

Someone had better call the police - there are straight men pumping in time to Wagner, unaware that they're being girlified by stealth.

The dwarf-like Wagner made no secret of his love for silks and velvets and was known as a flamboyant dresser.

He was said to have escaped from his creditors in Vienna in 1864 disguised as a woman and once appeared in public wearing what was clearly a woman's jacket.

ZOMG! Something that wasn't a secret is public knowledge!

To summarise: cultural stereotype about "rousing" masculine music has no basis in anything at all.

Shorter me: "Is this proof Wagner had a fancy for frock opera?" No, nor would it change the sound of his music if he did.