hackery without borders

How helpful of the Daily Mail to attack Obama for his former pastor's most recent comments without managing to add that Obama quickly repudiated those words:

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference...

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him...

Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched tapes, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

"What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.

Perhaps the Mail could restrain its one-sided and partisan reporting to one country at a time?

reader response (not that kind of doctor, actually)

For people who don't normally follow the comments, there's an extended discussion under the recent HPV post.

On that note, I'm actually going offline for a few days at the end of the week due to some unexpected travel: I'll be back at some point during the weekend, but won't be able to respond to fresh comments until then.

daily mail: it's faintly outrageous that gordon brown should agree with us

The Daily Mail's veiled attack on Gordon Brown for ignoring scientific evidence to increase the drug classification of cannabis back to class B is faintly hilarious. Why?

Well, here's a sample of headlines from the Mail's recent cannabis stories:

• Cannabis 'is making teenagers impotent,' say doctors
• One cannabis joint 'harms the lungs as much as five cigarettes'
• Cannabis use among young offenders rockets by 75 per cent in just three years
• One cannabis joint 'is the equivalent of smoking 20 cigarettes'
• Mental illness rate soars among users of skunk cannabis

And, from back when the law was revisited in 2003:

• Cannabis 'kills 30,000 a year'
• Cannabis rethink 'threatens health of a generation'

And then there are the numerous columns on the subject, a number of which were written by our first lady of verbal derangement, Melanie Phillips:

• Evidence that proves cannabis is dangerous
• Why are we soft on this killer drug?
• Cannabis catastrophe

You might have thought that Gordon would therefore enjoy the Mail's full-throated support for his bold decision. No? No? Bueller? No?

Still, it's nice to see that the Daily Mail has decided that five years of newspaper coverage was, on balance, completely inaccurate and asserted the reverse of expert opinion which argues - in the words of the Daily Mail - that "there is no scientific evidence for the change."

Still, it really is an immense puzzle where the pressure to ignore the advisory council (a step never taken before, notes the Mail reproachfully) and reclassify the drug could possibly have come from.

Presumably tomorrow will bring an editorial explaining that Gordon is a failure for both ignoring the evidence and for having waited for so long.. to ignore the evidence.

catholic church in scotland blocks sexual health debate

One of the many problems with the Catholic Church's stance on sex education is that it doesn't just harm students at Catholic schools whose parents have chosen that approach - it hurts everyone:

A professor of public health policy at Glasgow University, Mr Hanlon suggested the Catholic Church had blocked debate by scaremongering. During the strategy talks, he said, there were allegations his group wanted to put sexually explicit material in front of three-year-olds. "If they're using that kind of language to inhibit debate that seems to be irresponsible," he added.

The response from the Church quite neatly demonstrates how that strategy has worked:

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said there was a nursery that had used such materials and blamed the spread of "value-free sexual health services" for promiscuous behaviour.

And somehow the alleged behaviour of a single unnamed nursery school is allowed to dominate the entire debate - behaviour which has nothing to do with the false claims made against the research group. Drawing lurid conclusions from limited evidence is almost the perfect model of scaremongering.

The slur that sexual health services are "value free" is a cheap shot - what Kearney actually means is that they don't shared Catholic values. That, however, is not the same thing as being amoral. It's a claim that deliberately ignores the content of Scotland's existing sex education programmes in order to scaremonger: they're not Catholic values so they can't be values at all.

As we've discussed here before, sex education programmes elsewhere in the UK often have explicit moral or "value-led" agendas - over and above the core message of staying safe and healthy. Scotland is no exception on that front.

The pretence that the Catholic Church hasn't tried whereever possible to derail issues relating to sex and reproduction is farcical:

[Kearney] also questioned the claim the Catholic Church had caused government inaction, listing legal changes the Church had opposed which had still been passed, including the repeal of section 28 banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools and the adoption bill that allowed same-sex couples to adopt.

While it's a pleasing list of legislative failure for the Catholic Church, it's also a list that has little or nothing to do with sex education. It's also a list that ignores where Catholic attitudes have indeed been a roadblock to action - such as in the refusal to accept a schools bullying strategy that addresses homophobia.

It is then - to put it mildly - ironic that an organisation with a track record of obsfucation and misdirection should publish a public letter calling for more ethical practices ("info-ethics") in the press.

In fact, the invitation to visit the new Scottish Catholic Media Office website "to see first hand what the Church has said on a wide range of issues, in turn preventing you from being misled by partial or inaccurate media coverage" would probably carry more weight if the Scottish Catholic Media Office wasn't responsible for pushing some of the most partial and inaccurate stories seen in the Scottish press.

HPV trial has 70% uptake: Daily Mail declares "anti-cancer jab shunned"

The Daily Mail's hostility towards the HPV vaccine - and apparent preference for cervical cancer - jumped to a new level today. There's no part of the lede that isn't deliberately misleading, and an obvious distortion:

Anti-cancer jab shunned: One in three girls refuses vaccine to guard against cervical virus

A vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer may struggle to reach enough girls, a pilot study has found. Almost one in three schoolgirls offered the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine in the trial failed to take up the jabs.

The results cast doubt on whether a national vaccination scheme, due to start later this year, will fully succeed.

Somehow, two-thirds uptake is a sign of failure. But wait: it gets worse. Much worse.

Tracking down the page to actually find some numbers to go with the Mail's claim, there's this:

Dr Brabin, a reader in women's health at Manchester University, said overall uptake was 70 per cent.

She said: "Around ten per cent of parents who did not let their daughters take part said they were waiting for the national programme to begin. If they agree to join in, that would increase the uptake to 80 per cent in this area alone. "

But in the hands of anti-sex, pro-cancer editorial stance of the Daily Mail, this indicates that the vaccine has been "shunned" and that the entire programme is near failure before it has even begun.

The one bright spot in the Mail's coverage is the almost complete rejection of the idea that the vaccine will cause promiscuity: just one in 33 parents was concerned about the vaccine's possible effect on teenage sexual behaviour. Apparently, that line of grotesque sexism just isn't selling.

To finish topping up your rage for the day, guess who refused point-blank to participate?

The HPV vaccine was offered to 2,817 girls in Year 8 (ages 12 and 13) across 36 secondary schools last October, with two Catholic schools deciding not to participate.

Not for the first time, putting celibate men in charge of the health of women produces some pretty fucking awful decisions. Tell me, if the Catholic Church doesn't hate young women, why does it behave like this?

anatole kaletsky: the superiority of the democratic candidates means that mccain is guaranteed to win

Anatole Kaletsky's theory that Obama would lose against McCain seems gloriously ignorant of any of the numerous polls which show Obama both beating McCain, and by a significantly larger margin than Clinton. Even the polls that Kaletsky does cite are hardly conclusive evidence in favour of his argument that race will be an overwhelming problem:

According to the Associated Press exit polls published yesterday, 16 per cent of white Democratic voters considered race an important factor in the Presidential election and 43 per cent of these said they would either vote Republican or not vote at all, if Mr Obama were the Democratic nominee.

Quite how the jump is made from a minority of minority opinion to a national trend is, as they say, unclear.

The notion that the US will fall helplessly into electing a "militarily belligerent and economically unqualified Republican candidate who supports many of President Bush's worst policies" by default is patronising at best - and, if there's a belief that the Republicans are going to play dirty to get there, then voices in the media could do better than merely shrugging at the supposed inevitability of business as usual:

The fact that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both such impressive candidates, intelligent, sincere, articulate and in command of the issues, while John McCain does not qualify on any of these criteria only makes matters worse.

It's the cream of pundit logic: the better the opposing candidate, the more likely it is McCain will win. So is there anything that can be done or should we just post him the crown now?

To be specific, shitty candidates are only elected with the assistance of a shitty press, and hand-wringing about supposedly inevitable defeat while repeating the silliest canards is not a solution.

mayoral candidates will also dance, drop pants for votes

Last night's attempts by London Mayoral candidates to woo the Christian vote sound pretty nauseating:

Candidates quoted and misquoted the words of Jesus Christ and praised the work of Christian charities in an effort to convert the congregation of voters at St Martin-in-the-Fields church.

Boris Johnson raised a laugh when he used some of Christ’s most famous words during the proceedings. “There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth,” he said impressively, only to stumble at the finish “than um, whatever it is”. [...]

Mr Livingstone said providing places of worship in the city would be a priority of his term in office. “People’s faith needs are every bit as important as their housing needs and as their work needs,” he said.

What on earth is this bollocks?

London is heaving with churches, mosques and synagogues - and to rank new places of worship as a priority equivalent to housing is ridiculous in a city with around 13,000 homeless households and many thousands more unable to get anywhere near the property ladder.

Is Livingstone proposing a prayer-based solution to the average London property price of £350,000? Are voters supposed to be thinking, well, I'm paying a ridiculous rent in a property I'll never own, but at least it's walking distance from a church organ?

more sophisticated analysis

The Telegraph makes it easy for you:

The NUT membership consists mainly of primary school teachers, who are very largely apolitical and disinclined to be militant - although that is not the impression given by their leaders or by the motions passed at their annual union conference.

It must be lovely to be able to come to conclusions about large groups of workers without actually having to present any evidence to support your view. It is slightly curious that the presumption that an unwillingness to strike "for the good of the children" is not seen as a political position - apparently, it's the height of being apolitical.

We can only hope that this and any future feats of cultural telepathy will be used for good, and not evil.

(Incidentally, you'd think that truly militant trade unionists would get around to holding major strikes more often than once every 21 years.)

more rules for a modern british media

Remember, when a national newspaper prints a substantial feature about a celebrity's choice of footwear, it's the celebrity who's being "obsessive" and not the newspaper.

Cut due to lack of space, the ongoing situation in Zimbabwe etc. etc.

bob spink: this charming man

As Bob Spink jumps ship from the Conservatives to UKIP, it's helpful to remember that he didn't have any future as a Tory anyway.

You may remember him as the man who stood up in Parliament to declare he had resigned the whip.. to be informed that he couldn't actually do that, as the whip had already been withdrawn.

Mr Spink raised a point of order during a debate on the Budget, saying he had "resigned the Conservative Party whip because the Conservative Party has failed to deal with serious criminal and other irregularities in my constituency".

But the party says it withdrew the whip - excluding him from the Tory group at Westminster - when he emailed the chief whip threatening to resign, accusing the party of "not doing enough to protect him during efforts by his association to deselect him".

An investigation, incidentally, had produced no evidence of criminal irregularities. The fall-out between Spink and his local party was allegedly far more personal: he'd been having an affair with a former Conservative councillor, Gail Boland – the long-term partner of the local association’s deputy chairman, Bill Sharp.

Personal animosity aside, it's also possibly not the image of moral values that would appeal to socially conservative Conservatives who had previously supported Spink as a homo-hating, hang 'em and flog 'em candidate.

In a letter the Conservative Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin, replied: "As a matter of good party discipline I cannot have MPs making threats to resign the whip at a time of their own choosing, if the demands of the party are not met.

"I must therefore treat your resignation as taking immediate effect".

When Spink became whipless in March, he was facing a third attempt to deselect him. As The Times helpfully pointed out:

As he no longer holds the Tory whip, that meeting becomes irrelevant: a sitting MP not in receipt of the whip could not be selected as a candidate for the next election.

In other words, he jumped to UKIP before he could be pushed. Again. He wasn't ever going to stand as a Tory candidate again.

On a related note, during the last round of expenses sleaze, The Telegraph helpfully reported that:

Mr Spink pays his former wife, Janet, £28,000 a year to work as his constituency secretary even though she lives more than 100 miles away in Dorset. [...] On Sunday, it also emerged that the Tory MP has employed Ashleigh Sharp as a parliamentary assistant since 2006. Ms Sharp, who was a 17-year-old A-level student when first employed, is the daughter of Mr Spink's former partner Gail Boland.

Ms Boland, a Conservative councillor, was Mr Spink's lover when her daughter was first employed by the MP. She is paid more than £5,000 a year despite now studying at Buckingham University.

Finally, you may also recall that he was one of the co-authors of Nadine Dorries' minority report on abortion - which, presumably having not read the report, he described as "more scientifically sound." Science says, "no."

WHY. DO. YOU. CRY. HU-MAN?

I laughed, and then discovered I'd made myself sad because this is horribly accurate:

The thought that Brown has been clanking around Whitehall in the last few weeks squawking ‘WHY. DO. YOU. CRY. HU-MAN?’ is a compelling one. Has the Prime Minister been practising his humanity and sympathy? Has he had coaching?

Or has he possessed them all along but has only now found a use for them? The thought that the Prime Minister has begun expressing these sensibilities only after being badgered into it isn’t very comforting.

And "rising prices means you're fucked, but on the bright side I do feel your pain" ranks quite far down my list of useful expressions of compassion.

four months later, policy exchange defines new meaning for "relentlessly, to trial or capitulation."

Hey, everyone - it's now been a couple of months since Policy Exchange threatened the BBC with legal action ("relentlessly, to trial or capitulation") for raising questions about the research standards in their report into extremist literature in UK mosques. That was back in December 2007, of course.

*tumbleweed*

I guess they'll be making good on that threat annnny moment now. To refresh your memories, visit the archives.

speed lovin' criminals

I'm continually confused by the endless sympathy for speeding drivers in the right-of-centre press: the most recent "draconian" outrage is that drivers going substantially over the limit (45mph in a 30mph zone) might expect - gasp - stiffer penalties. It's also a mystery why the "55 per cent increase in child cyclist deaths, from 20 to 31" hasn't produced a screaming headline, given the past treatment of similar statistics.

It is, instead, deeply unfair that anyone should try to slow down drivers in surburban areas: children should apparently learn to duck, roll and cope with bones the consistency of milkshakes.

both stupid and slow

Yes, the people who write headlines for the Sun are both human scum.. and more than a couple of months out of date: Derren Brown came out during an Independent on Sunday feature back in September 2007.

hello! (hello hello hello) is there anybody there? (there there there)

Remember, this is not another echo chamber:

If you think Total Politics will be another 'London centric' political magazine catering solely for the Westminster Village you're wrong.

No, this is not another echo chamber:

You won't find us concentrating on policy - there are plenty of other magazines which already do this. We are concerned with the business of politics, the people involved in decision making and best practice campaigning.

Policy (i.e. content) free discussion of politics: hurrah!

I do enjoy the unintentional honesty of this bit, though:

Total Politics will be sent to every elected official in the United Kingdom and will be written without partisan bias. For example, something that unites all politicians is their desire to be re-elected.

As opposed to, for example, being united by the desire to serve their constituents.

nadine dorries: yes, I'm still taking utter b*ll*cks

While Unity does the proper work of clarifying Nadine Dorries' continued and flagrant dishonesty, I've been stuck at work.

Still, it's unclear who Nadine Dorries can possibly think she's convincing:

Being of neither the pro-abortion or pro-life lobby, one thing I have noticed over the last year is that the BBC is very pro-abortion.

This would be the same Nadine Dorries who has campaigned for greater restrictions on abortion, has repeatedly smeared pro-choice MPs while gloating about it, lied about survival rates for premature births and supports the agenda of the most conservative religious groups which in no way represent popular opinion.

Dorries' (self) deception is most likely a product of her pretence to "balance" - that opposing views on a given issue should be given equal footing in parliamentary committee hearings, even if one side doesn't have any real evidence to support it and is reduced to having witnesses testify on science far outside their declared expertise while arranging invitation only closed-hearings and writing grossly misleading "minority reports" which repeat lies about the causes of breast cancer.

As such, the idea that Nadine Dorries represents the viewpoint of an impartial third party is so incredibly, contemptibly ludicrous that only a deepy manipulative self-serving idiot could even begin to believe it.

bob marshall-andrews: government already have the power to almost indefinitely hold suspects

This argument needs much wider circulation - the government doesn't need to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days because they already have the power to almost indefinitely hold suspects:

[MP Bob] Marshall-Andrews told guardian.co.uk today that the police already have the power to order suspects to disencrypt their data and, if necessary, to translate it into English.

The MP said that these powers were variously contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Serious Organised Crime Act.

Failure to comply in a case involving national security was punishable by up to five years in jail, Marshall-Andrews said. And it could also be treated as a contempt of court, in which case an offender could in theory be held indefinitely, he went on. [...]

He went on: "That's why the director of public prosecutions [Sir Ken Macdonald] himself, who is in charge of the prosecution of serious offences, has said that we do not need this power because he knows perfectly well that he's got it anyway."

Now, I imagine that there are possible counter-arguments to this reading of the law, as there are with any complex application of multiple bits of legislation: the notable thing is that no-one pushing for the extension of detention appears to making any.

If there's a rationale for increasing specific powers beyond the current position, shouldn't this argument demand a response rather than empty air?

stop hitting yourself

The Telegraph's leader advances an argument of realpolitik in the face of BAE fraud allegations:

Paradoxically, in finding against the Serious Fraud Office, the court has probably hastened the day when such interference will become more, not less, frequent. For it will surely be the clinching argument in the intense debate within government over whether to formalise the powers of the Attorney General to halt prosecutions if national security is at risk.

So, we shouldn't stop the government from flaunting the process of justice because it will only encourage the government to flaunt the process of justice. Nothing to see here, move along.

Remember, we can't investigate allegations of bribery, which we know to be very probably true, because it would mean confirming what we already know to be very probably true - which might mean someone has to do something about it. This, apparently, is being "perfectly candid."

The Times argues a rather less pragmatic (or, let's say amoral) stance:

Whatever the implications of this ruling for Anglo-Saudi relations, the long-term health of British justice is more important. It is the bedrock of British civilisation - and prosperity.

And it could play a significant part of how Britain is seen around the world.

animal-human hybrid research polling

It is rather curious that Cardinal Keith O'Brien's assertion that 67% of the public find the notion of animal-human hybrid embryo research "abhorrent" is not in any way reflected by The Times' recent poll:

A poll for The Times reveals today that the contentious medical research enjoys broad public approval, with 50 per cent backing new laws that would permit it and only 30 per cent opposed.

That one survey might find 67% opposition and another only 30% is somewhat outside the realm of statistical rounding error.

A major clue to the disparity may lie in the framing of the polling questions:

The findings [of the Times' poll] are broadly consistent with those of a poll for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority , conducted during its public consultation on hybrid embryos last year, which found 61 per cent of people supported their use in medical research.

Another poll for the Christian Institute, released last week, found 60 per cent of people were opposed to human-animal embryos, but those questioned were not told the purpose of the experiments.

The supposed pointlessness of the research has been a rhetorical feature of the Christian right's opposition to the entire field of embryological science - one function of the "Frankenstein metaphor," itself wildly misleading for the suggestion that a new life will be created, has been to invoke the image of decidely unsexy scientists gone wild.

However, discussion of the purpose of the experiments rapidly reveals the moral imperative for such research - to pursue potentially life-saving treatments. Despite the attempt by some to avoid recognising it, the small corner of research that deals in human-animal hybrids is not being pursued out of mere scientific whimsy.

Now, the Catholic Church's response has been to argue that this rationalisation - the promise of treatments and potential cures - does not make this kind of research acceptable. It's still an anathema to their particular vision of humanity. However, as the Times' polling suggests, this complete and unconditional rejection does not represent popular opinion - and, for what it's worth, certainly doesn't represent informed public opinion.

(Oh, and you may also remember that, in polling on abortion week limits last year, it was demonstrated that support for 24 weeks - i.e. the existing limit - increased when those polled were given more information about abortion.)

for the love of the british

This barely counts as blogging, but let me add quickly to the collective expression of not-surprise:

The decision by ministers and the Serious Fraud Office to halt an investigation into alleged corruption in the BAE Systems arms deal with Saudi Arabia was unlawful, an “abject surrender” and a threat to the reputation of British justice, the High Court ruled yesterday.

And then:

The judges rejected claims that the inquiry had to be closed down for security reasons because "lives were at risk", and said the success of Saudi blackmail attempts had been unlawful. The judgment named Saudi Prince Bandar as the man behind what they characterised as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Looks like the "good chaps don't investigate other good chaps" argument wasn't so convincing in court.

The most splendidly British quality to this entire mess is that it was never really in doubt that the Saudis were blackmailing the UK - with Con Coughlin (amongst others) explicitly arguing that case in the pages of The Telegraph last year:

When it became clear at the end of last year that the Serious Fraud Office was minded to bring prosecutions against those accused of corruption, the Saudis told Downing Street in no uncertain terms that they would not only cancel the Typhoon deal, but would withdraw all co-operation on intelligence-gathering, which would severely impede Britain's ability to tackle Islamic terrorism.

That's not to discount the various surrogates of the Foreign Office and the arms industry who argued that Prince Bandar was, in fact, so much a fan of Britain that he was made of pearly buttons, cockles, eels, Brighton Rock and strawberries and cream etc. etc. and that anything he was alleged to have done should be ignored, not investigated.

While that sounds like parodic exaggeratioon, it's almost exactly the argument that was made. From the Daily Express, an ex-RAF chief speaking "anonymously for security reasons":

"He loves everything British. He even got his mad taste for steak and kidney pie and shepherd's pie here, which his British cook still makes for him.

For heaven's sake, he's had three of his sons complete their education at Eton, one of whom went on to Sandhurst.

On the very rare opportunities he gets to unwind, he treats himself to an episode of Fawlty Towers and we used to do Monty Python skits together when we were younger."

It's beyond parody - the worrying thing is that this has also been accepted grounds for foreign policy.

an automated introspection engine

Like DK, I can't quite see the point of PoliticsHome - at best, it looks like a filter for newspapers and blogs which are already more than selective enough in their coverage and editorial stance. At best, it looks as though the site will emphasise (or exaggerate) existing political narratives. If there's one thing the traditional media - and indeed the blogosphere - isn't crying out for, it's more gatekeepers.

I also think Dominic Brogan has it (depressingly) right:

A new website launches today which has the potential to be a big hit in the village. PoliticsHome offers breaking news, transcripts of interviews, video clips, reproductions of the day's front pages, various tracking graphs that claim to measure what stories are hot at any given moment, and lots more. It's inspired by the folk at ConservativeHome. One of its USPs is the PH100, a sort of focus group made up of politicians, spinners, journalists and other denizens of Westminster, of all political persuasions and none.

It's "the village" gazing at itself in a full length mirror, checking minute by minute, hour by hour, to see if anything has changed. When DK asks, "to be honest, what the hell is the point of PoliticsHome?" I get the creeping sensation that the answer is that "of course you'd say that - it's not for you."

Oh, and while the site is pretty unkind to the eye on a monitor, it's currently competely unreadable on any of my portable devices - which means I won't even be using it to check headlines when I'm out and about. In contrast, Google reader formats everything perfectly for my ipod touch, and does a passable job of reformatting most source sites on-the-fly.

Not just me, then

David Osler (blogging at Liberal Conspiracy) reads Stephen Glover's attempt to blame "the left" for Zimbabwe and comes to the same conclusions I did - Glover's straw-man is one part historical revisionism to two parts white-wash.

those wicked lefty-leftist-leftoids (part 92)

Stephen Glover decides it's vitally important that the "the British Left" should carry a hearty portion of blame for supporting Mugabe, while simultaneously reminding us that:

In 1994 [Mugabe] received an honorary knighthood from the Queen on the recommendation of the then Tory government

and that the same Tories turned a blind eye when

In 1982, two years after winning power, he sent the notorious North Korean-trained Fifth brigade into southern Zimbabwe, where they killed untold thousands of Matabele.

and finally that

In 1984, the Tory government sold him lots of Hawk fighter aeroplanes, which were later used in an illegal war in the Congo.

But apart from all that, it's apparently the "fans" of Mugabe on the lefty-leftist-left (accused of giving verbal support) who are truly deserving of approbrium. When Glover says

the British Government and the Left may soon have the opportunity to atone for appalling past misjudgments of this evil man

you must not - under any circumstances - notice that said government was ever so faintly Tory for quite a while, and thus an element of the "British right." Because it's "the left" who are to blame.

Carry on, nothing to see here.

battle of the phobias

A small pause as the Mail tries to decide whether to condemn religious intolerance or perfidious homos. It's a near perfect storm:

Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about samesex relationships after objections from Muslim parents. [...]

[Farooq Siddique, community development officer] said "In Islam homosexual relationships are not acceptable, as they are not in Christianity and many other religions but the main issue is that they didn't bother to consult with parents. [...]

He said the two schools were 60 to 70 per cent Muslim but pointed out that non-Muslim parents were among those who complained.

Traditional Islamic views condemn homosexuality but there are liberal movements, such as the Al-Fatiha Foundation, which is dedicated to gay Muslims.

The headline for the story - and demonstrating traditional Mail restraint - is "Muslims' fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds" (presumably Christian objection would have been righteous - whereas Muslims are just angry).

I'm presuming that by tomorrow morning that the Mail comment section will have confirmed both that a) teh gayzor should stop forcing their propaganda on children and b) that mouthy Muslims should keep their intolerance out of our schools.

goodbye, I'm glad we never knew you, you bigoted f*ckwit

Courtesy of the Daily Mail, here's Nick Eriksen, the BNP's London organiser:

In August 2005, Mr Eriksen wrote: "I've never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime... "Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.

"To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched."

"The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors."

In November 2005, in an item entitled "Give her a slap!," Mr Eriksen approvingly quoted Noel Coward as saying: "Some women are like gongs - they need to be struck regularly." He later claimed that "the vast majority of domestic [assaults] are initiated by the woman".

It's hard to imagine how anyone could hate women so much, but there it is. And this, incidentally, without any radical religious posturing in sight.

Mr Eriksen admitted the blog postings were written by him, but said they were "deliberately provocative" in order to stimulate debate.

"I was trying to make the point that there are two kinds of rape," he said. "There is stranger rape and there is so-called rape by somebody the woman knows. I was raising an important issue in a provocative way to allow people to make up their own minds."

Yes, because declaring that rape is the equivalent of binge-eating cake, and less troublesome than losing a handbag is the true starting point of open debate. Similarly, repeating the most ludicrous delusions about a "feminazi" conspiracy to control men via that accusation of rape is the gateway to "allowing people people to make up their own minds."

Assuming any and all rape that takes place between acquaintances didn't happen? A moderate and fair stance. As for titling an entry "give her a slap"? Why, it's just the most sophisticated bit of rhetorical wordplay imaginable.

Eriksen's dishonest defence is as cowardly as it is inadequate: he doesn't even have the courage of his own bigotry, instead accusing the press of distorting "what the BNP has to say." I'd been unaware that Eriksen's personal hatred of women was in any way national policy for the party, who must be delighted to receive such press attention ahead of the London assembly elections. Perhaps now would be a good time to retire to spend more time crying while masturbatin.. uh.. to spend more time in the garden?

EDIT: Eriksen's retrospective edits to his blog entry helpfully demonstrate his ignorance:

Rape is simply sex (I am talking about 'husband-rape' here, for those who deliberately seek to misunderstand me). [...] Again, for those who are seeking to cause trouble by deliberately misunderstanding me: yes, violent rape by a stranger in the street is a terrible crime, but I am not talking about that - I am talking about 'husband-rape'.

Eriksen - back pedalling to narrow the extent of his comments but digging himself deeper - seems to think that a husband has the de facto right to sex with his wife, regardless of her wishes. Perhaps someone would let him know that we've left the c18th, and that marriage doesn't equate to ownership?