just a PR problem

Shorter Bishop Richard Williamson: the error in my anti-semetic views was talking about them in front of the press.

After a few weeks of using the country's border to indicate what we just won't stand for (torture notwithstanding), Holocaust-denier, conspiracy theorist and archaic sexist Bishop Richard Williamson lands in Heathrow, where a phalanx of police courteously escort him to his car.

Ruth Gledhill and Chris Smyth at The Times do a great job of pointing out how this trip is part of Williamson's attempt to revive his reputation - and just who he's chosen to assist him:

[Williamson] is believed to have contacted the revisionist historian David Irving, asking how to present his views on the Holocaust without arousing controversy, The Times has learnt. [...]

The bishop was believed to have been met at Heathrow by the socialite Michele Renouf with a legal team. Ms Renouf, a former beauty queen, denies that she is anti-Semitic but has described Judaism as a “repugnant and hate-filled religion”.

I believe the word to describe this kind of behaviour is "unrepentant." I'm moderately intrigued by the idea of a version of a palatable, media-friendly version of holocaust denial - presumably produced by a specialist thinktank who are also at work attempting to turn a certain stiff-armed salute into a cool new wave that all the kids will enjoy.

(Incidentally, the faint sound that you hear in the distance is the wringing of a thousand pairs of pundit hands, as they attempt to tackle the issue of double-standards at our border without inadvertently pointing out that it's okay to be an anti-semetic bigot if the Pope is your friend, which would of course be an unacceptable "attack" on Catholics.)

changing some of the words but losing none of the subtlety

Shorter Daily Mail: please ignore this anti-semetic extremist who has already arrived in the country in favour of this anti-semetic extremist who has yet to leave his house. Incidentally, it turns out the one we care about is a Muslim! A MOOOOSLLLIIIIM!

uncontaminated by fact

Via Pickled Politics, Peter Hitchens' latest contribution to the fine art of bloviation:

You’ll have noticed that openly Christian citizens are the ones who increasingly get the rough end of this society. The cultural elite jeers at them, militant atheists denounce religious education as a form of child abuse, people are threatened for doing or saying Christian things.

There is some confusion here between jeering at Christians, and jeering at total idiots who happen to be Christians (for examples, see here and here).

Hitchens' column is, as ever, refreshingly free from any worrying traces of evidence to support his claims. Given that I have minimally higher standards, I might point you towards the Equality Act of 2006 - passed into law less than 24 months ago - whose primary function is to guarantee the faithful the right to employment, housing etc. without discrimination on grounds of religion of belief.

But apart from that, we are indeed a nation driven by the need to persecute Christians and burn them as witches etc. etc. etc.

melanie phillips: any resemblance between my politics and the BNP should be ignored

Melanie Phillips' latest column (printed with the helpful sub-heading "BY MELANIE PHILLIPS, WRITING IN THE DAILY MAIL" for the hard of thought) opines that the "odious" BNP's success is due to the betrayal of the great British public by every other political party. Somewhat awkwardly, the feedback section is ripe with Phillips' own readers happily rating up comments in support of the BNP.

Phillips' attempt to drive some distance between her own politics and those of the BNP also demands close attention. As is predictable, Phillips declares that the politics of the fascist right is the politics of the centre left:

But it is a mistake to denounce fascism as the province of the 'far Right'. It is, in fact, the bastard child of Left-wing thinking. Indeed, even today some of the BNP's own rhetoric is echoed in progressive circles.

For example, in the U.S., President Obama has been flirting with protectionism; while in Britain, the BNP's denunciations of 'greedy bankers' are echoing across the political spectrum.

This is, even by Phillips' standards, a pathetic syllogism: the BNP are fascists; the BNP denounce greedy bankers; therefore anyone who denounces bankers is a closet fascist.

More importantly, it's an attempt to distract from Phillips' substantial track record of eliminationist, scaremongering rhetoric - which places her in far closer company to the far right than she would like to admit while styling herself as "authentically" liberal. Writing on the threat of Islamic extremism, Phillips opined:

But the fact is that the persistent failure to tackle such extremism is providing fertile territory for white racists to exploit.

before adding her own contribution to that fertile field by declaring:

This is not about prejudice or discrimination. It is about cultural survival.

referring, of course, not to the threat posed by white rascists but by non-white extremists.

In another such column, Phillips offered her own unique reading of an open letter (pdf) from 138 Muslim scholars to the Pope and the leaders of other Christian churches on the subject of peace between the faiths as "put[ting] a scimitar to the neck of the Christian church":

And so when it says:

So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill

it’s really a variation of the ancient adage: submit or die.

Can there be the slightest bit of surprise that Melanie Phillips' ardent readers might support the racist scaremongering of the far right? Can there be any doubt that Melanie Phillips has herself contributed to that discourse?

painfully stupid

And now The Times is at it too:

PARENTS should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise.

No, no, no. It's painful to have to struggle through this kind of reading comprehension exercise with The Times - of all newspapers - but that is not the advice. Here's the quote:

It advises: “Discussing your values with your teenagers will help them to form their own. Remember, though, that trying to convince them of what’s right and wrong may discourage them from being open.”

Instead, any discussion of values should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called “amoral”.

I presume we're all capable of understanding a conditional statement, right? One thing may lead to another? This is cautionary advice rather than a simple recommendation: tell your children about your values, but a blunt attempt to drive them away from sex may drive them away from you, instead.

As it stands, the leaflet is doing the uneviable job of reminding parents that they might have to be ever so slightly pragmatic when it comes to teenagers and sex: that actually knowing what is going on in your son or daughter's life might be more important than training an exact acceptance of your personal sexual morality.

The grand-mal stupidity of this attempt at outrage is that this is a piece of advice for parents who - as adults with free will - can entirely ignore this advice and attempt to pass on absolutely set of morals they choose.

And as for those now claiming that this advice is "amoral," note that the rest of the leaflet contains specific information about different forms of contraception. As hard as it may be for the Christian Institute to understand, giving people the information (and therefore the ability) to control their own sex lives and fertility is moral activity. It might not match the tenets of conservative Christianity, but it's not "value-free."

sins of omission

The Scottish Catholic Church's recent vision for education is a very positive, humanist statement: it affirms the need to treat individuals with dignity, respect and honesty, showing real care, compassion and concern for those in the community around us.

The context in which this publication appears, though, is a little more troublesome. While the document describes a potential curriculum which

needs to take account of a child’s individual needs, culture and background; the many social and emotional problems associated with the prevalence of prejudice and intolerance

the Church has has proven highly selective in which forms of prejudice it is actually willing to address in schools.

As you may remember, the Catholic Church has a worn record of resisting action on homophobic bullying - rejecting the idea of even having a policy stating the school's position on such behaviour. If anything, the Catholic Church's position appears to be to turn a determined blind eye despite widespread evidence of homophobic bullying in schools across the UK.

So while the statement emphasising dignity and respect is a positive step, the Church also needs to confirm that GLBT youth are included in that sentiment and entitled to an education free from abuse. While this document might not have been the right place to make that statement, it could - and should - act as the trigger for a reformed stance on this issue. Anything else would be hypocritical.

hook, line..

..and sinker:

There was no evidence that the Phelps family, who tour the US spreading their message and have expressed a wish to come to Britain to preach at Speakers' Corner in London, had made arrangements to carry out their threat of picketing the play, but the Home Office said Phelps and other members of his family would be banned from entry if they arrived.

I'm sure the Home Office feels the need to appear (and behave) in a way that's even-handed after refusing entry to Geert Wilders, but this response gives Phelps (and those like him) the two things that they crave most: media attention, and the claim to persecution. It's bad politics.

melanie phillips: the problem with islamic homophobia is that it's islamic

Via Pickled Politics, I read details of the government's plans to identify Muslim extremists - and discover Melanie Phillips' corresponding approval. Front and centre is the argument that extremists "argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah."

This would be the right moment to take a large mouthful of drink so that you can then spray it all over your keyboard in a few seconds time.

Phillips - in her infinite ignorance - declares:

All these things sound pretty extreme to me (although some traditional Christians also believe homosexuality to be a sin, the crucial difference is that unlike the Islamists they believe in the separation of religion and state, and so do not repudiate the fact that homosexuality is legal).

"Unlike the Islamists they believe in the separation of religion and state"? They don't "repudiate" - refuse to accept - that gay people are legitimate citizens?

This would be the movement of "traditional" Christians that have done the following in the past two years:

• demanded (and received) protection from discrimination on grounds of personal faith while arguing that gay people shouldn't have the exact same rights;
• produced wildly deceitful propaganda in the attempt to derail the move towards protection for gay people;
• produced "legal advice" that was little more than a string of scaremongering lies;
• protested the very concept of gay adoption by handing out cards like this:

• blocked attempts to address homophobic bullying in schools;
• demanded the continuation of special protection from the state from speech they declare to be "blasphemous," etc. etc.

Somehow, Melanie Phillips has interpreted this activity as proof that "traditional" Christians are in favour of the separation of church and state, and want to avoid imposing their personal, religious beliefs on the rest of us. In fact, you couldn't ask for a group of people more accepting of the rights and legitimacy of gay people.

For more of Phillips' past attempts to whitewash the homophobia of the religious right, go here and here.

quite contrary

Shorter Steve Doughty: it is OUTRAGEOUS that Muslims have forced libraries to show respect to the Bible.

airmiles for idiots (updated with DOOOOM)

Maria Miller, Conservative MP for Basingstoke, has apparently contacted the Home Secretary asking that a religious hate group be barred from entering the UK:

Westboro Baptist Church, a tiny sect based in Kansas, often picket funerals in the US. They claim God is punishing the world because homosexuality is tolerated. The group claimed on their website GodHatesFags.com that they would be protesting at a performance of a gay-themed play in Basingstoke on Friday.

Maria Miller, MP for Basingstoke, has contacted the Home Secretary after she received emails from concerned constituents. A spokesperson for Ms Miller told PinkNews.co.uk that she has "passed on her constituents requests" that members of the Westboro Baptist Church be denied entry into the UK.

Miller is doing the work of a constituency MP - and recognising the contents of her office mail-bag, which is perhaps fair enough. However, the request to have the group blocked at customs is an illiberal overreaction, and shows a complete lack of strategy.

I would suggest that even though the Westboro Baptists are full of shit (having threatened to protest in Canada, Australia and Sweden without ever showing up) crazy fundamentalists should be encourage to sink as much of their money as possible into expensive airfare, thus draining their bank accounts of money donated by the stupid, foolish and hate-filled.

Hell, I'm thinking about telling that I'm staging Angels in America on the moon to see if I can get them to spring for rocket fuel. Nothing would be more pleasing than to see the Westboro Baptist's desire to spread intolerance and hate leave them destitute and penniless.

But, as I say, my money's on sound and fury, signifying nothing.

EDIT: Excellent understated sarcasm from an earlier report:

"It is the first actual picket. We have been preaching by so many means to the UK for years," Ms Roper-Phelps told the Daily Telegraph.

"The arm of the Lord our God is not shortened by oceans and things, all of which he created, and all of which he knew about when he considered these last hours of the very last days of all."

It is unclear if this means they will or will not be physically present.

Ha.

EDIT: The Telegraph publishes its frankly batshit crazy correspondence with the Westboro Baptists. My favourite moment:

But your goofy queen and her adulterous whore of a son - YIKES put their hand and you all put your hands to mischief at every turn.

The antichrist is sitting now, in the Whitehouse, the time is SO SHORT - the Lord is coming and this generation is DOOMED

DOOOOOOMED!

open daily mail, find lie, type blog entry

More grotesquely obvious lies about sex education from the Daily Mail:

Teachers have been instructed to tell teenage boys about the pleasures of early fatherhood. Government advice tells them to discuss 'parenting aims and aspirations' with the youngsters.

Teenagers should be equipped with the necessary 'skills, knowledge and attitudes' to prepare them to bring up babies, said the Department of Health.

Would anyone like to spot the obvious lie? Teachers have not been instructed to preach the pleasure of early fatherhood - as something to be desired and pursued. Instead, a document (which is now six years old) offers images that could be included in the discussion of fatherhood to recognise that even young men can be proud and successful parents. To claim otherwise - that this is part of a deliberate strategy to encourage teen pregnancy - involves taking one piece of information out of context, twisting it and ignoring everything else (also known as the Melanie Phillips Method).

As ever, the Mail voices the belief that it's impossible to do more than one thing at a time - namely, advise young people that they should wait before having sex (as many, if not most, coherent sex education programmes do) while simultaneously accepting that young parents are not instantly doomed to failure.

And in any case, discussing fatherhood with teenagers is not the same thing as encouraging teenagers to become fathers there and then. If anything, discussing fatherhood with teenagers is far more likely to produce adult men who see that role in a positive light later in life - and that's something we'd probably want.

Today's pyramid of lies seems to balance on this precarious point:

The publication in question includes pictures of boys with babies and was described by Cathy Hamlyn, then head of the pregnancy unit, as a 'timely resource'.

It is, then, rather regrettable for the Mail's shit-storm that the publication "was designed for teachers and health professionals" and not intended to be shown to teenage boys at all. As such, the dangerously provocative photographs (which would encourage teenagers into acts of procreative sex with girlfriends who presumably have no will of their own) have been seen by almost no-one.

For for your daily dose hypocrisy, note the Mail's frequent decision to print articles proclaiming that fatherhood and the role of men in general is under attack by a conspiracy of lefty liberal, gay feminist BBC journalists. Wouldn't any attempt to boost the self-esteem of men be welcome? Doesn't the Mail - often bemoaning absentee fathers from broken homes - want young men to aspire to be dedicated and proud parents?

Or is this one of those occasions where the desire to cause a shit-storm trumps every other value?

Also see: Oh that's textbook Mail.

one-stop hysteria-shop

The Daily Mail is crammed with hysterical lies about sex and contraception today, so let's work quickly.

First, let's marvel at the gross dishonesty of this headline and lede:

GPs to get bonuses for giving teenagers contraceptive implants and jabs without informing parents

GPs will be paid bonuses for persuading teenagers to have long-lasting contraceptive implants and jabs without their parents' knowledge, it has emerged.

GPs will not be paid bonuses for deceiving parents: this is a lie. GPs will be minimally rewarded for encouraging young women to use long-acting methods of contraception, rather than depending on the pill, or the morning-after pill. The measure is intended to address low-levels of knowledge about contraception amongst many young people, and will hopefully reduce the demand for abortion. The question of doctor-patient confidentiality is entirely unrelated to the issue of pay.

Please also note the everlasting hypocrisy of people who object to educating young people about condom use, and then protest that informing young people about long-term methods of contraception will expose them to STIs. Oh, if only there was some condom-related way to protect their health.

Next, let's take a quick stop with the patron saint of unreliability, Melanie Phillips, commenting on the UK's high teen pregnancy rate:

This is exacerbated by an approach to sex education and contraception which, based on the belief that under-age sex is impossible to stop - and Heaven forbid schools from being ‘judgmental’ or ‘moralistic’ towards their pupils - teaches children to regard sex as on a par with ski-ing or bungee-jumping, with the implicit message: ‘have fun but take the following precautions to avoid getting hurt’.

There's no other solution but to assume that Phillips is entirely ignorant of any detail of any contemporary sex education programme - which both inform about the illegality of underage sex and encourage young people to wait before having sex for the first time. The fact that such progammes do not privilege Christian (or Phillips' own) morality is not proof that they are value-free or without morals.

There's also space for Phillips to piggy-back on the lie repeated above:

As campaigners have warned, such payments will act as bribes to doctors to give thousands of under-age girls contraception without the knowledge of their parents.

No. Wrong. See above, go to back of class.

Finally, back to the first story for some standardised scaremongering:

There are also concerns about side-effects of long-term contraception. Possible side-effects of the implant include irregular periods, acne, weight gain, headaches and abdominal pain. Some have excessive bleeding.

Some coils can make periods very heavy and carry a risk of infection. Concerns have been raised that the contraceptive injection can lead to brittle bones.

But are these side-effects common? And is there any research to support the validity of those concerns? It's delightful that the Mail cares enough to scare women.. but not enough to actually inform them how to live healthily.

time, once more, to treat women like morons

Simply beyond parody:

Liz Jones: Forget what the length of hemlines and the width of shoulder pads tell us about a woman's state of mind and her place in society, the real barometer is to be found in the thickness of our brows.

FAIL.

a second "family" salary?

My favourite detail from the story of Jacqui Smith's "second" family home is supplied by the Daily Express:

Ms Smith earns £142,000 as Home Secretary and claimed £152,000 in Commons expenses for 2006-07.

Puts the defence of "value for money for the taxpayer" into rather exciting context, no?

it's appalling (part 1003)

Schoolgirl reduced to tears after teacher.. uh.. impersonates Daily Mail? (C.f.)

word appears on internet

If an unsupervised child is searching for the word "fuck" on the internet, I suspect a few book titles is the least worrying thing they'll find. Still, time for a story of unimpeachable pearl-clutching from the Mail on Sunday:

Tesco and Asda were condemned last night for selling a string of books and CDs with the F-word in their titles.

The items were available on their websites, where they were easily accessible to children.

They appeared even if inoffensive words from their titles were entered into the sites' search engines, with the potential to shock and offend shoppers.

But no-one was. This is a story based on a bored and/or desperate hack entering rude words into the internet in the feeble attempt to generate another decency scandal. And we're not talking about pornography - just the use of the word "fuck" in a work's title.

This, however, is enough to entice a torrent of grand-mal stupidity from MPs who want to get their names in the papers:

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, criticised falling standards of decency among retailers. He said: ‘In terms of magazines, CDs and DVDs, standards seem to be slipping. If the industry can’t collectively sort itself out then we must seriously look into external regulation. If they can’t regulate themselves, we may have to introduce a statutory code.’

Given that no customer has actually complained - no "concerned parent" could be found to say a single word - this would be a wildly posturing over-reaction.

But wait - there's even more blistering idiocy:

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, questioned how selling ‘adult’ material fitted in with Tesco’s image as a ‘family supermarket’.

She said: ‘Is this the beginning of Tesco’s drive to dominate the entire retail industry by abandoning all moral boundaries? Is this Tesco’s first step into the adult retail market?

Yes, Nadine. Sales of the environmentalist work "Fuck the Planet" is the first step towards selling "Backdoor Adventurers 4: The Milkman is Back." Incidentally, welcome back.

‘What kind of supermarket with a shred of moral responsibility allows such products to be sold openly on the internet, available to children, possibly without a parent’s knowledge?’

If only there was some way to stop children having unfiltered access to the internet, and the use of their own credit cards to buy books with naughty titles.. if only there were some kind of "parental" supervisory powers that could be used. Maybe Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, could introduce a statutory code.

There's the small chance that Foster and Dorries have been lured into giving quotes without knowing the full nature of the feeble evidence that the Mail has "uncovered" - in which case, their unthinking knee-jerkery is even more idiotic. The Mail might like to pose as moral guardian for the nation (while simultaneously complaining that the forces of "political correctness" are intruding into your life) but there's no excuse for MPs who add credence to such transparent hackery.

too thin, too fat (part 1004)

Liz Jones' "defence" of the "fuller figured" size-12 Jessica Simpson would sound a little more convincingly righteous if it didn't appear in the Daily Mail which regularly prints stories like this:

A role model for ordinary women? No, Miss England finalist is fat, lazy and a poster girl for ill health [...]

Who on earth does she think she's kidding? What she's demonstrating isn't bravery but a shocking lack of self-control. Instead of flaunting her figure, Chloe ought to own up to the truth. She is fat and she got that way by over-eating.

And like this:

Young starlet Mischa Barton stepped out in a sporty combination of shorts and sweatshirt. But unfortunately it revealed the actress' rather dimpled thighs as she arrived for brunch at a Hollywood restaurant.

And like this, from yesterday:

The 30-year-old opted for a vintage Christian Lacroix pearling and vermilion tunic dress and Rene Caovilla strappy sandals as she tried to score fashion points with her 1920s look.

But the dress was poorly chosen for her rapidly thinning frame - and its low cut exposed her bony breastplate and almost non-existent cleavage.

Or like this from this morning:

Months after she pitched up at an awards ceremony looking like the doppelganger of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Radio 1 presenter has graced another event wearing an ill-fitting dress which left her with a severe case of 'boob overhang'.

Policing women's bodies isn't a common feature of the Mail's output - it's the primary theme of the femail section.

queer panic

Hmm. I'll cut past the "outrage" caused by a temporary flag to the following comment to the story which (at time of posting) has 294 votes:

".....I can understand the need to show acceptance to people of all sexualities....."

All sexualities? I thought there were only two and why are the police interested in people's sexuality anyway? It will soon be against the law to be heterosexual.

Mr. J. Smith, Birmingham, England.

So.

One police station hangs a gay rights rainbow flag outside of the building, in contradiction of police force regulations. The flag is speedily replaced. No member of the public has received any special or detrimental treatment; the police have not been prevented from carrying out their duties and have not changed their day-to-day duties in any way. The story demonstrates that the police force's own rules are applied without favour or preference for any minority group.

Therefore:

1. Any support for gay people as legitimate citizens by the police is ridiculous and outrageous;

And logically:

2. "It will be soon be against the law to be heterosexual."

Now, what worries you more? That someone can get from the temporary display of a flag to the criminalisation of the sexuality of 95% of the population in one easy step, or that 294 people will sagely nod their head in agreement with that analysis?