La Femme Contraire

2009-12-30T21:03:00.002Z

Last Post....

Oh God....cannot believe I have not posted on here for months....but then I should all things considering, not reading a daily paper and all! I have upset some members of a forum (mostly men - what a surprise!) for writing how I talk and ranting. One of them suggested a start a blog cos he did not want to read my 'essays'. I told him I have two, but there were issues that there forum was for that this blog is not, and is not the place I wish to write about them.

I don't know what to say here, because the truth is I have seen little of the news lately, and this was supposed to be a news/journalism blog whereas music and lyrics are more what I do now. I wanted to post my lyrics on the fish out of water blog but I want to sort out copyright issues first, so meanwhile I have been posting videos by artists that have inspired me and the occasional rant about jerks who anger the hell out of me.

People have a reaction to me in that they either hate me or love me - that is my nature. I was bullied at school for being different, and I have made two friends on the mentioned forum, kindred spirits who are good to find because there are not many people like me! Most of those dudes hated me......but thats another story, morning glory hey there!

I have come to accept my madness - the struggle I find now is dealing with it rather than letting madness deal with me, so to speak.

Friends of mine - thank you for your love and support for me through hard times, I am a survivor and I will 'Live Through This' (to quote Courtney Love) as I have lived through the other madness in my crazy life. I lived through a mad childhood, and I had a go at being a politico - I guess I didn't do a bad job but it aint for me. I care about what goes on in the world still, believe in anarchy etc, but I have my reasons for dropping out of left politics and that form of journalism, the reasons for which I shall soon write of in 'Fish out of Water'. I intend to continue with writing as well as music but a different kind of lit, underground semi fiction. Wish me luck that the coming year will be better than the last. Not everyone may agree with all my choices but they are mine.

I've gotten too close to the sun and been burnt, got too far and frozen. I am still here, alive and kicking!

This is the last post I am making on this blog, but fish out of water will stay alive and well like many and any future posts will be on there. Thx for those who have read this so far, and a happy new year to all of you!

See me on FOOW,

Liz xxxxxxx

2009-09-20T21:18:00.004+01:00

Sex Workers Rights Under Attack - Sign Petition Today!

Once again the paternal New Labour government (with, of course, it's supporters among do gooder middle class Guardian journos and the rad fems) are proposing a bill to criminalise the purchase of sexual services, putting not only the livelihood but also the safety of sex workers at risk. This lovely idea originates from Sweden - where such a law is in practice and has been for the past few years. It has made the lives of sex workers in that country intolerable. Women have been finding it harder to work indoors due to the 'anti procurement laws' which make it impossible to advertise, and often have no option but to work from the streets. They have to be less choosy about clients, as naturally men with jobs, families etc do not wish to be labelled as sex offenders. Men who are criminally inclined towards sex workers, however, have no such fear. Street prostitution in Sweden has not decreased since the law was introduced, and neither has violence against sex workers. Neither has trafficking or 'white slavery' - a practice that the law was ostensibly designed to help reduce.

Sex workers in Sweden will tell you that the government propaganda (swallowed by the establishment feminists in this country) is based on distortions and outright lies. A far better idea would be to work on the New Zealand model, which totally decriminalises both the selling and purchasing of sexual services.

To voice your opposition to this bill, please sign a petition here.

Here is an article I wrote for the Morning Star paper a few years ago on the New Zealand law, and here is another I wrote back in 2006 opposing the proposed law when it was being pontificated about even then.

Here can be found a useful site with some good articles criticising the law in Sweden and it's awful consequences for the lives of vulnerable women.

From a libertarian standpoint any consensual sexual acts are a private matter and the government should keep the hell out. Whether money is involved or not is irrelevant. Any patronising talk of sex workers being too vulnerable to be able to consent to sex, be it due to substance abuse, financial exploitation or whatever other problems they may face is an insult to the intelligence of women. While it is true that financial pressure applies to women in the sex industry, it is true for any job. I once had a low paid, boring job in an office and I hated it. My boss was financially exploiting me, but I saw no sign of police raiding his office door to put him away. Neither was I told by do gooders that I was 'unable to consent' to typing his letters or answering the phone for him because I was vulnerable. And substances? Hell, £5.50 an hour is barely enough for recreational use of anything, let alone to support an addiction. But being off my face would have made that job a bit more bearable, it just didn't pay enough. But I made sure at least I got drunk over weekends to relieve the boredom of the week.

Rad fems cry crocodile tears over the view of the sex worker as being the epitomy of the suffering of all women at the hands of the brutal male, and they objectify her as much as do the men they claim to despise. Ok, so there may be some rad fems who have been sex workers and have not had a good time. Their voices and views are valid, and I take them more seriously than I do those middle class women who are in no position to speak as they have never worked in that profession. However, the fact that these women have had bad experiences in that profession does not mean they have the right to speak on behalf of all sex workers and universalise their own experiences - or, even worse, try to make their own subjective feelings into law. They don't seem to mind the fact that they are held up as trophies and used by middle class women for political ends. They do not represent all sex workers (or former sex workers) any more than I can say that I have the right to speak on behalf of all low paid office workers, or former ones. Some women may just love working in offices - if so good luck to them, it just aint for me. Not all sex workers see themselves as victims, and to insist that they are unconscious of the fact they are being abused is a patronising and offensive attitude. It sure as hell offends me.

Radical feminists, the Swedish and British establishments, don't really give a damn about the safety or suffering of sex workers. What really outrages them is the offending of their middle class sensibilities. And hell, I love to offend middle class sensibilities and stupid prejudices. And I also despise the pinning of labels onto people - I've had people try to do so with me and have given them a surprise when they find I do not fit into the boxes they assign. Sex workers, of course, are more than just sex workers, they are individuals like anyone and you'll find that their attitudes and feelings about their work vary, as with any profession. Some may dislike what they do, others may enjoy it, and some are in the middle - they may not love what they do but find it preferable to working long and fixed hours for low pay in some factory, shop, or office - due to the fact that the hours are more flexible and the money is better.

Another important thing is not to confuse sexual slavery (forced prostitution) with sex work that is consensual, even if practiced under financial pressure. 'Trafficking' is not about sex work - it is about sexual abuse, rape, and slavery - a different thing. And even that is on shaky ground as the lines can be blurred. The numbers and extent of it are hard to estimate, but it seems to be rarer than the media promotes that women are literally taken off the street and bundled into vans and literally forced at gunpoint in that sense - although I don't deny it does occur, tragically. Or, for that matter, it is unlikely that so many women are so naive as to be blatantly deceived into thinking they will be working as nannies etc. What seems more likely is that they know what kind of work they will be doing but are lied to about pay and conditions, being financially exploited in a severe way. Their bosses do not allow them the liberty of leaving their job, so it does result in what is essentially slavery. But, the establishment would have little sympathy for the women involved if they admitted that they were aware of the nature of the work, so to say one has been forced is an easier way of gaining sympathy and avoiding deportation. And I don't blame them, hell, I'd do the same thing if needed be. Migrant workers of all description are harshly exploited, and the Chinese cockle pickers found dead on Morecambe Bay were working for a gang under bonded labour.

But the main issue is this - wage slavery (A Marxian term used for any kind of work in exchange for money, where a person is free to leave one's job and find another 'free' labour in other words) and slavery or bonded labour (where one is not free to leave and is literally the property of one's master or boss). This applies to the sex industry as much as any other, but the fact that it is underground and semi criminal makes it more liable to financial exploitation and abuse. The unionisation of sex workers is of course a step in the right direction, but adding repressive laws will make things like this harder to do, and leave women more open to the abuse that the government and the rad fems claim to oppose.

2009-08-25T22:02:00.004+01:00

Sex Workers and Domestic Violence........

Interestingly anonymous posted a comment on the financial issues regarding men and women and possible power imbalances while I was drafting this post.

I have a few words about the financial exploitation of women who sell sex - and it is often the men they live with who take this role.

Not all women who sell sex hook up with violent and abusive men who are financially exploitative. However, some do, it is not uncommon. Perhaps one issue is that not many men would feel comfortable with a partner who has such a job, and women in that profession attract men who are predatory and out for what they can get for that reason. But like any kind of domestic abuse, the tendency of women to put up with such treatment lies partly in a lack of self esteem or self doubt.

But what I don't believe is this - that men who are the partners of sex workers who are abusive (financially, physically, emotionally or otherwise - they can be all of those things) should be jailed for living off 'immoral' earnings. What their partners do for a living is really not the issue - the issue is that they are abusive, end of. They should be treated as any other abusers - if they are to be arrested for anything it should be for assault or extortion - not outdated and vague terms of immorality. Would it be any less 'immoral' if, say, a woman worked in a bank, had an unemployed husband at home who not only hit her but demanded control over their joint account? I think not. He would be arrested for assault - not for being the partner of a bank employee!

Also, there are labels given to male partners of sex workers which are innappropriate and unhelpful. In the old days a 'ponce' was a homosexual male. Now the term is taken to mean a man who is on the take - and is most commonly referred to men on the take from women who sell sex. What link is there here with homosexuality? There is none - unless it is taken for given that a 'real man' is a breadwinner and provider - while a man who stays at home is taking on a feminine role. This is a sexist and outdated term that is used by police as well as being street slang.

Truly if a woman wishes to stay in a relationship where the man does not contribute financially (even exploits her in that way) it is down to her. If she wishes to get out of an abusive relationship she should be given the support to do so - but what is the point in arresting her partner due to what she does for a living? Even if she is being taken for a ride, it is up to her to learn. Demonising her male partner due to her profession is unfair on her as it only ensures she will remain socially stigmatised. He is stigmatised not due to what he is (an abuser) but due to what she does and therefore is perceived as being.

The issue is therefore diverted from the main one (that of domestic abuse) and channelled into the futile debate over the rights and perceived wrongs of her profession.

What women do for a living is irrelevant to whether or not their partners abuse them physically, emotionally, or financially.

Those are my thoughts for the day. Don't know why I got onto that one but financial exploitation of any kind is always an issue, I guess.

About Emotional Abuse

2009-08-24T05:11:00.001+01:00

My ex down to a tee - sadly I once believed that the man loved me intensely and believed his lies that the abuse was a sign of his love - that if he didn't love me I would not have 'made him mad'. I know now it was all lies. That is not love.

Signs of Emotional Abuse

2009-08-24T04:59:00.001+01:00

Too familiar....

Abusive Boyfriend

2009-08-23T15:57:00.001+01:00

Domestic Violence/Relationship Abuse

2009-08-23T15:49:00.001+01:00

Pretty spot on - upsetting to watch though, especially if you have been there. My aim in posting these videos has been to raise awareness.

Sharlene talks about domestic abuse in her relationship.

2009-08-23T15:44:00.001+01:00

Daisy's experience of domestic abuse at home

2009-08-23T15:43:00.001+01:00

CutMovie.co.uk - Brought to you by Women's Aid HD version

2009-08-23T03:28:00.001+01:00

2009-08-20T18:35:00.004+01:00

More on Domestic Abuse....

Please don't believe the myth that abusive men 'cannot control their anger'. They can and they do. If they truly could not control it they would lose it with men as well as women. In fact, it is not all women they 'lose it' with - only their partners. They may indeed be angry men, but they are selective and controlled as to who they lose with.

They do not need anger management classes because they can already 'manage' their anger. They are manipulative men, and they express anger in order to control, because they are control freaks. Charm and seduction is another method of control. Abusers are the most romantic men in the beginning, it is only after a time into the relationship that they show their dark side. They only do this when they have already hooked their women. The first explosion can start over something seemingly trivial like a pan of burnt rice, but there is no going back after that point. You will find yourself living with a man who switches from charm to rage in a matter of seconds. You will live in fear of him, he will be your personal jailer. He will be jealous and possessive, persistently calling or texting to ask where you are and who you are with. You will no longer be allowed any opinions of your own, and he will belittle any tastes or opinions you have independent from him. You will be expected to read his mind and he will believe he can read yours. You will only be allowed to think in one way - his. Any shortcomings of his own he will project onto you, rarely himself. 'I'll be Your Mirror' is an apt phrase.

Many women fall into the trap of making excuses for their partners or hoping against all odds that he will change. I know because I have done both. When I was in an abusive relationship and my friends told me how shitty they thought his behaviour was, I would make excuses such as 'he's not well at the moment' or 'he's been stressed' etc. Like all abusive men, he would apologise after a flare up and promise to change his behaviour. He would turn the tears on, a tactic that is not uncommon. I would hope that that time he meant it. He never did. It did not last and he did not change, and his promises to make amends came to nothing. They never do. The next flare up could occur after a matter of hours, even minutes.

Men like this do not change unless they themselves are willing to admit that they have a problem, and they very rarely do.

It came to a point when I realised I could no longer justify his behaviour to myself or anyone else. I realised he was not going to change, and I realised I had to walk away.

The trouble is that many women have low self esteem and are too willing to play the victim. Predatory men pick up on these signals and move accordingly. It is time to realise that nobody deserves to be treated like a piece of dirt. Self esteem is a valuable resource - and, sisters, it may just save your life one day, or at least your sanity.

2009-08-18T17:10:00.002+01:00

More deadly than cancer.......http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Crackdown-on-domestic-violence.5557595.jp

Just upsets me that this state of affairs continues and that there are so many jerks out there who seem to think wife beating is ok.

I used to wonder why people stayed in situations that are abusive, even though I had some idea. Now I know. An unhealthy emotional attachment is a part of it, but it isn't all there is. And it is not masochism, women generally do not enjoy abuse (I wish to knock that myth right on the head!!).

Part of it is fear, it is fear of what the other person may do if you leave. Depends how much of a psycho he is, and a lot of the time you don't want to put it to the test. Fear makes you apologise for things you know not to be your fault, it makes you consent to sex you don't want, it makes you stay in a relationship you are past wanting.

I say this because I've been there, sadly. Thank God I am out, now. But the emotional scars are still there.

Another thing to bear in mind is that physical abuse, while it may create more visable injuries, is not the only kind of violence. There is mental, verbal, mental violence, which is often even harder to cope with - being told everyday that you are stupid, ugly, nothing. The intention of the abuser is to make you feel like a piece of dirt - and eventually you do. It is mind control - repeat something to a person often enough and they will believe that. The aim of these sad man is to put their partners down to bring themselves up, they are deep down sad and sick men.

Now, I realise female on male DV is not unheard of these days, in fact I've written on here about it in the past. But it is a lot rarer. The number of men murdered by their female partners is miniscule compared with the number of women killed by men.

Of course, not all men are abusers. But sadly some still are, and these are the men I am talking about here. These sick men are like miniature dictators - with the large, inflatable egos of any tyrant. Yet however big their egos are, they are fragile. One prick with a pin and they burst, covering who is nearest to them with all the dirty water that lies in the dark recesses of their souls. Hence the blowing into rages over trivial things and their lack of tolerance of any criticism of their behaviour, however mild. Yet they are selective, it is fine for them to batter at their partner's ego because they feel they are entitled to. Because they are men.

Zero tolerance for this kind of sexual facism as I am concerned. Wife beaters are cowards at heart - nine times out of ten they are charming in public and everyone down the local pub says what wonderful guys they are. All the hatred and venom is reserved for their partners. Usually they will back away from a confrontation with a man, because bullies cannot pick on those their own size.

Like any bullies they are sad and small inside, psychologically they feel like dirt so they feel the need to bring someone else down to their level and make them feel like dirt as well. It is time to say no more. Learning to understand it will help stop this problem. This series will be updated.

2009-08-18T03:27:00.001+01:00

A good article here: http://www.iusw.org/node/69

2009-06-21T19:28:00.002+01:00

Hello all,

Just to let all my readers know I am alive and well after not writing for a good while due to a few problems, partly concerned with recovering from a turbulent time and finding myself again.

I have to say that while my views are largely the same, a few have been modified due to experience. I am still in favour of the legalisation/decriminalisation of narcotics, left leaning libertarian and all. This site from now on is going to focus on current affairs (when I feel the inclination to comment on them) but there is also a new blog of mine I am starting which is stated on my profile - Fish out of Water. That site will be concerned with my personal musings, along with my music and lyrics. Nothing has been written on there so far but it will be up and running soon. I'll upload a couple of pictures soon too.

All the Best and thanks to my readers from the past, sorry for not having written so long,

Liz xxx

2007-05-05T16:26:00.000+01:00

There is a thing I feel the need to share for the benefit of one of my readers (he'll know who he is). I can now look back at the behaviour of my hosts on that awful trip I had to New Zealand, and, well, just laugh at it. I drew the conclusion a little while ago that the attitudes and behaviour of some people just is not worth getting angry or upset about. All it does is empower them anyway. If people's behaviour is either very strange or very unpleasant in your view the best remedy can be to make light of it. Political Umpire told me that such a day would come and I did not believe it at the time. I do now, even if it is impossible to recall the trip with any fondness due to my personal experiences. I won't say any more about my hosts as they don't know I'm writing this, as far as I know don't care to read this blog so it's not really fair bitching about people online who aren't in a position where they can defend themselves.

What the trip did do was tell me that I could not live in New Zealand for any extended period. It is just way too remote and small population wise for my liking. Christchurch and possibly Auckland I could handle temporarily. But Wellies, or God forbid New Edinburgh? I think I'd rather curl up and, you know the rest. I cannot articulate for why I feel this way exactly. I don't believe that it was just my personal experiences on the trip, I believe there was something which I picked up about the actual places. Wellington with it's green belt of hills felt claustrophobic to me, although the locals felt that was part of the towns beauty. But I don't think it was just that really.

As for Dunedin I recall wondering where the Maori were, and I then heard most had been slaughtered there by the British settlers. I noticed it was a very white town. Who knows, perhaps the place had bad karma? The noticable protestantism and the prominent Queen Victoria statue was also telling. I also dislike the fact that it has been and still is an ongoing tradition in that country of pretending that it does not have a problem with racism.

New Zealanders tend to see themselves as South Pacific Canadian (being to Australia what Canada is to the United States. But I think they are still more English than they care to admit, as one very honest man on the West Coast of the South Island admitted to me. Funnily Dunedin seemed proud of it's Scottish background while the English settlements seemed to wish to shun theirs. It aint cool to be English these days, even in England itself one appears more attractive and exotic if they can claim foreign ancestry. I get told quite often that I appear Eastern European. I believe my grandmother had some Roma in her background so that may have something to do with it. At least I get looked at more often! It seems that the English have a bad reputation and a sense of guilt due to having been blood soaked imperialists.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be unfair on New Zealand. It is a lovely place for scenery, the pace of life is a lot slower and the people are for the most friendly. But I found the national insecurity that often expressed itself in an immature patriotism very grating (don't worry, I find Brit patriotism just as irritating, if not more so). I received a particularly nasty dose of it (combined with an anti English feel) from a girl who had two English parents. New Zealand as a country appeared to believe it had something to prove, probably because it is a young country which has not yet fully developed a full sense of it's own identity, like for instance Canada has, and Australia. This would account for a lot of the anti English sentiment there. There is also some anti American and anti Australian sentiment, but the anti English thing stands out more because it seems a little closer to self hatred. A prejudice seems to exist in that country that the English are lax in matters of personal hygiene. I think this might be due to the tradition of baths in England as opposed to the shower. However, I disliked being at a party when the person right next to me stated that 'English people don't wash' not knowing that I was British until I opened my mouth and said 'Don't they?' in the poshest voice I could speak in. I should have sniffed under my armpits. It also turned out that the person in question was a meat lover and seemed to have a slight distaste for vegetarians (I notice that this attitude is not uncommon among meat eaters of a certain class, i.e those who enjoy their fancy cuisine, I really haven't encountered much of that attitude among the proles, who seem pretty indifferent to the eating habits of others, whether or not they deem dietary preferences strange or not). That is a thing that probably does not matter wherever you go. However, when I left that night one of the guests nearby said it had been nice meeting me. I repeated the courtesy to my bette noir as well as to the person who gave the initial farewell. The result? I was not only ignored but given a dirty look. Perhaps being not only English but a vegetarian too was too much for that individual, who had should I say very Anglo features and if average demographics are anything to go by most likely had grandparents or great grandparents, if not an actual parent, who had grown up in England.

It is small things like that which made much of it seem incongruious, although on an intellectual level I can see the reasons. The country strikes me as being slightly akin to a surly adolescent child of what was the British Empire.

2007-05-05T15:48:00.000+01:00

Here is a column from the death row prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal:

IMUS AMONGST US

(Column written 4/14/07 by Mumia Abu–Jamal)

( With the ending of Don Imus’s radio and TV career has arisen a perverse (if utterly stupid) caterwaul from conservatives, who are (to hear them tell it) newly–born converts of free speech, and equally frenzied adherents of attacks on the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as if, but for their activism, their pal Imus would still be on the airwaves.

Some have added the oral antics of various rap artists, to somehow prove that Imus was treated unfairly for using equally ugly terms to refer to Black women.

This noise from the fascistic rightwing of American political life is a vital clue into how they see the world, and thus a reflection of how they sell this view to others.

It shows how deeply race dwells in white consciousness, and how it is like an inner searchlight that blinds as much as it illuminates.

These so–called conservatives see Imus as ‘one of us’, and as such they shared his pompous, good ole’ boy, spit–on–the–rabble racism that passes for the norm in the nation: it just so happens that he spat on the wrong group of girls this time.

And neither the Revs. Al nor Jesse starting the ball rolling against Imus, although it may’ve seemed so from TV.

The videotape of Imus went from an almost unseen perch on MSNBC to the net, where it spread like a virus. Nonetheless, bloggers picked it up and passed it on, and the more folks saw it, the more it spread. It became a living thing, nastier and nastier each time it was replayed.

The almost juvenile rant against rappers also fades upon a moment’s reflection; for, while it is undeniable that some of what is said is naked misogyny–a profound hatred of women–it’s obvious that rappers have no where near the social or political clout of Imus.

When’s the last time you’ve seen a rapper kick it with a candidate for U.S. Senator? When’s the last time you’ve heard of a rapper poppin’ some questions to a Mayor–or a Governor?

People who wanted to be president flocked to Imus, like supplicants kissing the ring of a bishop, because he had the daily ear of millions, and his blessings meant votes.

No rapper in America can say the same.

Ultimately, it’s not about power, and precious few rappers have any power. In fact, their ‘bling’ is an attempt to project a power (or wealth) that most of them do not possess.

Sociologist Zine Magubane, of Boston College, made that point in dramatic terms in his article, “Globalization and Gangster Rap: Hip Hop in the Post–Apartheid City” (citing the work of journalist Norman Kelley):

In an insightful article on the political economy of Black music, Norman Kelley describes how the relationship between the six major record firms (Warner, Polygram, MCA, BMG, Sony, and CEMA/UNI) and African–American artists as a ‘postmodern form of colonialism.’ He notes that rap music, although it ‘forms the very foundation of the $12 billion dollar music industry in the United States’, exhibits an history pattern typical of African–American aesthetic products like jazz and blues which, although created largely by Blacks, were under the corporate control of Whites. Black–owned production companies like Uptown Records, Def Jam, and Bad Boy, Kelley explains, ‘do not control a key component of the music–making nexus, namely, distribution.’ For example, the albums produced by Master P’s No Limit Records as well as those by Roc–A–Fella Records (owned by Damon Dash) are distributed by Priority Records. Those produced by Cash Money Records are distributed by Universal, while Sean Combs’ Bad Boy label is distributed by Arista. Thus, although young Black entrepreneurs have ‘been able to swing the balance of power somewhat in their direction, they are still far from having complete dominion (because) in the music business distribution is the final battle ground. Because African–American artists have virtually no control over the domestic distribution of their music, they likewise have no control over international distribution. Thus, white owned and controlled media conglomerates determine which African–American cultural products enter the global arena. (Fr.: Magubane, Z., in: Basu, Dipannita and Sydney J. Lemelle, eds., The Vinyl Ain’t Final: Hip Hop and the Globalization of Black Popular Culture. (London/Ann Arbor, MI.: Pluto Press, 2006), p. 211.)

Imus was a creature of white corporate and political power, who made millions playing to the smallmindedness of millions, who wanted to snicker at the lot of those worse off than them.

Unless I miss my guess, someone will hire him to do it again.

There’s always a market for that.

–MAJ

I to believe that while the cretin he writes of can say what he likes no radio station is obliged to have him on their airwaves.

A few words about music, though. I must confess that I quite like rap, in spite of (or maybe even partly because of) the violence in some of it's lyrics. Whether it's intention is satire is to me not the point - the point is that it reads as a satire of the excesses of American capitalism. So does the whole 'bling' or 'ghetto' culture, large cars, big gold chains etc. It hence works as an exposure of capitalism by taking it's excesses to the most extreme, with no subtlety whatsoever, and showing us that it is all ultimately fake. The fact that it is an act resulting from a lack of power rather than power gives it a subversive edge.

Now - I do not wish to be accused of being pro guns, violence, sexism and all the rest. I am not. But those who sing about such subjects seem to me to be simply tallking about what they have seen and the conditions they have grown up in, whether they do so critically or not isn't the point. Realism is not obliged to be critical. If people complain about the lyrics in such music I would tend to suggest that they take measures to allieviate poverty and crime. If they did so people would feel less of a need to sing about them and issues related to them. If the music sometimes seems to glorify crime it is only because people have ways of coping with their lives. One way of tolerating conditions that are, on the whole, negative, is learning to put a positive spin on them if not exactly enjoying them.

As for the misogyny of the lyrics - All those unsubtle men are doing is making explicit in a not very subtle way the way that most men, with their distrust of women, feel from time to time. It is no crime to expose what is already implicit in society. I'm not saying that distrust of the opposite sex is unique to men - women no doubt often distrust men as much as the other way round. However, although this is changing men have traditionally held more power in society. Black men who produce rap music perhaps feel this power (i.e over women) is the only power they have, although it is an illusory power. Black women, I have often noticed, can be extremely strong, not exactly downtrodden or oppressed. The women who tend to revel in victim status are those who are white, middle class, and very privileged in comparsion with many of their Black sisters.

As far as rap goes, though, sisters are quite capable of fighting back. Anyone heard Lil Kim, Missy Elliot? I'll end with a pic.....

2007-04-30T19:01:00.000+01:00

This explains why the proposed restrictions on underage drinking are purely absurd. The logical conclusion of it would be to employ State inspectors to attend people's houses and have people prosecuted for, umm, putting too much sugar in their cake?

Again the puritans show their nasty police State mentality, calling for State intervention into every aspect of people's lives. It is the same type of logic displayed by do gooders both of the right and the left who support the drug laws and any other piece of legislation which determines what people can and cannot do with their personal time.

2007-04-27T14:08:00.000+01:00

While browsing I came across this. Now I have not yet mentioned that I now live in Bournemouth. The reasons for it are a bit drawn out. But it does seem necessary to mention it now it appears relevant politically.

I have noticed, having known the town quite well for a while, that it does appear to have a climate where racists feel relatively welcome. The hostile (and sometimes racist) remarks the journalist received say quite a lot. Bear in mind that the Echo is owned by News West (who also own the Mail, not exactly a bastion of liberalism). She seems to get accused of being a 'wet liberal' simply for writing a straightforward report on the issue. It also appears that she has a point - I can imagine the council would hesitate to allow them there due to fear over the activities of anti fascists, a large proportion of them being communists of some stripe.

I am a believer in freedom of speech and believe the BNP should be entitled to air their views, no matter how obnoxious they may be. I have come to realise that such is the price you pay in a democracy. If you silence one group - the question remains of who will be next. It would not be logical to suppose that those who wish to silence the far right would stop there. There are no doubt some among them who would ideally like the 'no platform' principle applied to anybody who questioned their views, even those from the left as well as from the right.

I was for a time an activist on the far left and did have my reservations about the tactics of 'anti fascism'. I always suspected that it may have had the potential of being the mirror image of what it claimed to oppose. Fascists support the use of force - does this mean I must become like them and get involved in breaking up the meetings? Breaking up the meetings of opponents by force seems to imply that you cannot handle opposition. This is a tool which fascists have in fact used against the left in order to prove it's undemocratic nature. It can be a gift to them.

I believe in counteracting racist propaganda by challenging it. Challenging the BNP by exposing who they are. There is nothing wrong in standing outside a hall with leaflets and banners, but to physically stop a meeting? Count me out.

2007-04-25T12:49:00.000+01:00

Human Rights Abuses in China.......

Forced abortions appear to still be continuing in China. No matter what you think about abortion you must agree that this is a travesty of human rights and of reproductive freedom. Please help draw attention to the issue by circulating this story.

2007-04-25T12:37:00.000+01:00

A far too sympathetic obituary of the late Boris Yeltsin. The Western media tend to be soft on Yeltsin due to the fact he helped end the communist tyranny. All he did however, was replace one form of dictatorship with another. This man was no democrat.

In 1993 Yeltsin sent tanks against parliament when it disagreed with him. There is little evidence to prove his re-election was fair. He brutally crushed the drive for independence Chechnya. Putin's war in the region is a mere extension of Yeltsin's prior policy there.

Putin, who is often criticised by the West, was Yeltsin's appointed sucessor. The system seen today in Russia is Yeltsin's system.

Yeltsin's shock therapy of the early 1990s consigned many Russians to lives of unemployment, hunger, homelessness and despair. Freedom of speech means relatively little to those who have no food or no home. And besides, how deep goes freedom of speech in Russia?

Putin long ago passed anti trade union laws (i.e a curb on the right of the masses to democratically self organise for their own einterests). Journalists are afraid to speak their minds lest they um, get killed. The State controls a very large proportion of the media. What kind of democracy is this?

2007-04-16T13:04:00.000+01:00

God, I have not updated this blog in ages - partly because I have been too busy, secondly because I have only just recently re-acquirred a reliable internet connection.

Meanwhile I saw this in relation to the topic of blogging. Some may put the guy's dislike of the medium down to the snobbery of the professional elite towards the amateurs, although he does point out the fact that many professional journalists do also have blogs. He does make a few very valid points though on the nature of much online debating. Much of it is little more substantial than the antics of a playground, and you even find the same kind of hierarchy developing on many boards - i.e the cliques, the bullies, the losers who are their victims and the cool and popular. The Graun's own talkboard, Unlimited Talk, is very much of this nature. If anything it was the most unfriendly and hostile site I had ever come accross. But perhaps much of that is due to the nature of internet debate itself. The fact that being behind a computer screen enables one to say things they would not have the audacity to say to somebody in person leaves plenty of scope for abuse. This makes the internet an ideal refuge for immature cowards and bullies. People tend to be less likely to monitor and think over comments they make online than they would be with a more traditional debating forum, so the nature of the comments is far more likely to be flippant. What tends to annoy me more than anything is the way that people tend to make dogmatic statements without thinking them over properly.

2007-03-12T03:02:00.000Z

Two Controversies Surrounding the Issue of Racism

I.

Most people agree that racism is wrong. More under debate is the issue of what constitutes it.

Does, for example, voicing the view that there are too many immigrants in Britain amount to racism? Some may hold that it does. I would dispute this and say it depends on what one's motivations are. If it is a question of wishing to preserve 'racial purity' or something along those lines then there can be little doubt. If, on the other hand, it is due to worries over Britain being 'overcrowded' or the potential costs of immigration then I would not call this in and of itself racist. I believe it is possible to hold this view without necessarily discriminating inherently against people of a different race or culture, or believing that people of certain ethnicities are inferior in whatever area you wish to attribute. Although it may of course lead to propping up or giving ammunition to people who do hold racist views. I for one do not hold such views and have no objection to immigration, I believe it can often bring benefits. But by simply writing off all those who disagree with me as being racist I will not do my own argument any favour; it will simply be intellectual laziness and a disingenuous method of arguing.

This issue was brought to the news last week, the story being outlined here. I understand why 'Star' wished to raise attention to the matter. What I am suspicious of is the demand for Oxford to fire Coleman, which Oxford has said it will not do anyway. I go along with the freedom of speech argument. Academic institutions should be places where any views should be open for discussion and argument. If a view is simply not credible it will not be taken seriously. Take David Irving, the holocaust denier in jail in Austria. Despite the fact that his persecution by the authorities played into his hands as it enabled him to play the victim and be a martyr for the far right, nobody save for a few groupies took his ideas seriously. The fact that 6 million Jews did die in the holocaust has been established as a historical fact, and no credible historian would claim otherwise.

On the other hand it is possible to debate on the benefits of immigration. It is one thing argue that migrants should be welcome on humanitarian grounds, another argument to say that they bring economic benefit to the country at large. It would appear that the jury is still out on the issue.

Coleman has not, to anyone’s knowledge, been putting forward his own views as being those of Oxford. Star argued that advertising his appearances at the Migrant Watch events as being ‘David Coleman, Professor of Demographics, Oxford University’, would be using his status and the name of Oxford to give the organisation academic ‘credibility’. Hmmm. Whether they like it or not, Coleman’s position and his subject matter do give him some qualification to speak on related matters, whether or not you agree with the conclusions he draws.

At a university students are able to disagree with and to challenge the views of an academic when they wish. In fact, education is supposed to facilitate critical thinking in individuals.

The Head Office of Star stopped the campaign in the end, and have distanced themselves from their Oxford branch. This could well be due to the fact that they are publicly funded.

Meanwhile, is Coleman actually a racist? Not having attended any of his lectures nor read his papers I cannot say for certain. However, I looked online and found nothing that looked heavily incriminating in that direction. Yes, he is the co-founder of Migration Watch (see here). The titles of some his papers seem to indicate that he argues from a Malthusian standpoint (i.e. that overpopulation causes poverty and other social ills). Racists can seize upon this view, and it does tend to blame the poor for their problems, rather than focusing on inequality and exploitation, prime causes of poverty. Malthusianism was sometimes tied in with eugenics early last century.

But it is not necessarily racist in and of itself, although it is very easy to use it for such ends. Some people’s views of what constitutes racism are clearly broader than others.

II.

Secondly there was the Mercer affair. Patrick Mercer had made some comments that were insensitive, especially in the current climate. But they did contain an element of truth – namely that the army is a place in which bullying is common. He stated that soldiers with ginger hair were also subject to bullying, which he interestingly claimed was more severe.

Now I don’t wish to claim that the bullying of ginger haired people is the same as racism. It does not have the same historical significance or context. Gingers have not been sold into slavery, deported, been victimised by imperialism or sent into concentration camps. This is partly what makes race such a sensitive issue. Having said that, though, I do not believe that the bullying of ginger haired people is acceptable. Indeed there are wider issues of bullying concerned. Race can simply be a pretext for bullying. Then again, there are wider factors surrounding racism, it is not a simple discrimination along grounds of appearance in the form of one's skin colour, or the way one dresses, what food they eat etc.

Another factor is scapegoating – finding an ‘out group’ then blaming them for your own grievances and for social ill in general, attributing to them traits you find repellent or are afraid of in yourself (also known as projection). I have no idea where the anti ginger tendency originated from – but one thing it does have in common with racism may be fear of ‘the other’ – an irrational fear of anybody who looks different or who is different in other ways (having ginger hair is less common than say, blonde or brown hair).

I blogged on the Celebrity Big Brother issue at around the time of the incident. While there was racism involved in the treatment of Shilpa Shetty this was far from the only or even the primary factor. Shetty was different from the others in ways besides race – she was smarter and more successful than they, for instance, and not on their wavelength. Much of the bullying seemed down to jealousy, along with the fact she was not one of them.

What focusing on the race issue seems to do is mask the wider issue of bullying. The question can reasonably be asked as to why it is deemed unacceptable to call somebody a Black c*** but not a ginger c***. And you will come to the stark truth that there are all manner of insults and bullying remarks. Yet you cannot pass a law as to make anti ginger insults illegal, as where would you stop? It would be impossible to make every form of insult a crime, even if they are designed to provoke hatred towards an individual. This is why legislation cannot solve the race issue. To forbid people voicing a sentiment will not cure them of it. At the most it will simply let it fester while driving it underground. The far right are fond of claiming victimhood by stating that they are being persecuted.

The wider issues surrounding bullying deserve some investigation. The State has a tendency to fetishise race. But in order to fight racism we should first understand what it is and what it is not. Arguing for censorship or other measures to extend the arm of the State does no favours. Neither does belittling racism by simply using it as an insult and/or a way of attempting to discredit somebody. It will get to the stage where people are frightened of even raising certain issues lest they offend someone. People may rather remain silent rather then suffering the insults of racist, sexist, homophobe etc.

It probably goes without saying that I do not believe Mercer should have been sacked. His remarks were careless but I by no means consider him to be a racist and neither should any other reasonable person.

2007-03-11T18:18:00.000Z

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

I have no scientific qualifications and I have little knowledge about the science surrounding global warming. Unfortunately I did not see the offending television programme on Thursday either. This article, however, does raise some interesting points. Despite my disagreement with many of their views I have always quite liked 'Spiked'. I tend to go with them on their 'culture of fear' arguments (how the media has a tendency to scaremonger).

It does pose the question: Why are those without scientific qualifications allowed to write about climate change or contribute to the discussion only if they agree with the accepted theory? The scientific world, as always, has it's dissenting and minority views. Although it is hard to believe that Spiked had nothing to do with the programme as they claim, the questions the article poses are nonetheless valid.
George Monbiot and his pals at the Graun put it down to a sinister conspiracy theory, and so do other environmentalists. I believe it os not so simple, and until I see the evidence of both sides and understand the science behind it better than I currently do I shall not adhere rigidly to either side. Yet man made global warming appears to have become the established truth in the current climate. Only a maverick loon or somebody in the pay of big business would doubt this allegedly incontrovertible 'truth'. Why do the media (and for their part, the majority in the scientific community) wish to shut down debate and discredit those who dissent? If one was to claim the Earth is flat they would simply not be taken seriously, as the proof that it is a sphere is taken for granted today.
Global warming perhaps only provokes such feeling because the proof is not so irrevocable as that.

Red Maria posted on this matter herself and I thank her for alerting me on it. Something which I find extremely irritating about the Green movement is the sanctomoniousness and self righteousness displayed by some of it's adherents and promoters. George Monbiot most readily springs to my mind, and so do some of the other Graunistas. Bear in mind that they have no more scientific credibility or expertise than the people they like to discredit. They fail the test themselves, so by their own standards would fall short of the qualifications they demand from the dissenters. They hold the dissenting scientists to be part of a big capitalist conspiracy, which doesn't wash.

Sensationalism sells newspapers. There is always something we should be very afriad of. People should be scared, so silence the dissenters as to better sell this package. Silencing debate is not going to save the planet. Looking at the issue from a less impassioned and calmer standpoint would surely be far more productive in the way of finding solutions as to dealing with potential problems? But no, people must be made to feel guilty. They must be scared so as to make them act.

It seems like a cause like that gives some people a sense of moral righteousness. Perhaps it is an attempt of the middle classes to gain credibility and assuage their liberal guilt. Case in point: A television clip showed a queue of cars outside a recycling unit, causing more pollution than dispensing of their rubbish in the normal manner would have done. Being 'green' is an easy thing for someone to hold up as proof they are kind and caring people, and to hold themselves above those who are wasteful. So easy to moralise about and install guilt into others.

2007-03-08T13:18:00.000Z

House of Lords....

I was very surprised to hear about the majority of MPs last night voting for a wholly elected second chamber. It rather took me aback. It must partly be due to the cash for honours scandal, which lost the chamber any shreds of credibility it still possessed. Blair had simply been replacing hereditary peers with his own cronies.

I support this move in principal. I can't think who would defend the House of Lords as it is presently constituted, as it is undemocratic by it's very nature. Then again I do believe in the need for some kind of a second chamber. Giving the commons all the power would not do, as something is needed to keep the government in check. It would result in too much concentration of power.

The issue is on how a second chamber is going to run as not to resemble a mirror image of the commons. It should be somewhat different in it's composition. If it is to be directly elected then a large number of independents (not affiliated to any political party) should be given room to stand, along with some from smaller parties that would benefit from proportional representation. Voting reform should be another thing on the agenda, another issue that has been delayed for years. Most candidates for the second chamber should be people with a track record in a profession such as law or academia, or another field that does the public a service such as medicine or the trade unions. Spokespeople from religious organisations should be allowed to stand but their numbers should of course be limited. A wholly elected second chamber should mean that the Anglican bishops do not automatically get a seat, especially when it is not even the majority faith among those who are religious. How the candidates are to be selected is another issue, as is when the elections would take place. They should be held at a different time from the commons vote, by all account.

It is worthwhile to bear in mind that this is not yet cut and dried. There may well be opposition, not just from the Lords but by rebel MPs. It may end with something of a compromise, such as 20% appointed and 80% elected.

2007-03-07T01:36:00.000Z

This has really made me angry. Yet it is so typical of this government to stifle the media when it is it's own interests. But they will only look worse for doing so.

This country has a government riddled with corruption. It's authoritarian social policies (i.e I.D cards, detention without trial), along with cronyism and now media censorship make it look less like a democracy but far more like a corrupt dictatorship. Taking one look at the opulence displayed by the Blairs says quite a lot.

I, for one, won't be too sorry to see them go. I somehow doubt the Tories could be very much worse. The results of what little good this government has done don't stand up to very much. The harm seems to outweigh any good that has been achieved.

2007-03-07T00:52:00.000Z

'Education, Education'

When my parents were at school high hopes were put into the prospects of comprehensive education. It had been noticed that there had been a high socio-economic gap between the children attending grammer schools and those in secondary moderns. Comprehensive schools, it was hoped, would alleviate this. Education would no longer discriminate, and all children from all classes and all abilities would be given equal opportunites.

Alas, it was not to be. What we have instead is a new form of two tier education. Well performing state schools look more like grammer schools with their large intake of children from middle class backgrounds, while those not born in such fortunate circumstances tend to be segregated in what look like badly run secondary moderns.
The government could not afford to ignore this problem, but their proposed measures seem to be doing little to change it.

The rhetoric of parental choice did nothing to address the issues surrounding children in those 'failing' schools, as what kind of parent would 'choose' to send their children to a badly performing school? In reality there is no substance behind the rhetoric, save for appealing to the consumerist tendencies of the class it seeked to impress.

I understand parents wanting the best for their children. But the very idea of professing to believe in a religion you do not truly believe in in order to get your child into the right school is abhorrent to me. And what do you tell the child in question when you are taking him and her to the services? Do you lie and tell them you believe everything they are taught in catechism/Sunday school is all true? Or do you tell the truth and say you don't believe it but you are putting them through it for their education? Either way you would be a fraud.

Segregation in schools by class is not easy to tackle. The poor don't have the same choices that the more prosperous have. A school in a wealthy suburb is likely to be high on the league tables, which is not the case for a school in a run down area of the inner city. Knowing the system the middle classes can move to the right catchment areas, guaranteeing their child a place. Besides the fact that they may not know how to work the system so well, poor families have fewer options on where they live anyway. A sought after school is likely to drive property prices in the surrounding area up.

I don't see the idea of poorly performing schools taking on a quota of middle class children as being workable. Their parents simply will not have it. Yet perhaps hihg performers being forced to accept a quota of children from lower socio economic backgrounds/lower achievement record may just be workable.

Poorer children do not tend to underachieve because they are stupid, it is due to a myriad of factors. Culture is one issue. Poorer children may have fewer aspirations, for one thing. If you know the result may well be a dead end job or welfare as you see your parents and their peers then there would seem little motivation. The exceptional may pull themselves out of this but not everyone is exceptional. Somebody born in the right circumstances may do very well, while go with the flow if they were not so fortunate. Doing well when you are in a run school where studiousness is frowned upon by your peers, and your parents don't have a computer or a range of books on their shelf requires much harder effort.

Singling out failing schools and 'naming and shaming' them was an unpleasant measure which the already stressed teachers could have done without. Rather those schools could be given extra help and facilities. A few of the city academies seemed to have worked out well, while others have not been so fortunate.

It is very sad to still see this problem in the 21st century. It certainly shows we are not 'all middle class now', and it brings shame on the UK for being one of the most unequal societies in the West. It is needless to say that educational segregation, whether or not it is a deliberate policy, further obstructs social mobility.

2007-02-27T14:49:00.000Z

The Stars Down to Earth.....

The spare (and rather old) pc I have been temporarily using is near it's dying day. Hopefully I should have a new one by the weekend (fingers crossed). My own phase of depression right now has stopped me also from keeping abreast with the current affairs as I do normally. Hence my recent absence from the blogosphere in general. But while this pc may be dying I can assure you all that I am still alive and so will this blog be. I will soon update my links as to include Ms Melancholy's interesting blog among them, and Elle's too.

Something I have found worthy of blogging about - I have been reading a curious essay by Theodore Adorno, a philosopher who was involved in what was known as the 'Frankfurt School'. It is the first time I have given him a shot. It is not easy reading but nonetheless it is worth persevering with. The name of the essay is 'The Stars Down to Earth' - it is an indictment of astrology. I intend also to read 'The Culture Industry' when I get the chance.

'The Stars Down to Earth' has made me think. While I have never presumed to take astrological columns seriously I have regarded them as mostly being for their part harmless. I have thought twice after reading that.

As far as Adorno was concerned their insidiousness lied partly in the fact that nobody really professes to read them for anything other than a bit of fun. He compares their sense of unseriousness with some of the exagerration involved in some fascist propaganda. However, if the columns had no psychological appeal they would not be so widely read. He points to the fact that their 'predictions' usually say nothing or at least very little about the source from where their supposed authority derives. There is also the irrational belief that astrology not only can predict what may happen in our day and how our time should be used but can also tell us about our respective personalities.

What the newspaper and magazine columns promote is a very bland form of social conformity. They both condescend to and similtaneously flatter their readers. The intended audience is comprised of what Adorno termed the 'semi erudite', or the lower middle classes. The columns address their audience as though their actions are far more important to the scheme of the system than they actually are.

The status quo is taken for granted, and the readers are advised (no matter what their date of birth) to roll along with it so that things run smoothly. Work and pleasure must be kept strictly seperate and one may never intrude upon the other. Hence work must remain pure drudgery while no seriousness should intrude on leisure, making it in effect rather empty. This is one of the legacies of the protestant work ethic and the effects of industrialisation and a technological society, bringing in work which is largely monotonous, tedious and even pointless a lot of the time.

The stars are an external authority that cannot be challenged. The only control the believer has over his or her fate is to behave according to the advice of the experts so that disaster may be averted and they may prosper in the system which is taken as pre-ordained. The columns give the illusion that the reader is in control while at the same time promoting obedience to a higher authority which is as impersonal as the social system itself.

The appeal of these superstitions is largely down to people losing what was their animistic attachment with nature (dependence on the will of the gods and the seasons, etc) while not yet developing the maturity to be able to think with complete independence and rationality. Hence the contradiction with modern superstition. Astrology columns are also unique in the sense that they find their circulation via mass media, there is no direct contact with the witch doctor or shaman. Hence Adorno's description of them as being a 'secondary' rather than a primary superstition. They do not fulfill the function of religion yet they are a small daily dose of comfort rather like a soap opera.

I will not go too far in debunking astrology myself - but I have long been amazed at the unquestioning faith displayed by believers. By modern calculations there should not be 12 but 13 signs of the zodiac. Everybody's sun sign by traditional standards would therefore be wrong as it would be one month ahead. Hence I would not be Pisces but Aquarius, the preceeding sign. Yet the 'experts' have ignored this and so do their followers when it is pointed out to them. See: here and here.

I have a friend who bores me endlessly with her astro babble. Every quirk in a persons' behaviour is, according to her, down to when they were born. Despite my protests that I am not a believer she still works on the assumption that I am or must be deep down as who can deny what is to her the ultimate truth? My mother is also a believer and I recall having that nonsense rammed down my throat even as a child. I tire of men using astrology as a chat up line on me, working on the assumption that all women believe in astrology. Unfortunately more women do seem to go for this than do men, and I don't have the time in this post to explore the reasons why. Perhaps it is partly due to the fact women have been more likely to be in a subordinate or dependent position. People who are or have been oppressed in a particular way may be more inclined to look for certainties, when they themselves have little control over their lives. This, for Adorno, was one explanation for the general appeal of astrology. Also it offers a sense of comfort to a weak ego or a low sense of self worth. Whatever one's educational level or place in the hierarchy they can still find themselves 'in the know' via possessing knowledge not shared by the ignorant or uninitiated.

The only grain of truth this superstition may have is the simple law of gravity. The phases of the moon do affect women's menstrual cycles and it has been speculated that it may affect our moods too (both sexes). Maybe the location of other bodies can have some impact on our bodily chemistry and our minds, but this is by no means a scientific fact but a mere speculation. And it gives me no reason whatsoever to treat an entire superstititon with no scientific basis or rationality at all as though it were fact. There is far more sense behind traditional religion as while unproven the existence of a creator may be a philosophical possibility. Not astrology, though.

2007-02-15T15:18:00.000Z

UK Worst Place for Kids....

This story has distressed me for several reasons. It serves to remind me of why I have strong doubts about bringing children into this world for one thing. Living in a non child friendly country like Britain does not help.

Like most people I can only speculate on the reasons for it. The individualism of the 1980s with it's economic restructuring went a long way towards breaking down community ties and led to a greater degree of social atomisation, for one thing. The Scandinavian countries with their strong Welfare States seem not to have so much of a problem with their youth, and neither do countries where family ties remain strong.

Alongside this goes the long work hours culture of Britain. Most two parent families these days have little choice but for both parents to work, often full time, and this results in them not being able to spend as much time with their children as is ideally needed for their growth. The State is still trying to grasp an idea of flexible working hours and a family friendly workplace but much of it remains hot air. A rush to make profits now appears not to make for good investment in the future - children of course being the future.

It is little wonder that the birth rate is declining as the incentives for having children are highly neglible in the UK. But something will have to be done to reverse this trend if the government do not want to struggle with an ageing population with not enough people of working age to support them.

Aside from the obvious things which spring to mind such as flexible working, better welfare for poor families and children, accessible child care etc we could also do with treating our children as human beings in their own right, not as mere extensions of ourselves. A child friendly society recognises children's needs and accepts them as part of that society. We have a long way to go. The constant demonisation youth receive in the media is a big part of this problem.

2007-02-10T18:56:00.000Z

I have a working pc once again at home so I should be back in circuit. It has not only been that inconvenience which has kept me away but a slight lack of motivation for writing. Not having a pc always to hand does not really help with a case of writer's block (for want of anything better to call it).

But I shall get myself back in gear by beginning my musings once more, starting with a controversial subject (as is my nature!).

What dominated the news when I returned from my disaster of a trip was the issue surrounding Catholic adoption agencies and gay adoption. It may be a bit old now but the issue has had me thinking.

To be blunt I have been wondering what the big fuss is really all about. To begin with it strikes me as unlikely that a gay couple would use a Catholic adoption agency to anyway. If it is the issue of public money being spent then a clause could have easily been added that obliged the respective organisations to refer the hypothetical couples elsewhere in the unlikely scenario in which they were approached. Who would be hurt by this, really? But as always this has brought out the usual chorus of Catholic bashers in the form of militant secularists and intolerant liberals.

Now it may be argued that an exemption on religious grounds could set a dangerous precedent. It could be speculated, for instance, that a Muslim restaurant could refuse to serve Hindus, or vice versa. Or that religious hoteliers of any persuasion could refuse to admit gay couples. However, accessing a public service such as a hotel or restaurant is not the same thing as adopting a child. It raises a different set of issues.

However, setting an exemption clause for religious organisations alone on this matter raises other problems. For instance, an organisation could conceivably object to gay adoption on non religious grounds - merely on a traditionalist belief that a child needs both a father and a mother. Why should such a secular group have to comply while religious groups have an opt out clause?

Surely a simple solution would have been to allow it to be a matter of conscience.
A simple clause that obliged organisations which objected to refer potential adopters to other organisatons which would be able to help them would have seemed a fair enough compromise. There would of course have been some people on either side of the spectrum who this would not have sufficed for but you cannot please everyone. Most reasonable people understand that in life there will come situations where one must compromise.

Despite the commonly held liberal orthodoxy I do not feel that objecting to gay adoption on the belief that children need both a father and a mother amounts to homophobia or even discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ask me honestly if I think a child would be better off in a traditional family set up and I will give the honest answer that I simply do not know. Who can say in all seriousness that they do? There have not been enough case studies to find out and it may be unlikely that there ever will be.

The closest parallel I can think of is the opt out clause doctors and other medical staff have been given in regards to performing abortions. 'Pro choice' extremists have sometimes opposed this, voicing the ludicrous idea that it amounts to a form of discrimination. This idea is ludicrous simply because refusing to perform an operation because it is against your ethical code is not the same thing as refusing to treat somebody on the grounds of their colour.

Enforcing by law adoption agencies to serve gay couples may indeed set a dangerous precedent. It may well encourage people like those described above to be bolder in demanding that abortion be recognised as a legal right. If this was to be the case then the right to opt out could become a thing of the past. Doctors who refused to participate could find themselves struck off on the grounds that they would be refusing patients what is their legal right. Or people with ethics not unlike my own would cease to enter the profession in the first place. Catholics and Muslims would in effect be barred from the practice.

Such a framework is not what amounts to tolerance. Paradoxically it is an authoritarian form of liberalism that is unable to accept that not everyone shares it's value system. It is willing to use the force of the State to ensure that everybody does share it at least in practice. Whether or not they really do in their hearts is secondary - why use a carrot when the stick suffices to do the job?

Using the might of the State does nothing to shift people's basic value systems. All this will result in will be Catholic adoption agencies shutting up shop, organisations which by all other means have provided a good service over the years. What it will not do is change the view of the church towards homosexuality. A view that for the record I will say that I would like to see change. But I certainly do not believe that this is the way to change it. If anything it has merely created more pain and tension with the gay and Catholic communities (leaving aside gay Catholics for the moment, who I would suspect don't like being once more in the middle of this). I for one would not like being pitted against my own organisation by an agressive and intolerant 'liberal' State.

2007-01-24T15:05:00.000Z

Aside from the usual issues surrounding coming off a long haul flight I'm out of sorts generally now. But one small comfort is to be home, at least. For the first time in what seems ages I am enjoying the winter, finding it refreshing. What little of the Southern summer I saw before I arrived back I was unable to enjoy, knowing that it would not last for long anyway.

What can I say? Perhaps with time I will see things in a broader perspective. I will no longer look a fool by saying I went on a trip and disliked where I stayed, focusing on all that appears negative about a place and neglecting the positive aspects of my surroundings. But to repeat a cliche that someone repeated to me - right now I don't have feelings. They seem to have me. Perhaps when I come out from the other end of this tunnel (or at least see the light at the end of it) I may see this differently.

I am also screwed because my home pc is not working right now. Often writing is how I help work through my issues - so I'll have to continue drafting my book in longhand for the time being, along with any other notes and musings I have. Also find the time and the mindset to think about other things apart from my problems which are doing nothing but looming magnificantly on the horizon, and they seem to have no end in sight and no immediate solution either.

So I may continue to be a little quiet. However, watch this space as you will still see some comment. It will just continue to be sporadic for a while longer.

2007-01-18T01:42:00.000Z

Crapcartoontown..

Hey, I saw the infamous Popetown. My opinion? The BBC axed it because it was not funny. And it would upset a religious group in the bargain, so why take such a risk for what is essentially a load of rubbish? If I was in the position of the BBC I'd probably have made the same decision, not so much for fear of upsetting people but because showing complete rubbish that will upset people at the same time is not worth it. Those who want to can buy it on video, nobody should pay a license to watch crap TV. Not because they have the right not to be offended. To show something that is offensive yet funny is worth it. To show what is unfunny yet inoffensive may be worth a gamble, a rubbish cartoon can fill the spaces. But a crap cartoon which may offend in the meantime? No point at all.

Jerry Springer The Opera was funny. But this aint. One word? Yawn.

2007-01-18T01:20:00.001Z

'Reality' Shite....

For once in my life I am with the Graun and it's commentators entirely (see link). I will plead with my friends on the blogosphere who give this vile show credibility and treat it as harmless fun to stop and think again.

Shilpa may be famous and can probably handle it. That is not the case with everyone who enters the Big Brother house. Most of them are ordinary people who are very often vulnerable with mental health problems. Which makes them prime candidates for bullying.

The treatment of Shilpa on CBB appears to say more about the mentality of the contestants than it says about her. Which isn't funny either. Ignorance and bigotry are not fun to watch, neither are the people who display them. Neither is it fun to see one person singled out like that.

I was bullied at school so I recognise the mentality of many of the contestants and the audience. A 'freak' or somebody who is at least different (Shilpa is Indian, don't forget) is singled out to be a scapegoat and along with being filmed gets their face rubbed in the dirt of the British tabloids. You may say as much as you want that they go on the show voluntarily - indeed they do. But people do all kinds of stupid things voluntarily. Does that mean you must validate it by watching the spectacle?

Now don't get me wrong - I would oppose any kind of censorship. Ultimately if the contestants want to make idiots of themselves by taking part in what is a modern day freak show ( I believe Victorian circus freaks got paid as well, or they got some kind of a living at least) the decision must rest with them, and alas, the producers who have the idea of filming such a thing. Whatever the intelligence or mental health of the contestants I don't want to strip them of free will and look like a patronising middle class moraliser. But that does not mean I have to watch the show. Neither does anyone else.

To the left of the shows viewers I'll posit to them that most of the contestants they laugh at are members of the class they claim to champion - the working class. How can you claim to champion a group of people yet revel in their (partially self inflicted) humiliation at the same time? Most of the people on that show are working class because they are the ones poor and desperate enough to need the money. Toffs don't need it, neither do the 'educated' middle classes. Celeb BB may be slightly different - but hey, we have a new kind of celebrity, don't we?

What does the show say about the mentality of the audience? That you are following what is in essence a pack mentality. You should know better, and if you don't so far then please think about it a bit. Viewing that stuff is worse than viewing S&M porn - hell, there is not even any direct sexual release. It serves to satisfy a kind of sadism but one which is repressed in the British masses, one which has its outlets in the likes of this show. It serves the voyeur but there is nobody naked.

Just some poor idiot being ganged up on, for God's sake. Is it really what it's cracked up to be? True, some of the people who participate may well be exhibitionists. Good luck to them. But what about those who are not exhibitionists but are simply vulnerable for whatever reason? Why engage in what is essentially an act of voyeuristic sadism? If you inclined that way there must be other means. Join a fetish club or something.

As I've stated, the racist treatment of a wealthy actress by a few ignorant people may not in the long run be much to get worked up over. She may well be together enough to handle it by now, having been in the limelight for so long. Actors are used to this, they are exhibitionists by trade. But not everyone who goes on BB is a professional actor. Most are not, despite their hopes of becoming famous.

I forget who it was who said that acting was the most masochistic form of exhibitionism. But they were wrong. Reality TV has turned out to be, a media which is yet at the same time is not acting. It is midway between acting and 'reality'. It is not 'reality' yet it is not a film or play either as it is not scripted. Yet it would also be wrong to call this improvised acting. The 'actors' are playing themselves and they do not know when they may be filmed.

2007-01-18T00:07:00.000Z

Dead Avian Mule.....

There was a strange story on New Zealand radio yesterday concerning drugs being smuggled into a prison via a dead pigeon. The offending mule was thrown over the wall of the prison yard, after which the prisoner caught it. Alas, he was caught by the guards and had both his mule and its booty confiscated.

What touched me more than anything was the naivety displayed (probably wilfully for the benefit of his listeners) when talking to the prison spokeswoman. It did not transpire until the end of the interview that the bird in question was a pigeon and not a hmm, penguin or albatross. ‘Surely you’d need a big bird to fit drugs into?’ he said.
‘Well, no’, she replied. ‘People today still assume the drug of choice would be cannabis, for which you would need a bird the size of an albatross. These days the drug of choice in prisons tends to be crystalised methamphetamine, for which a pigeon suffices as it can be measured in spoons’.

Crystal meth! The same evil which has plagued rural Montana!

Can you imagine such an interview taking place on the BBC? No chance. People know that the drugs of choice taken in prison would be cocaine or more likely heroin, which can easily be measured in teaspoons. The Brits are not so naïve to assume that somebody would go to that trouble for a bit of weed. I assumed immediately the bird was a damn pigeon and had no need for it to be explained to me!

To speak frankly I don’t know whether this is something I like or dislike about this place, as it is only a sign of its isolated nature and its provincial tendencies. Yet at the same time it makes me slightly nostalgic for the innocent days of my parents.

What more can I say?

2007-01-13T22:54:00.000Z

The Man in the Mask......

I’m not normally one for Batman type comic book action movies. I did, however, enjoy ‘V for Vendetta’ on video yesterday, based on an old comic book.

It was disturbing as it was set in a futuristic Nazi Britain. With concentration camps, a fuhrer, the cross of St George in red with a black background, uniforms and all the other paraphernalia. It was also set in a modern context, with Muslims replacing Jews. The poisoning of London’s water supply by the fascists (for which they blamed the terrorists) was the Reichstag fire which consolidated their power. References were made to the Iraq war and protests.

However, it is highly unlikely that fascism would take on its classic form were it to come into power. It would be far more subtle. Britain is not a fascist State at present, but the increasing surveillance we live under and the added powers given to the State do pose cause for concern to anyone who cherishes liberty.

The superhero goes simply by the name of ‘V’. He wears a Guy Fawkes mask to cover his burns. His aim is to get revenge on the government who were responsible. One by one he kills party members, gaining support among the population to eventually topple the regime by blowing up parliament. His supporters show their solidarity by donning a mask to match.

What makes it most interesting, in my view, is the relationship between him and his lover. Young Evey never completely knows the man who has taken her under his wing. This is symbolised most obviously by the mask, which he never removes due to his disfigurations. But the mask symbol goes way back into ancient mythology. The marriage of Eros and Psyche springs to mind most readily, where the Olympian God would not show his face to his mortal wife. Psyche is in turns enraptured by him then frightened of what he might do. His distance does not allow her to fully know him.

The comic-book love affair depicted in the film is in part a retelling of this ancient myth with its many layers. To an extent we all wear a mask, as Carl Jung was keen to stress. The persona we show to others does not tell everything about us. This is why the mask has long been used to symbolise the theatre. But what kind of lover is Eros, or Mr V? What kind of a man keeps himself from a woman in this way, and what kind of woman loves such a man? The answers can be many. The masked man is more of an evocative symbol than ‘the masked woman’, which should tell us something about sexual roles and behaviour. Most important is the fact that we can never completely know another person. After even many years together a woman may not completely know her husband, and vice versa.

Not knowing whether the masked man is a hero or villian (due to his unpredictable nature and the part of himself he deliberately keeps back) is part of his allure.

2007-01-11T12:39:00.000Z

Dr Fell and New Edinburgh.....

Investing people and places with symbols is an ancient thing. Some of us may be able to divorce our experiences from our surroundings, but I think more of us tie them together than do not.

I have been writing of my travels, relating both good and bad experiences. Recently my musings have been negative but they are just a reflection of my state of mind. It is no insult to the place.

I wrote earlier of the Southern city of Christchurch. I liked it, despite it being a very English town (or perhaps because of - who can say?) Despite all what I heard about it being a crime capital with traces of English snobbery, puritanism etc and all the things I moan about back home I still received good vibes from it. But what the hell do I know just being a visitor?

I later wrote of Dunedin and I felt obliged to say good things about the place so as not to look like a complete idiot. Sure, I could see there was a lot of art there, and it had a lot of culture for a town which is small by British standards.

But if I'm going to be totally honest - it was a case of 'Dr Fell' as far as me and that town went. I got bad vibes, I didn't like the place and was unable to articulate what it was. Perhaps something to do with me being Catholic and it being a noticably Scottish protestant settlement? It being a university town off season and quiet due to the students being away? But no. Neither of those things defined my feelings and my wishes to leave the place asap. And I don't know if it was actually anything to do with the place or if it had anything to do with my circumstances (which looked brighter then than they do now, although there probably had been a storm brewing in the background without my knowledge).

The 'deep South' (for want of a better term) is said to be a bit of a mad place. Dunedin once had an alternative rock scene (something I would have liked) but that died with the collapse of the 'Flying Nun' record label. The boys in the region have been known to do mad things like throw surfboards out of windows and self harm. Janet Frame, one of New Zealand's best known authors, was born and grew up there. Her work is very intense because she suffered mental health problems.

Was it the madness in the region that I was picking up on? God knows. Seeing the touches of madness in myself it may be something I am sensitive to. But so as not to look a total idiot I shall just put it down to old Dr Fell.

2007-01-08T12:45:00.000Z

What began as a news blog appears to have turned into more than this since I have been away from Blighty.

It has become what a blog literally was first thought to be - an online diary.

I will be back in England in two weeks. I will visit Napier and a few other places before I spend a few days in Auckland and get the plane home.

I don't blame the city - I know that this feeling is completely subjective, animistic and irrational. But the city of Wellies right now gives me nothing but bad vibes due to the events which have transpired here. I wish I could say otherwise but wishes aren't horses. I may be at a turning point in my life. When I return to the UK I should be better able to deal with my problems.

When I am back in the UK this blog shall return to what it was - a commentary about news and culture.

Meanwhile I would like to thank my friends on the blogosphere for their support and for keeping me writing through these days.

2007-01-04T01:02:00.000Z

Seven Achievements of 2006....

Political Umpire of Fora tagged me for this. It may be hard but I'll try....

1. Starting this blog.
2. Getting other people to read it and receiving positive feedback. Especially from Dave Hill, China Blue, Ellee, PU, Gracchi, James etc. Thanks to all who have put me on their blogroll.
3. Managing to read a few more of the classics which I have neglected for a few years. Finally read Thomas Hardy's 'Jude' and 'The Woodlanders'.
4. Started my own first novel and actually have a full plot and characters worked out.
5. Getting a little more of my non fiction published and getting my ideas accross.
6. Reconciling myself at least partly with my past mistakes.
7. Learning to appreciate what I have.

2007-01-04T00:55:00.000Z

The Queen.....

Happy new year all.

As to keep this blog one which is a commentary on news and culture I shall lay off the personal stuff for a while. Washing my dirty linen in public is not a pretty sight.

Any more than the debacle involving the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, ‘People’s Princess’, ‘Queen of Hearts’ etc was a pretty sight.

I saw Helen Mirren star in ‘The Queen’ the other night. And I was impressed by her performance. Along with the convincing portrayals of the Duke of Edinburgh and Alistair Campbell. The political machinations behind the scenes of the newly elected Blair government were interesting, to say the least.

I hate to say this – but the royals came off better in this than did the British public. Don’t get me wrong – I felt very sorry for Diana and her premature death was a tragedy. Her troubled marriage and her mental health problems made her a figure who could be related to by people of all classes. I don’t buy the line promoted by many leftists that she was nothing but a rich bitch. She may have been an aristocrat but she was by no means a happy one. One who did not have the skill of keeping her emotions under control. But, I did not know the woman personally. Therefore her death meant little more to me than would that of any other stranger. I did not buy into the mass hysteria, although I understood why she was a figure related to by ordinary people. That is as far as it goes.

During the movie the Duke of Edinburgh remarked on the hysteria over the death of a woman they never knew and said ‘And they think we’re mad?’ Likewise, the Queen Mother advised her daughter not to capitulate to the whims of ‘a bunch of hysterics with candles’. They wanted it kept private, but in the end the Queen had no choice but to give the fans of her former daughter in law what they wanted – a personal visit with a live address on television, having already conceded to the demand for a public funeral. It could not have been easy as the Queen is not of the same generation of Charles and his siblings, with their messed up love lives and their public relations disasters. Charles was portrayed as being more empathetic to the public’s feelings for his former wife than was his mother. And face it, the Queen could not have had much love for Diana, who since the marriage had been from her perspective nothing but trouble to her family. Any affection was nothing beyond the fact that Diana was the mother of her grandchildren, William of course being in line to be king one day.

I found myself not exactly liking, but to some extent respecting and admiring the Queen’s character. Neither am I a fan of the institution. But she was brought up to keep her emotions under wraps and never to express them in public. She can be admired for keeping it together, at the very least, which is more than could be said for poor Diana, the product of a fairytale that was not to be. The cold and stiff upper lip portrayed by Queen Elizabeth contrasts with the open displays of vulnerability displayed by Diana during her lifetime. Both may have their ups and down sides – but it seems to be the Queen’s path that wins through in this world, for now. Although the cult of celebrity may indicate a shift, as many people speculated during the Diana spectacle.

2007-01-01T00:00:00.000Z

Take the Weather....

It is a cold day here, the first of Jan is the equivalent of the 1st of July in British seasons. But it is colder than I remember any English July day ever being, and that is saying something. Folks here don't believe in contral heating so I am snuggled up with a sweater or by a single radiator. It cold very well be an English New Years Day!

Reminds me of a song by Crowded House...'Everywhere you go, always take the.......'

So far Weather in the city of Wellies is worse than any English weather I recall in an earlyish summer. C'est la. If it was a hot day (as it was the day before yesterday) it may not match my mood as I was homesick with all that implies (yep, including the British winter). As they say, be careful what you wish for! If I don't have London't scenery at least I have it's seasonal weather.

Makes me think of another song, it was called 'Winter in July'. I forget who it was by though.

2006-12-31T23:10:00.000Z

Happy New Year and Resolutions
A happy new year to all the readers of this blog. Thank you all for your encouragement and support.

My resolutions this year are to get my life into gear, to be more productive and find a more reliable income source while at the same time persevering with my first novel.

Things are hard for me at the moment. I partly have myself to blame but I am in a bit of crisis with my personal life. My partner's parents appear to think me to be the wicked witch of the North, and it has reached the point of estrangement. I will concede to PU that I may not have been the perfect guest, and the trip to the South when I was with them 24/7 did not help. I may have my faults but I like to think I am not a terrible person. But families are a minefield.......

It has naturally put a strain on our relationship, which is not without its problems anyway.

I will soon leave this city, tour the North and spend some time in Auckland. I met a few nice people at a wedding here who came down from Auckland and I'll spend some time with them.

So I'm hoping that things will sort themselves out and this year be not a bad one.
Enjoy yourselves, all xx

2006-12-27T06:15:00.000Z

Kiwi and Aussie Chavs (Bogans)....

It seems in australia and New Zealand 'chavs' are called 'bogans'. But they seem nowhere near as subject to hatred and ridicule as are their British counterparts. This site appears to be the nearest Australian equivalent of the British 'chavscum' site. It appears to be relatively benign in comparison with 'chavscum' and I do wonder if the creators were bogans themselves..

2006-12-27T01:21:00.000Z

'Littledick' and the Sewer Press.......

Here is a piece of bile from the Hate Mail's Little Dick. The murder victims in Ipswich evidently asked for it, according to him. They deserved what they got, had it coming, blah blah. If anything their deaths were a good thing as there are five fewer heroin addicts and sex workers in the UK.

I hope he one day gets an obituary that is as hateful as this one. I hope whoever chooses to write of his demise in the pages of the 'Graun' points out his total failure as a human being, and what a vile and stinking specimen of a man he was. What does Littledick do for humanity? Does he do any 'missionary work' in Darfur? Has he discovered any breakthroughs in medical science? Fat chance.

He is far, far worse than any heroin addict. He makes a living out of writing hate lit for the equivalent constituency of those who brought Hitler to power - the lower middle classes, with all their projected frustrations and pent up rage. Muslims, 'white trash', economic migrants, asylum seekers - in other words all those who are more vulnerable in society than themselves. I don't absolve the Mail's readership as was there not a market for Littledick's bilge he would not write it.

But to dance on the graves of five murdered women on the grounds that they were sex workers and heroin users should even make the readers of the Mail blanch a wee bit. However, I wouldn't be in tears if Littledick popped his clogs. Therefore I wouldn't expect him to shed any crocodile tears for the vulnerable who he despises. But I'd at least have expected him to have had the decency to have respected the feelings of the relatives of the dead women and have written nothing about it. It seems there are no depths to which he will not sink. It is lower than gutter journalism - 'sewer press' would be a more apt description. To expect any shred of human kindness or decency from this piece of slime is clearly is too much. Go to hell, Richard, or more accurately to the sewers.

It is vicious and bigoted to reduce heroin users down to any one thing just as much as it is with sex workers. Some heroin users I have known have been among the most gentle and sensitive people I have met. Perhaps too nice for this world - a world that stinks because it contains people like Littledick. Not because it contains heroin addicts, sex workers, Muslims, asylum seekers. etc etc.....

2006-12-27T00:17:00.000Z

This will be a fairly short post to say...I hope you all had a happy xmas and will enjoy the new year celebrations.

I'm a little out of sorts right now, I don't want to go into all of it, but...

1. The weather now is crap here.

Not a good reason to be depressed, I know, but it sure doesn't help. If you want to remove a metaphorical cloud from over your head having a real one over the hills in the distance is not of much help. And...

2. The TV is crap too!!

This is normally a political blog and I tend not to delve much into the personal zone. But I haven't been following the News as much as I usually would. I will write about it when I feel ready, and I don't care if those involved in this damned scenario read it. It is of their own making anyway.

And I project my state of mind outwards a little. I start to miss being in the UK. A winter Xmas with mulled wine and all. And good TV. And the usual parties I'd go to. Hell, I even miss the London smog, the noise, the dirt and all. I miss being anonymous. It goes without saying that my circumstances here right now are not too favourable. Just imagine being a guest somewhere where you know you are being tolerated rather than welcomed, that your hosts would rather not have you in their lives if they could help it. It sucks, and you should be getting my drift now. But still you feign goodwill out of the nice old English tradition of politeness. Xmas and all.

Thank you people who have been following my blog. It may no longer exist without your input. One moral lesson to perhaps be learnt from this post is perhaps not to say anything about anybody that you would not want repeated. It hurts, if not yourself than the other person or people involved. If you can't be direct then don't bother.

Up until now I've only spoken of things I like about NZ, yep, even the englishness of Christchurch! But as I'm in a bad mood I'll name a few things I don't...

1. Weather and TV, as stated already.

2. Small town life and what it implies generally.
Compare the population of Bournemouth (an average sized town, not a city, on the South coast of England).
(In the latest census, the town had a population of 163,441. Bournemouth is part of a built-up area known as the South East Dorset conurbation which includes Poole and Christchurch and has a combined population of 383,713, )

Now look at Wellington:

Size:
(Source: New Zealand Census, 2001)

The Wellington region (including Kapiti, Porirua, Hutt Valley and Wairarapa) has the third highest population, containing 11.3% of New Zealand's population.
Wellington City 163,824
Wellington Region 423,765

Bear in mind Bournemouth is a town, not a city. Secondly bear in mind that Wellington is the capital city of NZ. You get my drift?

If you live in Bournemouth or any similiar sized town in England you have the option of travelling to London, or the nearest big city. You don't have such an option here. Auckland is the biggest city and that is a plane ride away, a bit like, umm, having to get from Bournemouth to Paris. There are fewer roads and trains are no good for inter city travel. So you're pretty stuck if you are in a situation like mine over the holidays.

In many ways I like the place but I'm unsure that I could live here. I did live in Bournemouth for a few years but returned to London because I got a bit sick of the small town life. I missed the anonymity that London offers, the way you can simply disappear if you want to. Perhaps this may be partly the reason why many New Zealanders come to the UK.

I hope Political Umpire isn't offended by what I've just written about his home country. Perhaps he can share a few thoughts on it. I'm expecting he may tell me I'll probably like Auckland better as a place to stay for any length of time. Perhaps I will. I still have not decided my return date but when I do it will be made known on this blog.........

2006-12-22T01:33:00.000Z

A very good argument here against the prohibition of drugs, in relation to the murder victims in Ipswich having been heroin addicts.

Check it out. Prohibition kills.

2006-12-20T00:19:00.000Z

The British Tradition of Puritanism and Sleaze (and the Myth of Nancy)........

I.

I came accross a copy of a John Bunyan book yesterday in the public library. 'Puritanism' the writer on the sleeve commented, 'is undoubtedly part of the English character'. I don't know if this is an aspect of my character that I am unconscious of. But while I cannot help but agree on the whole with that statement, it is not an aspect of the national character that I take pride in by any means.

But it is alive and well in the press, in Westminster, in the pressure groups, on the web and in the homes and the streets of the United Kingdom. It can exist similtaneously in the pages of the Graun and the Torygraph. It is a big part of the heritage of both English socialism and feminism (one main reason why I don't really identify myself with either of these traditions, which are essentially as middle class as George Orwell once pointed out). It is what causes the English to be more preoccupied with the sex lives of politicians than the Latin countries. It was this Anglo heritage that almost brought down Bill Clinton.

Sexuality, when it is repressed by puritanism, becomes 'dirty'. Part of the thrill of British sex is down to the belief that something wrong is being done, that a trangression is taking place.

This came to my attention after having read an Emile Zola novel (French writer of the late 19th century). it was entitled 'The Kill' and was a depiction of the decadence of the bourgeoisie of the second empire. There were some fairly graphic sex scenes. I realised that such a novel would not have even been penned, let alone published, by any respected English Victorian author.

I remembered the scenes of 'Oliver Twist' (one of my favourite Victorian novels). I recalled the way that the fact Nancy was a prostitute had to be spelled out by Dickens in the introduction as any description of her trade would have been considered indecent in the novel. Contrast this with Zola's (Zola often being described as the 'French Dickens' for his realism) 'Nana' - an entire novel being devoted to the tragic life of a Parisian courtesan from a working class background. The sexual activities of Nana were described just as graphically as was the bourgeois sex of 'The Kill'.

Let us compare the stories of Nancy and Nana (Paris and London, a Tale of Two Cities, Nana and Nancy, a tale of two.......).
Both women come from poor working class backgrounds. Nana's upbringing is documented in Zola's earlier novel 'L'assomoir', which describes the lives of her alcoholic parents in the Goutte d'Or district of Paris. Nancy's background is only referenced briefly in her discussion with the middle class virgin 'Rose' - but is taken to be not unlike that of Nana. Here, however, is where the similarities end.

Zola does not morally endorse Nana's profession. Her tragedy stems partly from her greed. But it is made clear that Nana decided herself to embark on her profession, and is relatively in control of her work. She gets involved briefly with an abusive boyfriend but it doesn't last that long. Her downfall comes more with the corruption of one of her wealthy clients with a fetish for bondage. Like Nancy Nana has to die, but she catches typhoid).

Nancy, on the other hand, is an unwitting victim. She did not embark on her profession via her own choice but was bullied into it by Fagin and her violent partner Bill Sikes. She was 'led astray', in other words. And she is full of remorse and self pity for what she is, a trait noticably absent from the unrepentant Nana.

Nana and Nancy respectively can be seen to symbolise the British and the French attitudes towards the sex industry. Nancy remains the perpetual archetype for the downtrodden English prostitute. Every woman working the street is Nancy. Every Nancy has a Bill. The shame attached to the sex industry makes it all the sleazier.

I split this into two parts as it is long and not on a straight continuum. Please read on......

II.

The Myth of Nancy (Continued).....

We know the story of Nancy. We know that she met her death at the hands of Bill Sikes, her 'bully' (Victorian for pimp). She was a pure victim of circumstance, of poverty and of male oppression.

I'm glad in a sense that I'm not in the UK right now. The tragic murders in Ipswich will bring the puritans out with no leash, snapping their jaws and using the deaths of these poor women for their own agenda. Agenda being to attempt to prove that all sex workers are Nancy.

Despite New Zealand's law reform, this attitude has found it's way into the press here. A hack named David Harrison writes an article entitled 'Stark Truth of the Sex Trade'. He comments that the murders have shone a dismal light on the extent of prostitution in the UK. Why, I could almost be at home. I'm feeling homesick already, in fact. And guess what? The article is couresy of the good old Torygraph, given to the 'Dominion Post'. Nice one.

'Britain's dark underbelly is a seedy world of desperate, drug addicted women who sell their bodies for their, or their pimps, next fix of heroin or crack'. Harrison unquestionally cites the home office stats on the prevalence of drug addiction among the UK's streetwalkers (stats which I pointed out yesterday were unreliable).

The drugs come early, most are offered heroin by their abusers, and are forced on the streets to feed their habits and pay their pimps (bullies). Some are 'launched' as early as the ages of 12 or 13 (as was the case with Dickens's Nancy, led astray by Fagin and Sikes).

Harrison writes "The street girls (sic!!) are the most vulnerable "workers" in Britain's expanding sex trade". He puts the term workers in inverted commas.

Such an article could just as well appear today in the Graun as the language is identical, patronising while denying sex workers their rights as sex workers. I am not questioning the fact that the vulnerable women he describes exists. I am sure they do. I don't doubt that there were women like Nancy who actually existed at the time Dickens was writing either. I have no doubt that the women are predominately from poor working class backgrounds either (I don't like the term 'underclass' used on the British poor). The fact that such conditions persist is a condemnation of 21st century Britain.

But it is misleading to suggest as he does that almost all streetwalkers are as he describes. They are not. Not all of them have a pimp or bully. Not all are on drugs. Some are simply freelancers who don't want to pay a brothel keeper and do not have the means to set up themselves or work from home. But what about minders? The issue is not one of the men themselves but their behaviour, and whether or not there is coercion taking place. Buying drugs for a partner doesn't necessarily mean he is forcing you either. The options of the men are often just as limited as those of the women. It may make more sense if you are a couple of addicts for the woman to sell sex rather than for the man to do a burglary and land himself in prison. I am not condoning these conditions, simply being straight and avoiding the implication that all partners of sex workers are 'pimps'. The drugs issue will of course be partly resolved by the decriminalisation or legalisation of heroin use - but few people promote this as an option when discussing the issue of addicted sex workers.

But I'll tell you what makes me mad. It is hard for me to express how I feel about this organisation using polite language. But I'll try. Harrison quotes Diane Marshall of Britain's 'Poppy Project', the home office funded programme to provide shelter for victims of sexual trafficking. Don't get me wrong - this in itself is something I would support. I believe that women abused in such a way should be given shelter and support, and it is a good thing for the British government to provide this. But alas, they are giving the money to the wrong people for this purpose. 'Poppy' are connected to a group known as the 'Lillith Project/Eaves Housing' who have a whole other agenda.

These ladies are continuing in the notable tradition of the 'National Vigilance Association' - to stamp out vice and public immorality. They are modern Victorians. They oppose prostitution being defined as 'sex work' - insisting it should remain 'prostitution' (root - to commit an immoral act for money). Yet how do these feminists do this without condemning the fallen women they wish to save? Easy. They use the term 'prostituted women' - meaning that nobody is doing such work voluntarily. Taking their cue from the Victorian social reformers, they believe that no woman would choose to work in the sex trade, all women being forced via economic or social circumstances beyond their control.

Marshall blames the 'normalisation' of the sex trade for the murders. What utter crock. What of the women murdered by partners and men who they know, women who are not sex workers? What is to blame for that? Monogamy? Marhsall praises the 'good old days' when "it used to be taboo to go with a prostitute, something to be done furtively, something that brought shame if you were found out". Aah, the joys of English puritanism. So it is somehow not so bad if it remains a dirty secret, Ms Marshall, so as to protect the virtue of decent ladies like yourself? It is better that sex workers remain stigmatised, the lowest of the low, so as to seperate themselves from respectable women.

Please don't think that Marshall's project to rescue sex slaves is anything new or remotely radical. It isn't. Victorian groups consisting of middle class women very often indulged in such projects - providing safe houses for fallen women who wished to leave the trade. The 'female mission for the fallen' distributed tracts outside brothels protesting the exploitation of women. Dickens himself was involved in such a project.

Predictably Harrison does not interview any sex workers themselves, only police, charities, and their self appointed redeemers Ms Marshall and a group named "Women for Justice' - who claim that drug addiction, homeless rape and murder are occupational hazards of the sex trade, therefore it is hardly a career choice. Yet they don't consider the possibility that criminalisation may have something to do with this. Oh, no. If they were really worried about the safety of sex workers they would call for policy to help protect them. But they prefer they be criminalised, hence running greater risks to their safety. Nay, they and their ilk call for heavier criminalisation. Which shows their real concern is not the safety of prostitutes but rather the virtue of decent ladies like themselves.

Harrison concludes by saying that 'the world's oldest profession is really the oldest oppression'. With his social conservatism (writing for the Torygraph) and his questionable sources, along with his patronising attitude towards women and his failure to speak to any prostitutes themselves it is not surprising that he says this.

Many middle class (decent and respectable) women give sex in exchange for something, be it security ( often dressed as commitment) or status. The prostitute is a threat to the middle class lady as she direcly asks for money, hence blowing the cover and thus the facade of decency. This exposes the hypocrisy of conventional morality - and the morality of puritanical 'feminists' and their buddies on the right.

It is interesting the way the Torygraph has dropped it's rhetoric of traditional values, public morality, etc and adopted the Graun's rhetoric about the exploitation of women. I guess it puts a better and more modern sounding spin on what is ultimately conventional morality.

To conclude my heart goes out to the murder victims in Ipswich and their relatives - and I am sorry that their deaths are being exploited in this way by the usual suspects.

2006-12-18T22:21:00.000Z

Prostitution and NZ Law Reform.....

I see a man is being held on suspicion over the Ipswich murders (see link). It is too early to assume him to be guilty, he could well just be a lonely man who is an easy suspect, having known the murdered women and being a client of sex workers. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I met yesterday with Catherine Healy of the New Zealand prostitute's collective. I had a very interesting discussion with her over the effects of the law reform. I also spoke with a couple of workers who were visiting the building.

Surprisingly the first one I spoke with said it had made little difference to her personally, she pretty much continued working from home as she had done prior to the reform. However, when pressed she stated that she no longer has to register with the police when advertising in a newspaper. Even prior to decriminalisation, NZ had a relaxed attitude in comparison with Britain, with the police not always enforcing the law. Juliette also told me that she could be more upfront when talking with clients on the phone. Another woman told me that the law reform felt like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders as the threat of being busted no longer hung over her.

Something notable about this law is that it is the result of vocal campaigning by sex workers since the late 1980s, campaigning for their right to work as sex workers. It has not been handed down from on high by some thinktank who believe they are protecting the public from a social evil or containing it. Hence the law is based upon the human rights of sex workers as sex workers. It was won in parliament by a narrow majority, and it's opponents were largely on the religious right. It has received the support of most women's groups in the country, and of the liberal left. Ambivalence was also voiced by some residents groups, who feared there would be an increase in both streetwalkers and brothels. Their fears have been unfounded as there has not been a great increase in women choosing to work in the sex industry.

One thing Catherine made clear was that we cannot expect miracles to result from a change in the law. The problems associated with the sex industry have not all dissapeared, and it is doubtful they all ever will as every profession has it's problems and hazards. But there are a few things worthy of note.

Relations between sex workers and police have improved, and violence from clients is more likely to be reported. A murderer in the Christchurch region (who killed two prostitutes) was caught quickly due to the co-operation of sex workers with the police. Being free of police harrasment provides a better environment to work from, and due to the scrap of the pimping charges some women have chosen to take their partners with them as bodyguards or minders to take the license plates of the cars they get into. As sex workers are no longer illegal there has been a slight shift in the social stigma attached to them - they are no longer criminals but are workers with rights under the law.

Something that particularly struck me was the fact that there has been a shift away from brothel work and an increase in freelancers - women working themselves from home or in collectives. Brothel keepers have in fact been complaining that they cannot find enough workers anymore as women do not want to pay the shift fees they charge - they also prefer to work their own hours and charge their own prices.

It is little wonder that the brothel keepers opposed the model of decriminalisation. They were rather in favour of the Dutch model (State licensed brothels) being imported to NZ. The self interest here is pretty obvious. Those who advocate this model for Britain would do well to bear in mind that what they are advocating is a boss's law - not one that enshrines the rights of workers. Marxists would do well to think of the struggle between capital and labour, and remember which side they are supposed to be on. In the Auckland area brothel owners with massage licenses had a rather questionable relationship with local police prior to decriminalisation - they demanded that police clamped down on unlicensed premises, which clearly was not in the interest of freelancers. As I have stated before, one should not confuse legalisation with decriminalisation. They are not the same thing. Sex worker's rights groups almost unanimously oppose the former and support the latter, as do I.

It is also a misconception that most streetwalkers are also drug addicts. Some are (as were the women murdered in Ipswich) but not all are. The stats from the British Home Office on this matter (that 90+% of streetworkers are addicted to heroin or crack) are misleading as well as self serving, as they are taken from the women who use the government's drug treatment programme. In Catherine Healy's experience with street workers some are drug users but they don't make up the majority. That tallies with my own experience with sex workers. I have known women who work on the street and not all have been drug users. It obviously depends on the area too - districts which are struck with poverty and crime in general tend to have a higher percentage of drug users. Heroin and cocaine use is not as widespread in NZ as in Britain, crystal meth seems to be more of a thing here. But there is at least a needle exchange service for intravenous drug users.

But I should also stress that I support the rights of drug users as well as sex workers. If a sex worker is also a drug user (or the other way round) she will need rights as both. Hence my support for the legalisation of all drugs, or at least their decriminalisation.

We also spoke about the misconception that most (even all) migrant sex workers are forced into the trade. This is not the case in Britain and neither is the case in NZ. The main problem facing migrant workers in the sex industry here is their illegal status (as illegal immigrants, not as sex workers). They tend to come from South East Asia rather than Eastern Europe. Some come specifically to work in the sex industry, some arrive for other reasons. But the issues are the same. While it cannot be doubted that trafficking is an issue, it is wrong to assume that all migrant sex workers are slaves. They aren't. Claiming that they are is counterproductive as inflating the numbers is not conducivr to actually formulating policy to tackle the problem. The United Nations recognises that there is no reliable data in the way of human trafficking. If there was then the problem would be closer to being tackled.

A couple more items relating to the law in NZ. A few councils have managed to create by laws restricting the sale of sexual acts from certain zones. These have been opposed by the collective as being contrary to the law, and some have been repealed. Others have remained. What complicates matters is that a brothel in this country does not have the numbers clause as with Britain. In NZ one woman working from home would be effectively keeping a brothel, whereas in Britain it must be more than one.

It is also illegal to practise unsafe sex in exchange for money in NZ. While the collective opposed this clause as it could conceivably be used against sex workers, most sex workers have reported that the law works in their favour. If a client asks for activity without protection they can simply tell him that it is illegal and he will normally drop the matter. Client insistence has usually been the reason that some sex workers admit to practising unprotected sex in many countries.

2006-12-15T22:14:00.000Z

More on Pinochet...

Political Umpire sent me this link. It is by the former British ambassador to Chile and reads in my view as little but an apology for Pinny.

Skilton writes:

"Many Chileans see Pinochet as the man who saved them from the social unrest, economic chaos and anarchy of the Allende years, and prevented Chile from becoming a second Cuba. They also see him as the man who presided over Chile’s remarkable economic success, which brought jobs, homes, healthcare, etc, to vast swaths of Chile’s previously impoverished population."

These 'many Chileans' he speaks of seem to comprise mostly of the wealthy and the conservative middle classes, who clearly had reason to wish for the preservation of the status quo. A status quo which was indeed threatened by not only the Allende regime itself but the hopes it stirred in the working class and the poor. Economic chaos and anarchy was brought about largely by the deliberate sabotage of the CIA (Richard Nixon having made clear he did not want Allende in power). The human rights abuses were what Pinny and his mates saw as necessary to put the masses in line, and quench once and for all their hopes for a better future. This was the cost of 'Chile's economic success'. Torture, death, corpses. And who precisely did the economic success serve?

The novelist Isabelle Allende pointed to the fact that this 'economic success' did not benefit those at the bottom of the social ladder. It made the rich rich and the poor poorer. It may have made the middle classes better off, but not the poor. Social inequality on the whole rose during that period. Any trickle down effect was minor, and it's costs were great, rather like Thatcher's Britain. I have heard similiar arguments in fact made about Thatcher - that the British economy was in a better state after she had finished than before she was in power. They do not convince me. If such measures are indeed necessary why have the Scandinavian countries prospered and been stable during years of social democracy?

Skilton also writes:

"But it is undeniable, if uncomfortable, that by the time Pinochet left office in 1990, Chile was in a far better state than when he started."

This is a red herring as nobody knows what Chile would look like today had the coup not occurred. Allendes Chile was not to be. The great powers would not allow it to be.

2006-12-15T02:26:00.000Z

On Prostitution Law........

Many well meaning folk on the blogosphere and in the UK press have been calling for a legalisation of prostitution in the form of State licensed brothels following the Ipswich murders.

They are wrong on several grounds.

To start with, legalising something does not automatically remove the stigma attached to it, at least not straight away. And in the case of prostitution it is debatable as to whether it ever can be totally removed, although society does seem to be taking a less condemnatory approach to sex workers than it has done in the past.

Legalisation of the sex industry will require more State regulation. Women will likely have to register as prostitutes with the British State, something many of them will understandably be loathe to do. This may also have the effect of institutionalising women in the sex industry.

Licensing sex establishments will not stop managers from charging extortionate 'rent' for the women to work on the premises. Compulsory medical examinations have been suggested as part of the package, a law which would in practice be discriminatory. The mentality behind the proposition is not unlike that of the 'Contagious Diseases Act' which was proposed in the Victorian era.

"The Acts made the assumption," Megara Bell points out,

that prostitution was a permanent and necessary evil. They condoned male sexual access to fallen women and were specifically directed at women in order to protect the health of men. If the priority had been to fight VD, then inspecting the prostitutes' clients would also have been required by the Acts. However, the assumption was that, while men would be offended at the intrusion, the women were already so degraded that further humiliations were of no consequence. ["The Fallen Woman in Fiction and Legislation"]"

She is right on that score. It has not been proposed that clients of sex workers be examined as they would indeed find it intrusive. The assumption is made that the women are already degraded to an extent where being 'rounded up' weekly or fortnightly by a doctor (as sex workers in Germany described it) would be of little consequence to them. The assumption is wrong as some women have, in fact, found it intrusive and discriminatory when and where it has been practised.

If prostitution were legalised a two tier system of workers would be the result. The law in Holland has not eradicated streetwalking. Women who do not register and work in licensed establishments do not benefit from the perks of being legal, but on the other hand they do not suffer the downside of having to pay brothel keepers on top of their taxes. They are hence underground, but they retain the ability to be freelancers. Neither do they have to register with the State as prostitutes.

Streetwalking will remain as many (not all) women on the streets have drug problems, and the indoor market is known to be highly intolerant of drug use. Due to the prohibtion of narcotics we can assume that State licensed brothels would be even stricter in this regard. Addicted sex workers would therefore have to find their income elsewhere and still fall victim to State persecution.

New Zealand has taken the step of decriminalisation. It is too early yet for me to say much about this, but expect this to be updated as I have arranged to meet the collective next week sometime. But from what I know so far this seems to be the most sensible route.

All laws regulating prostitution or consensual sexual activity should be scrapped, including the 'living off immoral earnings" charge. Women would then be able to work safely from home and have men on the premises for security reasons without fear of them being prosecuted. These men may or may not be their husbands or partners. Or women could work in groups of two or more for safety reasons. Sex workers should have access to services such as non discriminatory medical care.
They should be able to register as self employed with the taxman (not the same as registering as a prostitute with the Home Office or whoever the body would be) and therefore work as freelancers without having illegal status the way that their Dutch counterparts do.

The State should only intervene when it is a public order issue - hence there may be a case for limiting street prostitution to certain zones, which would be good for safety reasons too. I will have to find out more, but it appears that in NZ the level of street prostitution has dropped since decriminalisation, and more women are in fact working from home.

Watch this space.

2006-12-14T00:51:00.000Z

Statement from the English Collective of Prostitutes on Ipswich Murders.........

When prostitute women are not safe, no woman is safe

Gemma Adams and a woman the police believe to be Tania Nicol, have now both been found tragically murdered in Ipswich. We pass our deepest condolences to their loved ones. A number of women also working as sex workers have gone missing in the area in recent years. In order to save lives and not to repeat the horror of the Yorkshire Ripper, who was allowed to continue killing until 13 women had been murdered, the Suffolk police must not use the criminality imposed on sex workers by the prostitution laws as an excuse to deny women the protection we are all entitled to by law.

We demand:

an immediate temporary amnesty from arrest for prostitute women and clients so that anyone can come forward to give information to this inquiry without fear of criminalisation or harassment; (Previously, women with outstanding arrest warrants either couldn’t contact the police or when they did were arrested. (See Criminalisation: the price women and children pay, English Collective of Prostitutes response to the government’s review of the prostitution laws, December 2004)

an end to street sweeps, arrests and ASBOs against prostitute women and clients which have forced women into darker, more isolated areas making them more vulnerable to rape, violence and even murder. Women working under increased pressure are less able to look out for each other, have less time to check out clients and are forced to take more risks;

a change in police priorities; money and resources being used to prosecute women and clients for consenting sex must be re-directed into vigorously pursuing violent men and protection of all women

following the example of New Zealand, decriminalisation of the prostitution laws, which by criminalising sex workers signal that women’s lives are not worth much. The police and courts don’t protect women and violent men think they can get away with attacks.

Comment: Currently being in NZ I intend to find out more about how the prostitution law reform has worked out, if possible arranging to meet and interview some sex workers via the collective or union. I can say, however, that I was very upset when hearing about the murders back in Britain. Criminalising prostitutes only endangers them further, and I feel nothing but anger, contempt and scorn for those 'feminists' who insist that these women continue to be criminalised, socially stigmatised and marginalised so as to protect the virtue of 'respectable women' like themselves. I can see through their rhetoric. But they quite happily scream 'my body, my life' when abortion is the issue at stake, not seeing the contradiction and the irony. I'm kind of glad I'm not in the UK right now.

A feminist once remarked to me that her opposition to prostition stemmed not from the effect the work has on individual prostitutes but rather from the way that the sex trade implies that ALL women's bodies are commodities. Clearly she has a lot to learn. All women, yep, respectable ladies too, have used sexuality as a bargaining chip. Respectable bourgeois women have used this bargain for marriage and security. The prostitute is a thorn in the side of the bourgeois feminist as she directly asks for money, thus exposing how fragile the mythical virginity and purity of the middle class lady actually is. All the prostitute is doing is exposing a truism about sexual relations and the organisation of society, she is not creating it.
She is simply being explicit about it, and renting her sexual services rather than selling them for life (as is the case with many bourgeois marriages). The middle class feminists who support criminalising prostitutes are in fact supporting the status quo.

I'll also add that I mean no disrespect to those sensible feminists who see through the good woman/bad woman myth and realise the harm caused by the prostitution laws, and the hypocrisy behind them. Meanwhile I hope this bastard gets caught soon so he kills no more.

Meanwhile, vulnerable women with addictions and deep emotional problems (who do make up a large number of streetwalkers) could be greatly helped by at least being given heroin on prescription (ideally an all out end to prohibition will be best but that does not seem likely in the near future). And there should be more access to psychotherapy and counselling on the NHS. The mental health system in the UK is a shambles.

2006-12-13T23:53:00.000Z

Death of a Tyrant.....

Now I'm not one to gloat over anyone's death. But I couldn't help feeling a tinge of gladness and thus making an exception when hearing of the demise of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator. It is a pity he escaped justice, but having expressed no regrets I would doubt he'd have reached heaven (if such a place exists, and I believe PInny thought it did. The Christian God is said to look into the heart. For all his observances of formalities Pinny doesn't make the grade as he was an unrepentant sinner. To be forgiven requires contrition, and this characteristic was noticably lacking in le general. This is going by the teachings of Catholicism, the religion Pinochet professed belief in. He'd have been better off being a fundie prod, as that faith does not require ongoing evaluation of one's character and deeds, just initial credence. Roman Catholicism though (at least as I understand it) gives no such free ticket to heaven.

Margaret Thatcher expressed sadness at the death of her best mate Pinny. All I can say is I'm glad she's sad. But she can consle herself with the thught that she is getting on in years and before long may be joining her friend in the heat of the inferno. Not a pleasant place but at least they'll be friends reunited.

I won't upload a picture as I don't want Pinny's ugly mug tainting my blog.

2006-12-13T23:29:00.000Z

Trip Update....

I arrived back in Wellington last night from the South Island trip. I have to say that I was unable to see all that I would have liked to, as we were with my partner's parents who wanted to visit relatives there. We may well do a trip there again before we leave, as well as seeing more of the North.

After leaving Xchurch I spent a few days on the Otago peninsula, close to Dunedin. Dunedin was a Scottish settlement rather than an English one like Xchurch. It was fairly quiet partly because it is a university city and it was off season, students were away. However, I noticed it had a lot of art and culture for what is essentially a small city (at least by English standards!). Paid a visit to the gallery and viewed some interesting paintings, some were local and some were imports from Europe. There were some interesting shops too. Went in a shop in the Octagon (city centre, main square) named Gloria, where the propietor sells some unusual clothes and jewellry, mst of it is handmade and some of it she makes herself in the shop. The hat I bought was made by her daughter who is a local folk singer. I must shamedly admit that I didn't visit the bird colonies, partly due to problems with transportation and partly due to poor weather.

After that we stopped at Wanaka (a very charming lake town surrounded by mountains, not so touristy as Queenstown) and then headed for Motueka. Had a look at the scenery on the west coast (including the famous pancake rocks) with it's dense vegetation, and went on a flying fox ride over a valley. Was pleasantly surprised to find the water on the beach in Motueka warm enough for a swim. Also came accross a Santa Claus with a genuine white beard!

That is another thing I find strange, Christmas in the summer and summer in December! As there are no dark nights there are noticably fewer lights in people's windows. Christmas was initially based on the Northern Winter solstice (Christ's birthday being placed a few days after, or it may well have been put on the same day as the Roman Mithras festival). Most religious festivals of light are geared to the Northern hemisphere. I imagine I might find the Southern winter hard (was I staying here that long) as there is no festival of lights to break it up. Perhaps winter solstice should be declared a public holiday down here. But in a way it is nice to have a summer solstice Xmas!

2006-12-05T22:40:00.000Z

Holiday Update.....

Posting has been a little sparse lately due to a lack of time. However, I'll use the time I do have by beginning with describing my visit to the city of Christchurch.

I heard it said a few times that Kiwis are 'more English than the English'. I never quite saw this, they have always struck me as being more like Aussies with manners (no doubt political umpire will have something to say on this, as well as on the rest of my post!)

However, I think this may just apply to Christchurch, which was in fact modelled on an English city, built on a river with a university in the centre. And yes, it has stone builidings and spires! And men in straw boating hats punting tourists along the river. The English class structure was also intended to be replicated. While the founder of Wellington tried this there and failed, I think the founder of Xchurch may have succeeded.

I stayed with a middle aged gay couple. Refined gentlemen, if anything classic English eccentrics in the upper class sense! They have a slight fascination with British royalty, and are converts to Roman Catholicism. I will also have the pleasure to greet them on their visit to England next year. I had their permission to write about them here. I also had the pleasure to meet a couple of their friends - a Cambridge educated Mathematician with an accent to match, a white beard and a slightly snobby wife. Could have been at home, albeit not London. I'll upload a picture later.....

2006-12-01T08:31:00.000Z

I heard today that a Pakistani court has ordered Misbah Rana (aka Molly Campbell) back to Scotland while a Scottish court decides the verdict on her custody (see link)

.

According to her father (who she wishes to stay with) she is so distressed she say she 'will run away again'). She surely does not like her mum.

Meanwhile her mother states that she is looking very forward to the 'reunion'. Not much of a 'reunion' of the other person involved does not want to see you, is it? I have before on this topic, but any parent who puts their own wishes above those of the child does not really have their best interests at heart. From all empirical evidence it appears that Misbah's father is not by any means abusive, nor does he wish to 'force her into an arranged marriage' as the British press had previously assumed due to their prejudice. If this mother ever wants any respect from her daughter, respect on which any kind of relationship is conditional upon, she should respect her wishes simply by letting her be where she wants to be. Which appears to be in Pakistan with her father and sister.

I have commented before on this issue both here

and here.

This story upsets me as it is a case where a parent is failing to see a child as a person in her own right but rather as an extension of herself. This mentality remains for me a source of grievance wherever I encounter it, and it causes no end of heartache and damage among young people.

Society rarely suggests that an adult should be forced to continue living with a spouse if they no longer wish to. Why therefore are children still treated as chattel of their parents in this way? Ms Campbell clearly does not want the voice of her daughter to be heard, and she is patronisingly silencing her when she does attempt to be heard. If the courts take into account what is best for the child it may well seem that the father is more of a responsible caretaker with a more stable life, not subjecting her to live in what she defines as a 'hellhole' (which was how Misbah described her mother's home in Scotland).

2006-11-27T21:03:00.000Z

For those of you who didn't know the star spangelled banner was initially a British pub song, the tune of which was later adapted for the Americans as their anthem. Check out this groovy video and song here.

2006-11-27T01:29:00.000Z

Dirty Blonde......

Back in London I couldn't resist getting a copy of 'Dirty Blonde' - the published snippets of the diaries of Courtney Love, my fave rock goodess along with PJ Harvey.

A few reviewers expressed the belief that the item was too personal to be published. But then she's always been a girl who wears her heart on her sleeve, it's part of her whole persona. A creative mind is revealed, intelligent and thoughtful although rather confused and messed up at times, as you'd expect.

It can be said about rockers that they are not simply musicians but works of art in their entire persona. Their lives can be read as works of art.

A cynic may dispute this, and believe me to be a dupe of the consumer celebrity culture when I say this. But I believe there to be a difference between musicians with some talent (although we may dispute which rockers have talent and those who lack it) and the mindless celebrities who are famous for simply being idiots on reality shows. That kind of celebrity is instant, but the celebrity of a serious rocker is not.

The personality of celebrity side by side with the talent (of art, music literature) appeared to have been first personified by Frida Kahlo, the Mexican painter with her endless self portraits in her floral dresses. Although I'm not her greatest fan, it would be wrong to suggest she was talentless or broke no ground in the way of art. Her self revealing paintings were a new trend in the sense that they directly attempted to depict what was in her psyche.

It appears that Courtney Love gets slammed quite often for doing through music what Kahlo did via art. The feminist movement has claimed Frida, regardless of the fact that she was not herself a political feminist. Nor was Sylvia Plath, another feminist heroine. Love does in fact describe herself as such, but the movement does not quite know what to do with her, for obvious reasons.

2006-11-25T19:39:00.000Z

The Hitch and Mother Teresa...

I read Xtopher Hitchens' exposure of the arch reactionary Mother Teresa of Calcutta yesterday (see link). I know it is a few years old but it's still worth a read for those who still harbour any illusions of the saintliness of this character.

I had long disliked her brand of Christianity - one that proclaims itself 'apolitical', one that advocates the giving of charity yet never questions a system which allows so many people to starve or die of treatable diseases, while others have many times what they need. This type of Christianity is in fact not 'apolitical' but is in fact deeply conservative, as Hitchens stresses.
It rests nicely with the status quo and big capitalists have no issue with it - in fact they actively praise and encourage it. At times they donate to its adherents to assuage their guilt, to salvage their reputations, or to buy favour from the Lord.

However, the crimes of MT go further than this. Her 'apoliticism' proved itself to be a sham when on a visit to Nicuagara in the 1980s she criticised the Sandinistas while remaining silent on the crimes of the US backed Contras. Despite the existence of weapons of mass destruction, racism and all the other ills in the world she explicitly believed that abortion and contraception were 'the greatest threats to world peace'. Although I deem it extreme and untrue to hold abortion to be *the* greatest threat to world peace, I can somewhat see the logic behind such an idea. But contraception?? Yet MT's opposition to birth control did not spur her to oppose Indira Ghandhi's coercive population control policy, which involved forcible sterilisations. You'd think someone who believed birth control to be such an evil would have something to say about such a practice going on in the very region where they work. But not MT. Clearly her desire to curry favour and praise from her host government (one of this world) was stronger than her professed ideals.

Not just this but she accepted money from white collar thieves while she ran her shelters on an ethos not unlike that of the Victorian workhouses. Money lay in her bank account while orphans under her care led an existence not unlike that of Oliver Twist. She refused painkillers to the terminally ill in her 'shelters for dying destitutes' due to her belief that suffering was holy, those dying in agony from cancer being united with Christ's sufferings on the cross. However, the Christian religion teaches that holy pains such as poverty and fasting should be voluntary. Jesus could have avoided death on the cross but he chose not to as he believed it to have been part of his mission. Jesus healed the sick and relieved them of pain, he didn't tell them to accept it and suffer as it would somehow purify their sin and hence unite them with his future suffering on the cross.

Hitchens is a declared atheist but that doesn't discredit his arguments. The paragraph above should show it to be possible to be a believing Christian while opposing the hypocrisy and obnoxious theology of Mother T.

2006-11-25T19:15:00.000Z

Meet the Feebles.........

Lord of the Rings this aint. Nor is it suitable for children. But anybody interested in the career of Peter Jackson should check out his production of Meet the Feebles.

It is, to sum it up in one sentence, a very dark take on the Muppets. A strong stomach, a black humour with a taste for the macabre or the degenerate is required. Meet Heidi the Hippo, the Miss Piggy equivalent. Tragically in love and ever faithful to her husband Bletch the Walrus, a criminal adulterer whose only true love is money. Now our poor hippo has a weight problem, which is excacerbated by the heartlessness of the walrus (she addresses her pain via her sweet tooth) In turn her weight gain makes him use the pleasures of his new girlfriend, a slinky, model thin feline, even more. A catty cat who takes open pleasure at the pain of the hippo. Vicious and tragic circle.

Meanwhile the rest of the cast have their own problems. The playboy rabbit Harry has some ghastly illness which his doctor thinks is AIDS. Wynard the frog is a Vietnam veteran with a severe drug addiction.

The show reaches its climax when Heidi the Hippo decides she can take no more. After a failed suicide attempt when Bletch finally decides to ditch her because she is past her prime, her feline rival makes one last jibe at her while she has a gun in her mouth. That mistake costs the cat her life - and most of the other feebles! Heidi turns the gun on her and proceeds with a massacre of the entire studio.

Great fun if you like this kind of thing (and I do). You may enjoy it simply if you are a fan of the original muppets (as I am).
Lets hope Kermie stays faithful to Miss Piggy is all I can say for now.......

Update/note: A few years back I wrote a spoof rap involving Kermie, Miss Piggy and Kermie's new girlfriend, in which Miss Piggy's reaction was not unlike that of Heidi the hippo! Kermie lapped up the attention and was ultra laid back in his classic style while the girls were at each other's throats threatening blue murder. I'll try to dig it out. Not sure if the Muppet presenters will want it though. I'd like to know what Jackson thinks though.

2006-11-25T01:19:00.000Z

10 Things I'd never do....

Political Umpire tagged me on this so I'll have a think....

1. Buy to a coldplay cd.
2. Live in the home counties.
3. Go to a Pinkfloyd concert.
4. Eat in Macdonalds.

Thinking on it......

5. Some of it which enters my mind is rather too filthy to mention so I'll lay off the smut.
6. Take certain drugs which are known to have a link with madness.
7. Listen to any daft conspiracy theories
8. Make excuses for people who insist on behaving like jerks.
9. Have an affair with someone else's husband ( I cannot make promises about one night stands, I lack the moral confidence to express any certainity about this matter!!). Hope you at least appreciate my honesty here!
10. Let the bastards grind me down (at least I'll try there!)

I think I should tag someone, so I'll try Maria. I know he doesn't have a blog but I'll tag Paddy nonetheless. And neprimye (sorry for the misspelling!!). Other friends of this blog have already been tagged. There are a few others but I forget their address and I'm having a bit of trouble with this machine (cannot seem to open a new window without losing this one, have to check out why and how...) But if they are reading this I'll tag Kris and David Duff too.....

2006-11-23T21:14:00.000Z

Men Will be Men.....

A short note to follow on from my post on youth and sexuality.

A few years ago I bought into the myths promoted by a large section of the feminist movement. I believed my sexist and abusive father was the way he was not because of his individual character but because a system called 'patriarchy' planted the idea in his brain that women were inferior and it was the mark of a real man to be a misogynist arsehole. I did not realise that I was doing what my long suffering mother had always done throughout the course of her marriage - I was making excuses for him. If the thesis was true then all men would be like him. The fact is they are not. Sexism simply gives men like him a rationale for their behaviour. If it wasn't sexism it would be something else.

I also had other views. While I supported the rights of sex workers (as I still do), I also believed there would come a day when men would no longer feel the need for pornography. I swallowed the patronising attitude promoted towards women in the porn industry. I just failed to grasp the fact that visual stimulation is a legitimate aspect of male sexuality. I failed to recognise that men need their privacy, their fantasies, just as women do. I fell into the trap of politicising the differences between male and female sexuality, and hence demonised aspects of male sexuality I did not understand or relate to. But guess what? My male partners have found it extremely difficult to relate to aspects of my sexuality and fantasies. Sometimes they expressed boredom, other times they felt as disturbed by my theme based fantasies as I was by their visual ones.

It is true that women do often feel uncomfortable if their male partners use porn. They often complain about feeling unattractive, not good enough etc. Having had such feelings myself in relationships I can readily empathise with this. But what is at play here is our own insecurity in ourselves, which often manifests in sexual jealousy. It is not porn that is really the problem here but our own lack of self esteem. We can criticise the sex industry for promoting one standard of female beauty but that is as far as we should take it. It is wrong, so wrong, of the feminist movement to capitalise like this on women's insecurities and tell us that we must continue with the thankless task so typical of the female sex - trying to make men change. Trying, in other words, to make them more like us. It won't happen.

We can't plead with men to be 'nice'. We have to fact the fact that there is an aspect of male sexuality that is predatory, and of course it has it's mirror image in the submissive aspect of female sexuality. So how does this relate to my post on youth?

Teenage boys are walking barrels of testostorone, ruled by their hormones. So, of course, are teenage girls ruled by their hormones but it expresses itself differently. Boys will say anything to get sex. So will some full grown men who lack scruples to know any better. So rather than hopelessly dream of the day men will change we should learn to respect ourselves and not put ourselves in vulnerable situations where we may get hurt. This is what we should be telling our daughters.

In relation to the current issue of binge drinking and date rape - women do not 'get themselves raped'. We are entitled to go out drinking without fear of being molested or having our drinks spiked. On the other hand we should still be cautious and not get so out of it we don't know what the hell we are doing, drink ourselves unconscious and hence put ourselves at risk. It is foolish. But then I'd encourage nobody to drink themselves to that stage due to the great amount of other accidents caused by excessive alcohol consumption.

I hope none of this has sounded like male bashing. I simply believe that men and women are different, with their respective strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes these traits compliment each other but other times they appear to clash, leading to distrust between the sexes. Rather than seeking to change men it would be far more productive if feminists could make the effort to understand them (and asking them to understand us better of course). That would go a long way to improving relations between the sexes.

2006-11-23T20:36:00.000Z

Anglo Youth - 'Respect' and Sexuality

It has been interesting to note that New Zealand seems to have the same issues with the youth of today as does Britain. I read a column yesterday in which a Kiwi journalist (Pamela Stirling) was praising Britain's approach with the use of Asbos for anti social youth. The column was titled 'It's all about Respect', and the word was used more than once. Not very subtle in her admiration of the British prime minister.

Meanwhile the same magazine had an article on teenage pregnancy. Evidently New zealand has the third highest rate in the world, Britain being second, and the highest I believe is the United States.

I have long wondered as to why English speaking countries seem to have this problem and have yet to come to any firm conclusions. Conservatives tend to blame it on too much liberalism while liberals tend to blame it on too much....Conservatism!

I think this is far too simplistic from either view. The Netherlands is often praised by liberals and pro choicers for it's liberal approach to youth sexuality and it's sex education programme, and they point to the fact it has a low rate of teenage pregnancy. But again, I don't quite see this. Why does Britain's rate of teenage pregnancy continue to rise in spite of the programmes of the last few years? Surely if the assertions made about the Dutch stats were true the opposite would be happening!

The reasons behind the Dutch stats are most probably of a cultural nature. For one thing - The Netherlands have a stronger family structure in their society than does Britain. The reasons behind the phenomena in the English speaking nations may also be economic - the monetarist policies they have been subjected to has contributed to greater social atomisation and weakened traditional family structures, families which help children grow through puberty and become adults. Children in lower socio economic groups also tend to have sex at an earlier age.

I'm a cynic about the usefulness of sex education as is currently constituted. If it is failing in it's aim it is simply not working and another approach needs to be taken, the format needs to change. Perhaps schools should also recognise the pressure children are often under to have sex before they are emotionally mature enough. Negative sexual encounters can emotionally scar youth and sometimes blight their adulthood (needless to say girls being more affected by this then boys, some of whom are taken advantage of by older men). It is difficult what with the sexualisation of children in our culture, but teachers and parents should try to express firmly that children should not capitulate to the pressure if they do not feel ready to have sex.
Many young girls have sex not because they want to but because they wish to placate their male partners, fearing the relationship may end otherwise. This is one area in which feminism has made no impact and I am doubtful if it ever will, experience telling me that men will always be men. So it may simply be down to women and girls to be firm and give boys and men a message that will be clear enough for them to hear.

2006-11-23T02:47:00.000Z

The Crisis of Anglo Conservatism

An interesting snippet here about the involvement of the elusive brethren sect with the New Zealnd National Party (equivalent of the British Tories). But I personally don't see any difference between this and accepting help or funding from any self interested body on the part of a political party. Businessmen and media barons spring readily to mind so I don't see the big fuss about a religious sect.

I notice that the British Tories, meanwhile, are contemplating no longer drawing inspiaration from their national hero Winston Churchill but rather from Guardian journalists!. The gap between New Labour and the Tories hence closes even further. In the absence of proportional representation Britain could come to resemble a one party State. Worrying. What does it say about the Graunistas though?

2006-11-23T02:31:00.000Z

Posting has been a little sparse this past week, precisely because I'm out of the country.

My partner and I are in Wellington, New Zealand for the next few months. It's a very scenic coastal city (built upon hills), far far smaller than London with a much slower pace of life. The pace of life is similiar to that on the South coast of England, somewhat like Brighton. There is also plenty of greenery around, and I'm staying just by a nature reserve in an outer suburb (which is not very far from the city centre, a short bus ride in fact!). After just ten minutes in town Mr Contraire (he was born and grew up here) bumped into an old schoolfriend of his outside the city library (which by the way has a great selection of books, I found a few rare Emile Zola translations).

The pattern of my blogging will be pretty much the same (apart from late next week and the following fornight when I'll be touring the South island). Posts may focus more on international affairs and I will of course be commenting on politics here, as well as the occasional comment on Britain from what I can glean on the web and on BBC news.

I would upload a picture for you but I'm using an apple mac and am not sure how to save it yet.

2006-11-16T17:31:00.000Z

Queens Speech

Like much of the population I am extremely cynical and almost apathetic about the contents of yesterday's Queen's Speech. The only thing that really bothers me right now are the proposals for police to be able to evict troublesome tenants almost immediately, and after that they become 'intentionally homeless'(see link). Anti social neighbours are indeed a problem for some people, but what does turfing them out onto the street do to address the issues behind their behaviour?

But what always springs to my mind is the uselessness of the monarchy. It is a farce as we all know these policies are not the invention of the monarch but of the government.

Yet those who are in favour of a Republic must think of viable alternatives. We do not want a US- style presidential system in which the prime minister has unlimited powers (he already has too much as it stands). It would also be pretty useless and a waste of resources having any Head of State that is a mere figurehead, as with some countries. A modern republic would need a whole new constitution. It would need an elected second chamber and decentralisation of political power, voting reform and a proper chance for citizens to participate in an active democracy. Not the sham we have now.

2006-11-15T12:53:00.000Z

Now I'm one angry girl. My numerous posts sum up my feelings about the so called 'pro choice' lobby. But I get even sicker when men (who don't know as they are not likely to ever be in such a position) repeat that drivel and tell me I am a brainwashed reactionary.

To sum it up - I met a friend for a drink on Saturday. He's a nice enough man, but regarding certain things he does not have a clue. I have long asked him that we agree to differ about the abortion issue - but he always manages to sneak it in, somehow.

According to him having an abortion should be just like having a tooth out (note - what does he possibly know??). Any woman whose experience is somewhat deeper than this is affected by 'religious propaganda'. I have heard him sprout this garbage more than once so I'm no longer affected by it, any more than I am affected by his ludicrous assertions that a human foetus is nothing but a piece of dead matter.

But what really make me angry was his claim (which of course he could not back up) that more women are pro abortion than men, as we are 'directly affected by it'.

Exactly. We are directly affected it and this will just as likely make as anti as pro. Like the woman who cried as she told me of her good for nothing ex who emotionally blackmailed her into the procedure. She is not the only one. What of the women who become pro life when they deeply regret their abortions?

According to this gentleman women who differ from his line are brainwashed by 'Catholic propaganda' - while women who are proud of their abortions, like the obnoxious Zoe Williams, are right on. The pro choice (sic) lobby never lie, while pro lifers lie with every breathe they exhale.

Tosser.

How dare he tell me, as a woman, what I should feel? He can argue all he wants with me about legislation, but how dare he tell me my feelings are wrong and a result of brainwashing?.

He backed up his assertions about women being more numerically in favour of abortion than men by citing that more women in Westminster are pro abortion than the men. Firstly he had no data to prove this, as secondly, what made him think that the views of the political caste in Westminster are representative of the population on this issue?

Other data tells a different story (see link). So did a YouGov poll last year, where more men were in favour of unlimited abortion than women. And more women were anti.

It doesn't surprise me if more men than women are in favour of unlimited abortion. Makes sense, doesn't it? If you don't want the responsibilities of fatherhood you can easily shirk them by paying for the 'operation'. If she doesn't want it? Say you will walk out and leave the child with no father.

Men have no right to lecture me, especially when they get their facts blatantly wrong.

Note: This also shows that the feminist movement do not represent the views or feelings of most women, especially due to the way that it ignores the feelings of women who are not happy with their experiences of abortion. Rather it only seems to represent the views of a self proclaimed 'sisterhood' whose views are only representative of themselves.

I won't deny that I am sick to death of the consumerist rhetoric of 'choice'. I am sick of being labelled 'anti choice' by hypocrites who cannot stand to be labelled what is usually the descriptive term in their case of 'pro abortion'. I am sick of being told that my view on this matter is 'anti woman', with the implication that I am some kind of a self hater who doesn't know what is good for me. I am sick of being told that unrestricted foeticide is a necessary condition for the liberation of my gender. I am sick of seeing people express moral outrage over prostitution but have no problem at all with unlimited abortion. Most of all I am sick of the neglect of the feminist and 'pro choice' (face it, they are not really pro choice as they are only interested in one choice - abortion) movements over the issue of forced abortions in China, coercive family planning policies in the third world, and of course the social and economic pressure that exists in the West for women to abort. Along with the emotional blackmail by relatives and most of all the male partners who have impregnated them in the first place.

On the other hand I would like to point to the good pro choicers who do recognise the ethical dilemma regarding abortion. The ones who do recognise the issue of coercion, and who do not resort to name calling and derogatory labels. They can relax, this post is not about them. It is about the disingenous characters described above, who parrot lies as well as offend.

2006-11-15T12:45:00.000Z

The Guardian seems to do a great disservice to female writers. Instead of employing journalists of integrity it pays airhead hacks like Zoë Williams to write the most banal and trivial gossip about their middle class lifestyles, who have as much sensitivity in their small minds as does a pebble.

This woman has a couple of preoccupations, one of which is abortion. It isn’t enough for her just to be pro choice, you have to be in favour of unlimited abortion up until birth. Reducing the time limit, to her is just ‘a new way of saying you are anti abortion’. Never mind the people who are strongly pro choice yet are still not opposed to reducing the limit be a couple of weeks (Britain’s being among the highest in Europe). In an edition of the paper earlier this year she spoke of a ‘mawkish sentimentality over the foetus. Not only this but she manages to offend and alienate even the supporters of a liberalisation in the law (see link). A fanatic if ever there was one.

A few good responses to that article:

FinnChow
November 10, 2006 10:49 AM
I agree with Evan Harris 100%. I fear that it won't be enough for Zoe Williams though. Until we're all laughing and joking about abortion and treating it as though it were no different from having a tooth removed, I don't think she's going to be happy.

solarsentinel
November 10, 2006 12:02 PM
Evan said, Ms Williams laments the lack of open debate in Parliament about liberalising a 39-year-old rule. But if the response of the pro-choice lobby is to attack their allies, then it is hardly surprising that politicians are not willing to go there.
Free choice is only possible to the extent that one appreciates the nature and consequences of one’s actions.
The quickest and most effective way to remove someone’s freedom of choice is to lie to them.
In a parliamentary democracy, lying is frowned upon, so the next best way to remove someone’s freedom of choice is to keep the truth from them.
This is hard to do when there is open debate, since open discussion of facts educates and informs people’s choices.
If the pro-choice lobby are pressuring politicians into keeping quiet then they are undermining everybody’s freedom of choice, but most importantly, the freedom of choice of women who cannot make an informed choice without all of the facts.
That makes the pro-choice lobby hypocrites, and those who are really interested in freedom of choice should not listen to them, but should make up their own minds …. after listening to the debate.
When you deify something like free choice, it gets corrupted.

Goodgirl
November 10, 2006 11:07 AM
I have always wondered why a woman miscarries a baby at five weeks, but aborts a foetus at 24! What is the difference? - therein lies the moral issue in abortion. No matter where ons stands on it, there, but for a mishap (whether by abortion or miscarriage), is a human being. Pro-choice ignore this completely, along with the pain of many women who have had abortions lawfully. I am definitely pro-life, but neutral about the legal position, because whatever the law says, as humans we always have a choice to make and/or exercise, (whether legally or not). E.g. I have a choice to beat up a person that I do not like, or even to kill them, but the law prevents me from doing so. Therefore abortion being legal does not remove the dilemma of the effect of the act on the foetus, and whether or not it (foetus) requires protection from harm just as I, a fully formed and visible human being, do. For every woman proud of her abortion, there are 8 who are not. This is an issue that just will not go away, as medical science pushes the frontiers even further.

People like Ms Williams and the 'abortion rights' group she supports have an audacity labelling their opponents as 'anti choice'. Indeed they are the ones who oppose an informed choice. They oppose a public inquiry, blatantly ignoring the existence of women who are not so proud of their abortions. They knowingly lie and mislead, denying any medical facts that are not so favourable to their support for unrestricted abortion. Indeed they will not be happy until we are all laughing and joking about foeticide.

Leaving that aside her witterings about genealogy and the derision of those who are interested in tracking their ancestry as being on a par with those who view ‘animal porn’ sum up the bigotry and shallowness of this loathsome individual. Earlier this year she made infantile comments about the eating of ready meals (what the Americans call ‘TV dinners’) as being a result of ‘social progress’ – namely her beloved and oh so bourgeois ‘feminism’. Glad that one shallow person is so content and smug in a shallow capitalist society where people have no time to prepare a proper meal.

Journalists were once supposed to be public servants. The smug and privileged Williams, on the other hand, is nothing but a public menace.

2006-11-15T12:33:00.000Z

Decline of the Novel

It’s not a question of being a literary snob. I am sure that plenty of highbrow types scout the latest in contemporary fiction and dissect the latest fads in prose.

But nobody writes a novel the way they used to. I spent hours of pleasure reading the classics of the 19th and early 20th century – Thomas Hardy, Dickens, the Brontes. Besides English literature I have taken great pleasure in Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, alongside the works of Emile Zola. Nothing beats the great American novel written by John Steinbeck.

The description these novels gave could transport you back to the English countryside in the mid 19th century, or the slums of London or Paris. Or California at the turn of the century. Or the lives of the Russian aristocracy. Dostoyevsky’s characters were the most complex in literature, extreme yet so human.

What has happened? I don’t mean to knock all modern fiction, indeed some of it I find witty and entertaining at times. But the description is not there, neither are the characters so rounded. There are a few exceptions but I can count them on fewer fingers than I can the great classics. Surely the format of the novel hasn’t really exhausted itself so, as is sometimes claimed? Why do they no longer write books the way they were once written?

2006-11-11T13:40:00.000Z

Seems it has been an interesting week in American politics. Although nothing drastic will change the Democrats in office will at least be able to hold the Bush presidency in check. Perhaps they will also be able to make minor social reforms (such as raising the minimum wage) that Bush will be hard pressed to oppose.

Something noted in the media has been the rise of conservative Democrats - anti abortion, pro gun etc. I see little wrong in this. It is possible to be socially conservative while holding left or liberal economic policies, and the two are not inherently inconsistent. Likewise it is possible to be socially libertarian while being economically right wing (the Thatcherite Federation of Conservative Students springs to my mind). If anything the socially conservative conservatives look inconsistent at times, bemoaning the breakdown of the traditional family at the hands of economic forces they themselves support and prop up.

I myself am anti abortion, and will say that I will be glad if *pro choice* ceases to be a litmus test of one's liberal credentials, in this country as much as in the US. I can also say in all honesty that I have mixed feelings over the issue of gun control. In an essay on the atom bomb George Orwell commented that guns were a democratic weapon at the times of the democratic revolutions, empowering citizens rather than the State (adding that large weapons which are expensive to produce and the most destructive are undemocratic, the atom bomb being the prime and most obvious example). The American revolution was won with the help of firearms, and the right to hold them was a constitutional right, in theory giving the citizens the power to topple an oppressive government. It is therefore not surprising that it is a hot issue.

I have met communists who oppose gun control for similiar reasons to this.

However, when some conservative Democrats are also described as 'fiscally conservative' it does beg the question as to what the terms liberal and conservative restrospectively mean, and what views should be associated with the terms if they are not to become meaningless. Political parties need at least some distinct characteristics that differ them from their opponents.

However, in the United States there is a tradition of voting for 'the candidate and not the party'. This tradition that does not exist here. But with the two main parties losing their distinction it may yet come to pass. Perhaps it may be that politics will come to being led more by consensus of cross party special interest groups on single issues. If this is to be the case then it will have wide implications for the future, both for the left and the right. It has already been argued by some (the ex trotskyist Christopher Hitchens is one such example) that the old left/right categories have broken down. If the trend outlined is to continue this will become more noticable, at least in the famous 'centre ground'.

2006-11-08T13:53:00.000Z

A good rebuttal today to Polly Toynbee in yesterdays Graun. Interestingly Toynbee noted that the middle classes and the wealthy are the least likely to be under surveillence. Yet she failed to draw the obvious conclusion - that those who are to most likely be victimised by the State machinery are the poor, ethnic minorities and the working class. Hence this is far from a 'middle class obsession'. Money currently spent on surveillence (and the military) could well be spent on social justice.

What makes her so trustful of this present government anyway? What makes her so sure that surveillence powers will not be abused by them? New Labour has shown scant regard for democracy, even in its own ranks. How she thinks it can be trusted with extra powers is a mystery. But perhaps a government friendly middle class hack like herself need not worry.

2006-11-06T16:01:00.000Z

Saddam Death Penalty

We like to think we are more civilised than our ancestors who viewed public hangings. But are we really? A look at today's tabloid headlines made me think twice. 'Saddamned to Hell' read the front page of the Daily Mirror, taking obvious relish in the outcome. Aren't we a country that has renounced capital punishment? But while it takes place far from home and is therefore sanitised it appears that our collective desire for vengeance can safely be exorcised via a media spectacle.

Meanwhile Tony Blair voices his opposition to the death penalty. But he is a hypocrite to invoke Iraqi sovereignity to justify the verdict of death by hanging. That was not on his mind when he sent British troops to help the Americans invade the country.

It is necessary to add that this was a victor's court, put in place by what is a US client regime (Bush need have no hang ups as does Blair as he presided over death row while governor of Texas). There appear to have been irregularities in the trial, and dispute as to whether it has been a fair one.

However, if the death penalty was to be reserved for war criminals (and if such trials were to be in any way 'fair') Bush and Blair would also have been in the dock.

2006-11-04T19:33:00.000Z

This proposition was voted against by MPs in parliament on Tuesday:

Ten Minute Rule Bill: TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY, Mrs Nadine Dorries
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the time limit for legal termination of pregnancy from 24 to 21 weeks; to introduce a cooling off period after the first point of contact with a medical practitioner about a termination; to enable the time period from the end of the cooling off period and the date of termination to be reduced; and for connected purposes.

This proposal was nothing very radical. Reducing the upper time limit by three weeks is not a great restriction, it would simply bring it on a par with most of Europe.
A cooling off period may be a slight inconvenience for those who have firmly made up their minds and are determined, but for a significant vulnerable minority (who are in quite a few cases coerced) it could make all the difference - between giving birth and and having to live with a decision that you will regret for the rest of your life.

I suspect that the Tories and Lib Dems were divided on the issue and voted according to their consciences. The Labour Party, on the other hand, have been known to be intolerant towards pro life members. So much that the Labour Life Group are not allowed to hold fringe meetings at their conferences. The only grounds for being on 'Emily's list' (the all woman short list) was that one supports 'a woman's right to choose'. Therefore it is disputable as to how many Labour MPs would actually vote with their consciences on the issue rather than that of the whips.

Meanwhile this came from the 'Abortion Rights' Pressure group:

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has launched a parliamentary campaign to drive back women’s abortion rights. Dorries has tabled a Ten Minute Rule Bill calling both for a reduction in the time limit for abortion and the introduction of a mandatory delay in service provision. This is in the context of a concerted campaign by the anti-choice lobby to confuse opinion over a woman’s right to make her own abortion decisions and to build support for successive restrictions in abortion rights.

Please email or phone your MPs office and ask them to be in the Chamber on Tuesday 31st October, from 2.30, to vote against this attack on women’s crucial reproductive rights. MP's email addresses follow the following pattern: surnameinitial@parliament.uk Their office can also be contacted via the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000.
Please let us know what responses you get.

I have said what I will about the 'mandatory delay in service provision'. But I will point out that nobody is trying to 'confuse opinion'. The facts, medical and scientific, are there for people to make up their own minds accordingly. If you believe that foetal development is irrelevant to the availability of abortion provision then so be it. But please do not lie and claim that any inquiries into the matter are 'anti choice' (sic) nor dismiss any findings which are not to your liking as pseudo science (which is what this lobby does repetitively).

'Crucial reproductive rights' are also a subjective matter. Not every woman (or every feminist for that matter) holds unlimited abortion to be such a crucial right as does this group. As their propaganda is so full of distortions I strongly dispute this groups professed concern for women. They don't even represent the views of all feminists, let alone all women, as I've mentioned before.

But what grates on me is their constant promotion of scaremongering and hysteria. Their campaigning always manages to bring their supporters screaming in full blast at the selected time. Their 'week of action' coincided with this bill, and their postcard campaign to MPs had been leading up to the issue being raised in parliament.
They and their supporters regard any restriction or compromise, however mild, as being an all out assault on women's rights and a victory for the so called 'anti choice' lobby. They are only able to see in black and white. Such has been the climate in America for ages and I fear that it may be getting this way here, if the rantings of the Graun's Zoe Williams and other hacks are anything to go by. And especially if the left continues to unconditionally support what is essentially an extremist and one sided group, the propaganda of whom shows no respect for the feelings of women whose experience has not been so positive.

2006-11-04T16:23:00.000Z

Pole Dancing Kit

What should I make of this 'toy'?. I was initially under the assumption that it was a doll, having recalled seeing a pole dancing doll elsewhere, and got called a 'sectarian moron' and an illiterate (sob) for my error! A careless mistake maybe but not one that warranted that kind of hostility. Anyway, enough for that for the time being.

I would tend to view the sexualisation of childhood as being wrong, and that Tesco were wrong to market the product as a toy. An item of such a description probably belongs in Anne Summers or a similiar shop.

All the same though, is it any different from the constant promotion of sex that children see all the time, in teen magazines and elsewhere? I think not, so it is not something I'd make a big deal over. But I'm sure on this particular issue Scottish Socialist Voice would be in one voice with the Daily Mail.

It is also baffling as to how a group which give condoms (and information on how to obtain abortions) to schoolchildren reconcile this. Perhaps they don't mind children having sex, it's just the association of pole dancing with sex workers that they can't abide. Never mind the fact that this sex toy is not designed for commercial gain, but appears to be designed as an erotic plaything. If you don't mind children having sex then why object to them using toys with it? Say what you will about the commodification of sex etc, but there was a strong sense of moral outrage in the passage quoted on that blog. I am sure that the images children see on television of pop stars and in advertising have more of an impact on them than does any pole dancing toy. Sexualised clothing aimed at children seems to be purely a reflection of a culture they already are subjected to. It is the market finding its niche. The hyper sexualised culture in the West after the commodified sexual revolution is problematic in many ways, but save for jumping on the moral majority bandwagon and asking the State to censor media or ban the sale of items there is little one can do. The State has no right to censor material nor curb sexuality.

Capitalism makes a commodity out of everything. Sex especially perhaps because it is a primal instinct that obviously sells very well. The market works very well in this regard. Ask anyone who works in advertising. It does strike me as being more of a problem when children are targetted - but then I am not of the opinion that children under the age of 16 (or 18-19 in some cases) are really old enough to be having sex anyway. Sex ideally should not be a commodity sold to them. But it is even slightly unrealistic for me to say this, as sex is everywhere in advertising anyway. The only way you could possible keep kids away from it would be to teach them at home and never let them watch tv or read magazines. While parents will do what they can it is probably inevitable that some children will have sex, so if they do it is better they be given access to protection than not. Removing a daft toy from a supermarket will make no difference.

Most objectionable to me is the blanket assertion by the Scottish Socialist Party that all strippers have been or are being sexually abused. But with their latest resolution which advocates the continuation of criminalisation of the sex industry (on the Swedish model, albeit, targetting the 'demand' rather than the 'supply') such nonsense becomes explicable. The text of that resolution and my comments are in the next post down.

2006-11-04T15:04:00.000Z

Scottish Socialist Party's Prostitution Resolution

Here is the text (note they state their position is 'radical'. It is not radical in the slightest, it is conservative. I also love their use of the patronising term 'prostituted women' - as if they are all being forced!):

Prostitution
Mhairi McAlpine of the SSP Women's Network explains the background to the debate on prostitution in the SSP

The issue of prostitution was first raised at SSP conference in 2003, in response to Margo McDonald’s proposal to establish “tolerence zones” – effectively legalising prostitution in a limited way. There were three proposals on the table – decriminalisation; support for tolerance zones, and the Swedish model of targeting the demand. The issue was remitted for further debate and discussion. The motions were remitted for further discussion, education and debate in the party.

In the three years that have passed, the issue has been debated throughout the party, in branches, at platform meetings and in the Socialist Women’s Network. Following this discussion, this proposal to follow the Swedish model, once a minority position, was brought back for ratification.

The SSP after much debate and discussion concluded that prostitution by definition was violence against women and therefore harmful to them. There can be no tolerance of it. Drug addicted women, migrant women and adult survivors of child sexual abuse make up the vast majority of prostituted women. Those women enslaved by the industry, whether by traffickers, by addiction problems, by poverty, violent partners and pimps or poor mental health must be given support to escape.

Violence towards them even if they consent? But we'll see soon their patronising dismissal of women who do choose to work in this profession as suffering from 'false consciousness' or something of the like. But then what does a 'sectarian idiot' like myself know? I note that no statistics are cited in their assertion about who makes up the majority of prostitutes, as data regarding the sex industry is notoriously unreliable. I agree that women who want to leave the profession should be given help (indeed so should workers in low paid menial jobs which they hate, or migrant workers enslaved by criminal gangs in a number of industries. All should be given benefits, help if they are in need of accomadation and access to education or training). I don't make a special case for sex work, I support help for any workers to leave jobs that they are unhappy in. Nobody should be stuck in any job that they hate. And it is naturally the case that I abhore the stigmatisation of women who have been sex workers, which can require lying on a CV.

Alongside this their position is coercive - criminalisation ensures they will have no choice but to leave. Such 'exit strategies' will possibly end up pressuring these women into taking low paid menial work. Just like the Victorians who advocated 'better employment opportunities' for women - probably in domestic service. The same Victorians whose hearts bled over women involved in prostitution but shed few tears over those exploited by the drugery of the 12 or 14 hour shift in the factory or textile mills.

However, even supposing the traditional data was reliable (and it tends not to be as it is often self serving, taken from mainly street prostitutes in bad beats). But even if almost all women in prostitution were either exploited migrants, drug addicts or survivors of child abuse would even this justify criminalisation? Would this justify infantilising them so and getting the State and it's allies to rescue them 'for their own good'? It would not, as at the end of the day it is not the State's business to regulate sexual behaviour.

The writer of this bilge may not wish to know it but not every migrant sex worker is trafficked or forced either. And many human beings are enslaved by various industries via poverty or other related problems. Asian sweatshop workers are 'enslaved by poverty' to accept work in the conditions they do. Should textile factories therefore be banned?

"Economic coercion to perform sex acts is a violation of women’s integrity and can only be understood within the context of ongoing social and economic discrimination. To criminalise prostituted women is to criminalise the victim."

Economic coercion of anybody into wage slavery is a violation of their intergrity. I don't know why these people claim to be Marxists. I dig the blanket definition of 'victims' too.

"Nonetheless decriminalisation is not the answer, for this is not a victimless crime. Those who use prostituted women are party to a system of enslavement, which brings women from poorer parts of the world to be multiply raped on a daily basis, which keeps women drug addicted to blot out the realities of their experiences, and which causes adult victims of sexual abuse trapped in a cycle of negative sexual relations."

This is true in some cases, but not all. Yet these people can only see in black and white. Sexual slavery involving rape is not even the same thing as a drug addict turning a trick or two for a fix. It's not the same for men on heroin, they tend to do other things to supply their expensive habits as they do not having this option.

The phenomena of human trafficking for sexual slavery of course needs to be addressed. But it should be done from the framework of fighting all forms of forced or debted labour that migrant workers endure, not only sex slavery. Along with this should come opposing the immigration controls that encourage criminals to transport and exploit vulnerable economic migrants. Tackling trafficking should not be used as an excuse to clamp down on all sex workers by painting them all as slaves, as is done so often. This is a classic example of where the lines are blurred between consensual sex and what is effectively rape.

This group makes little noise about the migrant workers enslaved in other industries who have zero resources and and no recourse to the authorities as they may face deportation. Such was the case with the Chinese cockle pickers who died, most of whom were working under debted labour for a gangmaster. Yet nobody is calling for a clampdown on the fishing industry.

I also note that no mention is made of gay male prostitutes or rent boys. Typical. Just like victim feminist dicussions on porn never mention gay porn, or they know their position would come flying down.

Those prostituted women who believe that they are freely “choosing” to sell sex are not criminalised by the SSP’s position but can access the resources they need to stay safe and reduce ill health. Therefore there needs to be resources in place so that all prostituted women can access the required resources they need without fear of reprisals or criminalisation.

Now this is my favourite. Those 'prostituted' (sic) women who 'believe' that they are freely "choosing" to sell sex? This in effect means that they are not really choosing freely, they only believe they are. In which case either they are stupid, mentally ill or suffering from some severe false consciousness, unlike their enlightened and liberated sisters in the Scottish Socialist Party. Women are miracously able to consent to having an abortion (not even just adult women, but also teenagers I will add), yet they cannot consent to accepting money for sex.

What bilge, and how insulting to the intelligence. If their thesis was true groups like the International Sex Workers Union or Coyote would not exist, if sex workers were really so downtrodden and/or dumb. Neither would the CIS.

This is not feminism, nor is it empowering in the slightest. It is profoundly disempowering. Those who accept the victim label will be rendered inert by self pity, and those who don't will surely risk inciting the wrath of these would be redeemers (as Claudia once stated).

Resources are already in place under the current system - they can access health services and support groups already without being prosecuted, so they are stating nothing new. All criminalisation of clients will do would be to rip the women of their livelihood, regardless of their wishes. This is why this approach is so elitist and condescending.

The SSP has taken a ground breaking step. While our internal discussions were going on, the Scottish Executive was also debating the issue through a public consultation. While all of the submissions highlighted the vulnerability of prostituted women and the dangers inherent in the industry, the premise of the final report was that the duty of the state was to manage prostitution. In contrast we believe that the paid abuse of women is intolerable and, far from being “managed”, must be eradicated.

Yes, prostitutes are so dumb. They are not only being abused without their knowlege by men they associate with but are also accepting money for this privilege (paid abuse!). Yes, it is the 'duty' of the State to keep these slags in line by criminalising the perverts who they allow to abuse them.

It has always been debated on whether or not prostitution would exist in the socialist society the SSP supposedly dream of and fight for, but to eradicate prostitution under capitalism? Give me a break. Poverty can never be eradicated under capitalism, for starters. The only way you can eradicate poverty is to eradicate capitalism. And without eradicating poverty it would be impossible to eradicate prostitution. And even if you did eradicate poverty - in a money system it is very likely that there would still be a market ofr the purchase of sex. Some men will not stop being alienated and lonely, and some women will see nothing wrong in exchanging sex acts for money. They may like the flexible hours and may not want a regular job. It would probably only be possible for prostitution to be eradicated if the total transformation of human relationships came about that is dreamt of by some socialists. I used to believe in this dream but I now think it is rather utopian.

We want to see a Scottish wide education programme to highlight the realities of the industry and of the experiences of women trapped within it and send a clear signal to anyone contemplating purchasing sex that it is unacceptable by bringing in legislation aimed at outlawing the purchase of sex.

What about the experiences of women who choose to stay within it? No chance of that, as they would demolish the theory and the sickening attitude behind it. Why don't the consult the IUSW branch in the GMB?

It is sickening. The only policy a left wing party should have is the decriminalisation of prostitutes (and support any attempt by sex workers to fight back by unionising). Anything more than that, positive or negative, is just too private a matter to have a party line on. I do not deny that there are many problems in the sex industry. But unlike these moralisers I believe that they can be lessened by decriminalisation of the industry. Criminalisation creates a situation where women are vulnerable to abuse due to the illegal nature of their work. Prostitution laws are similiar in a sense to the drug laws, an essentially victimless crime being made more dangerous by prohibitive policies. The picture drawn of sex workers by the SSP is a stereotype, encouraged by the government and it's allies in the media. Clearly the organised wing of the sex industry has much to do in challenging this stereotype.

Think what you will of the sex industry, it has been shown that criminalising women does not stop it. And what about the proposals to criminalise men for purchasing sex? For a critique of the Swedish prostitution laws go here. Demonising a whole industry where women work and writing off the women who choose to work in it as being stupid or mad if not coerced is not feminist. It is moralistic and conservative crap.

I say no to any prohibitive policies that will only continue to socially stigmatise prostitutes for the work they do and endanger them - and no the moralising politicians who propose them, be they of the left or right.

Meanwhile there are good sources here and here on the attitude of the Victorians towards prostitution. It seems little has changed in some quarters. The SSP seem to have their own ideas about building modern day Urania Cottages, shelters that will reclaim the fallen women for lives of virtue (their proposed 'safe houses' and 'exit strategies' suggested previously).
Hence anybody who reads between the lines will see there is nothing 'radical' about these ideas - they are simply a rehash of the patronising morality of the Victorians.

2006-11-02T22:57:00.000Z

Mother Tried for 'Familial Homicide'

This mother can well be criticised for having let domestic abuse continue to such a point, and for not having seeked help. But she should not be imprisoned. I am inclined to believe her when she says she was scared by the threats of her partner to kill her. Like all victims of domestic violence she believed she loved the abuser, and seemed to have been blinded emotionally (she claimed she did not believing he had killed her child until she heard him admit it in court).

Her crime has been to have gotten involved with a man who was highly unpleasant and seriously disturbed, to put it mildly. Her inaction over the abuse of her child is detrimental, but she should not be treated as a murderer. If anything she is a victim too, even if she is not blameless for the event.

2006-11-02T22:00:00.000Z

Pornography, Erotica and L'Histoire d'O

Laura may be right, I tend to go with the view that abusers are made, not born. But I doubt it is down to pornography.

I got thinking a little when one of the contributers to that thread on her blog differentiated porn from erotica. I pointed out that the lines are often blurred, but there also appears to be an implicit snobbery in arguments which are pro erotica but anti porn. Erotica tends to be highbrow material while what tends to be classified as porn tends to be cheaply produced and lacks artistic merit. One person's porn may well be another's erotica. Where, for instance, do Black Lace novels fit in? Are they porn for women or erotica? I wouldn't like to say really. Or what of the French movie 'Baise Moi', containing graphic scenes of sex and violence? It was not generically porn as it was not designed soley for titillation, yet you would be hard pressed to define it as 'erotica'. It's simply a violent film with images of real sex. But those who support banning pornography of any description would be inconsistent if they did not apply it to this movie. This is what makes the proposed law, banning people from holding 'extreme violent pornography' look subjective and almost impossible to impliment (leaving aside the issue of civil liberties). The fact that 'Baise Moi' was made by a woman makes no difference to it's contents.

I had to mention the Story of O as that is one particular work where the boundaries are somewhat blurred. The novel was written by a woman, yet when the author of the piece was unknown her gender was disputed, often by feminists. Part of this was obviously due to the masochism of the fantasies and the totally submissive nature of the female character, whose will ended up being totally broken by libertines of the Sadean nature. But I also suspect it was due to the prurient and Victorian view that a woman could never write such 'depravity', that such fantasies were the province of the male. The virtue of womankind dictates that she must be sexually pure.

This is obviously false as women do have submissive fantasies. Some feminists seemed to buy into the Victorian view of female nature and idealised women the same way that some Marxists (especially of the Leninist nature) idealised the working class. It was a naive and patronising view which was also elitist in nature, implicitly laying down a restrictive code of sexual conduct.

The author of the novel did write it for her partner Jean Paulhan, who was a fan of Sade's literature. This does raise a few questions about how 'in control' she was when creating the novel, but it does not mean she was under duress or suffering any kind of 'false consciousness'. Paulhan himself claimed to have felt slightly disturbed by some of the scenes. I am not easily shocked but I couldn't help but cringe a little, and it was not a comfortable read. But such literature is interesting due to what it may say about fantasy and the subconscious in relation to sexuality.

Such a novel could not have been written in English. It's surrealistic tone the whole way through, along with it's Sadean ethos, put it firmly in the French tradition of erotic literature.

2006-11-02T21:58:00.000Z

What a nightmare vision of the future. Neither unrealistic nor the first such article, though.

2006-11-02T21:40:00.000Z

Hug a Hoodie....

I never thought I would see the day when the Tories attack a Labour government seemingly from the left, even if it is just spin.

2006-10-31T13:13:00.000Z

The Sceptical Green.......

I remember growing up in the 1980s nuclear war was the ultimate threat. Today that scare has been replaced by climate change.

While climate change is certainly happening nobody knows for sure how severe the impact may be. Journalists tend to report the worst case doomsday scenarios.

I very much doubt that the West will change it's behaviour sufficiently to curb greenhouse gases. The amount of 4x4s on city streets bears witness to that. To really make a difference we would have to significantly change our way of life, and how many of us are really willing to do that? How many people practically can anyway? having wind turbines in your garden may be fine if you are affluent, but can you do that in a block of flats? Somehow I can't see anyone investing in low budget housing with wind turbines or solar power included. Do many people really want to give up their holidays abroad?

Perhaps best we can hope for is that the worst case scenario does not come into being. It becomes a matter not of stopping climate change but of having an infrastructure in place that is able to deal with it. Perhaps that is too optimistic though, as the anarchic nature of global capitalism is by it's nature disordered.

Perhaps people may just come to realise that capitalism is inadequate or unable to deal with environmental damage. A non profit driven system, with decentralisation of economic and political power, may be the only environmentally sustainable one.

2006-10-30T14:37:00.000Z

French Riots and Related Issues

The banlieues in Pairs provide an example of bad urban planning as well as poverty and racism.

There is only one place on the outskirts of London that bears a resemblance to the grim suburbs of Paris, that would be Thamesmead. The only suburb I can think of which is within sufficient distance from the capital, and consisting almost solely of post war social housing, to merit a comparison.

Like most of London's post war developments for the working class who formerly inhabited the Dickensian slums it has been a disaster. The creation of tower blocks has replaced one set of slums with another. My friends lived in a block in the aforementioned area when the lift rarely worked (and if it happened to break down while you were in it nobody would respond to the alarm as children were always setting it off as a hoax). You didn't walk up the stairs at night - you ran.

The creation of walkways linking developments simply provides escape routes for criminals and handy sites for muggings, as has been noted about the notorious estates around the Elephant Castle area.

Do tower blocks create anti social behaviour or is it simply the people who reside there are inclined that way? I'd say it's a combination. The people who live in these developments are usually poor or underclass to begin with, with everything attached to that. But a depressing living environment only adds to hopelessness, which can manifest in anti social or criminal behaviour. If you have no stake in society and are forced to live in squalor you have nothing to lose.

Back to Paris - much of this is just as true for the suburbs there as it is for London's poor dwellings, perhaps more so. And of course there is the added problem of racism and blatant discrimination based on one's postcode. Action must be taken before it spirals further. I am not one to romanticise the French riots or believe they have any revolutionary potential to change society in any drastic way - this is not 1968. However, the youths in the banlieues are right in discerning that the current system has nothing to offer them. But their actions are of an apolitical and nihilistic nature. Although I'm not a big advocate of affirmative action generally, I believe there is a case for it here. This must go along with regeneration of the districts concerned (local activities and housing revampment) , with democratically controlled and accountable policing. Racism is rife among the French police, and the youths are right to distrust them. They are totally alienated from the communities they are supposed to serve.

But don't let us forget that it wasn't that long ago London had it's own riots in it's depleted estates that were predominately inhabited by Black citizens. The motivations were not unsimiliar - youths felt victimised by racism and poverty, and the feeling of persecution by an institutionally racist police force.

Meanwhile lessons can be learnt about the shortfalls of social housing both in Britain and in France. Places like Thamesmead (which not that long ago described on a billboard as a 'place of London's future') will hopefully one day be monuments to it's past, as will the banlieues of Paris to it's own. The working class and immigrants should not be forced to live among crime and squalor. But until the British government drops it's policy against social housing (preventing the building of new council property) an improvement in people's lives is unlikely to happen. Meanwhile decent social housing should be campaigned for in both cities. Some existing properties have been regenerated (such as the Broadwater Farm area where the Tottenham riots took place) but this is not good enough. As a few of the elderly Elephant and Castle residents pointed out in a documentary, the development behind the shopping mall was not designed well for a good community spirit. Social problems and crime continue to plague the area. Let not the disaster of the post war tower blocks be repeated in any new projects.

2006-10-28T14:21:00.000+01:00

I thought I'd forward this from the Times as the link seemed to have disappeared.

Abortion exposes women to higher risk of depression
By Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent

WOMEN who have abortions are risking depression and other mental illness and should be told of the dangers, a group of leading doctors says today.

In a letter to The Times, 15 senior obstetricians and psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.

Women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or never been pregnant, they say.

Their letter, which comes on the anniversary of the legislation of abortion 29 years ago, says that the medical profession can no longer “play down” the links between depression and abortion and that the risk to mental heath must be weighed up in the decisions to approve abortions on ground of a risk to the mother.

Since abortion was legalised in 1967 more than six million abortions have been performed in Britain, 95 per cent on the grounds of physical or mental health of the mother or existing children.

“We suggest the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Royal College of Psychiatrists revise their guidance and that future abortion notifications clearly distinguish between physical and mental health grounds for abortion,” the letter says.

The evidence cited by the doctors was published this year and came after a lengthy study that was conducted in New Zealand.

Although it has been long established that women with a history of mental illness are at greater risk of further instability following an abortion, the New Zealand study established for the first time that abortion could trigger depression and other illnesses in women with no mental problems in the past.

The research prompted the American Psychology Association to withdraw an official statement which denied a link between abortion and psychological harm.

However the letter was challenged yesterday by Abortion Rights who said that the doctors were exaggerating the risks. “On average one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, it is thus a clear exaggeration to say that all these women suffer long-term psychological trauma,” said Anne Quesney, the director.

“The consensus of all authoritative psychiatric and medical opinion is that, for the large majority of women, the effects on psychological health of having an abortion are neither major nor long-lasting. Most women report feeling a sense of relief. They suggest that the most stressful thing is coming to the decision to terminate, particularly when the circumstances are difficult. Some women may experience feelings of sadness and loss; this is not a mental illness, it is just a normal reaction to what can be a negative event.” The anniversary of the legalisation of abortion has also triggered a new row over the time limits for abortion which stand at 24 weeks. The campaign for change in the law will be advanced next week by Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, who presents a bill to Parliament calling for the limit to be reduced to 21 weeks, and for a cooling off period after a woman has decided to have an abortion.

The pro-choice lobby has responded saying there is already an unacceptably long delay in getting abortions on the NHS forcing many women to pay to go privately.

The pro choice lobby seem to be doing themselves no favours by denying the results of this research. A choice surely means an informed choice, which means being aware of any risks that may arise from the procedure. Meanwhile I am all for lowering the upper time limit (see link).

2006-10-27T17:47:00.000+01:00

Drug Classification - No Highs

Now I’m for the legalisation of all drugs. But I do get tired of the comments made in the campaigning by those who support the legalisation of ‘soft’ drugs but shy away from asking that everything be legalised.

Their claims tend to be based on the assertion that ‘cannabis is not as harmful as heroin etc therefore it should not be criminalised’. Its use is sometimes said to be virtually harmless, even beneficial for relaxation. But the endorsers of cannabis wilfully ignore the fact that cannabis use can induce schizophrenia in a significant minority of people. I know a few people myself who have had a psychotic episode after smoking cannabis and it is not a joke. To admit to this is not lining up with the forces of prohibition, it is simply being responsible and stating a fact. I would look pretty daft if I was to allege that ALL drugs were harmless as an argument for legalisation, or to openly praise the use of heroin or cocaine.

Alcohol has recently been said to be physically as harmful as heroin. This I can believe, as we are all too aware of the harm excessive alcohol use can do to the body, besides the negative social consequences of this legal drug. But recently the medical research council alleged that ecstasy is ‘several thousand’ times’ less harmful than heroin (see link). ‘Several’ thousand? Really? I somewhat doubt this. I doubt that this research was thorough enough. How can such a sweeping claim be verified? Not enough is known about the possible long term effects of ecstasy use, due to the illegality of the substance. And if the claim was true it would have to be deduced that ecstasy is also several thousand times less dangerous than alcohol, which seems a pretty long shot.

Such nonsense obviously gets sprouted because the soft drugs lobby are too cowardly to call for the legalisation of all drugs, including heroin (pharmaceutical name being diamorphine, a powerful painkiller used for serious injuries and terminal illnesses).
Ecstasy (MDMA) was, like LSD, a psychoactive drug initially used during psychoanalysis. Street Ecstasy is not pure MDMA, anymore than street heroin is the same as pharmaceutical diamorphine. Pure MDMA may be many times less harmful than street heroin, but such a comparison is pointless as pure MDMA is almost as elusive as pure diamorphine. Like street heroin, ecstasy is cut with all kinds of crap which obviously make the drug more dangerous than it would be in its pure form. Compare the risks of both drugs in their pure form and the results would look a touch different.

It is also worth noting that the risks of drugs vary. Heroin or diamorphine is not a psychoactive drug so it is not linked with psychosis in the same way that cannabis (or LSD) is. Although it can affect mental health its biggest risk in its pure form is its highly addictive quality. Psychoactive drugs have a far greater risk of causing psychosis in those who are susceptible, yet they are not addictive in the same way as opiates (morphine and derived offshoots). But these facts are distorted due to the way prohibition has created a bogeyman in the form of heroin as a yardstick to measure the risks of other drugs by. The fact that the risks of psychoactive drugs are different from those relating to opiates become obscured, and this is of no help to anyone. Neither is it of any help to pretend that cannabis is harmless while ‘heroin screws you up’ as an attempt to get the State off the backs of cannabis users.

Any debate or research into the harmfulness of various drugs is bound to be skewered by prohibition and its effects. The long term effect of any drug (in its pure, not adulterated form) can only be known in detail through long case studies, and prohibition has made this impossible to do. The soft drugs lobby will do well to remember that this applies to cannabis as much as any Class A drug. In Holland an increase in suicidal ideation has been noted since the law on cannabis was relaxed.

Having said all this I remain convinced that prohibition does more harm than any conceived benefits. I have witnessed its effects myself. Legalising all drugs will allow their use to be monitored and regulated, and more will come to be known about the long term effects (besides the fact that it will be safer for users, who need no longer use adulterated substances or commit crimes to feed expensive habits, so it would be less of a strain on society).

We only know about the effects associated with alcohol as it has always been legal.
Being for the legislation of all drugs, including heroin, does not equate with a cavalier attitude towards the harm they potentially cause. It can equate with a responsible approach that wishes to ensure people know and are aware of the possible risks. This is why the ‘cannabis is good’ brigade annoy me so, as they are not promoting responsible drug use.

2006-10-25T21:31:00.000+01:00

We Always Come Back.......

Humanitarian intervention on the part of the German army here?

It springs to mind the graffiti written by 'peacekeepers' of the same nationality in the Balkans in the 1990s - We Always Come Back.

But that incident had it's own special context, a slightly different thing for Germany than it's role in Afghanistan. To understand that requires some research into the role of Germany in the break up of the former Yugoslavia and it's historic links in the region, including during the Nazi period.

This incident in Afghanistan simply appears to expose the fact that there is nothing humane about militarism or Western expansion.

2006-10-24T16:15:00.000+01:00

Battered Men

I saw quite an interesting documentary last night on the topic of battered men, which gave me some food for thought. There were a few very distressing examples shown, one of which being the case of a man who was stabbed to death by his partner in a fit of jealous rage.

I could not help but feel some empathy with the abuser, who had a history of abuse herself (as have many abusers) and had long term mental health problems that had gone unaddressed. How will she live with herself in the years to follow? The other women featured had similiar issues in their respective backgrounds.

Perhaps the issue of female violence will need a slightly different analysis to that of male violence. But the issue does make the classic feminist analysis of domestic violence being an expression of patriarchy (or at least justified by it) look increasingly weak.

The psychology of the relationships and of the women (and men) involved appeared virtually identical to that where the man is the abuser. The male victims were isolated by their abusers, who expressed the same possesiveness that male abusers do. The man who was eventually killed by his partner expressed the same traits as do female victims of domestic violence. He returned to his partner after her pleas and apologies, 'hoping he could change her' (in the words of one of his family members). He covered up for her likewise (on one occasion telling his family he had fallen into a rosebush).

This kind of violence is uncontrolled rage, an inability to cope with emotions and to communicate and express oneself. Much of it appears to stem from insecurity. This seems to apply to abusers of either sex. If patriarchy is allegedly the ideology which justifies men's violence towards women, what is the ideology that justifies women's towards men? There isn't one. So it would appear relatively safe to say that there is not one that justifies or motivates men's violence against women either. It doesn't need an ideology, it just needs the psychology of the perpetrator.

Perhaps once in some times and in some places it was considered acceptable for men to 'discipline' unruly wives (and in some places, at certain times, it may still be). This remains an issue. The traditional patriarchal family was one place where power relations were exercised. But this structure is on the wane under late Western capitalism.

In modern society it is not socially acceptable for men to beat their wives. A batterer would not be respected by his peers. It would be a mark of shame rather than of strength or pride. And it goes without saying that very often 'traditional' codes of chilvary dictate that men should not hit women. Machismo may sometimes serve for some men a justification for violence, but a justification is all it can ever be. 'Patriarchy' is not the underlying reason for it.

In my experience on the left I have encountered men who have raised these concerns being dismissed not only by feminists but also by left wing men who stick with the traditional analysis. The fact that there may be 5 or even ten female horror stories for every male one does not mean it is not an issue that should not be addressed. We should oppose violence and take it seriously whatever the sex is of the perpetrators or victims. DV should be today treated as a gender neutral issue, as I have argued before.

One man in the documentary reported that he was not believed by the police when he informed them. Yet the police have run a tough campaign against male violence for a good few years now. Let's hope society and it's institutions will wake up to this problem, and let's hope the left rethink it's stance. Men can be victims as well as women, even if it may be less frequent.

2006-10-19T19:51:00.000+01:00

Green or Blue?

Are the Tory party showing their true colours as the nasty party again? It wasn't that long ago that the leadership refused to discuss the matter. Now it is on the agenda again. Not a wise move if they wish to continue with their apparent makeover.

The whole package will obviously benefit the wealthy, especially the proposed abolition of inheritance tax and the reduction on corporation tax.

Despite my concern for the environment, I am always sceptical about so called 'green' taxes (which not only the Tories but the increasingly right wing leadership of the lib dems propose too). They tend to be aimed not so much at corporations but rather at ordinary people. The poor are, of course, hit the hardest.

If the proposed air fuel taxes come into being (which seem to have cross party support) flying may once again become the luxury of the rich, as it used to be. Those of us not so fortunate may have to kiss goodbye to holidays abroad.

A similiar issue is fuel taxes on cars, which stretch the budget of the average motorist (Although I would not be against an extra tax on 4x4s, mind. They are dangerous on the road as well as being pollutive. Nobody has to drive one of those things in town).

When it comes down to it taxes that are not related to means are regressive taxes. This goes for so called green taxes as well as VAT etc. More could be achieved by investing in cleaner energy via public money that is taxed from corporations who are the biggest polluters, not from ordinary people. But then that would be too much to ask. When faced with higher taxation big business can always threaten to take it's accounts elsewhere, hence the vicious circle. That's capitalism for you.

2006-10-19T19:24:00.000+01:00

The Dolphinarium/La Femme Contraire Thursday Debate: Slack Lyrics
My friend Maria from Dolphinarium and I can't pass up any opportunity to get down and dirty. We like to wrap it up in some high-minded political posturing, though - as an excuse. So we're gonna chat about Slack Lyrics. Should radio stations refuse to play slack tunes? Or must artistry be as unfettered as possible. Let's decide.....

2006-10-18T11:56:00.000+01:00

Depression, Writer's Block, and the Confessional Culture
I know I've been a bit quiet over the past few days. But a touch of depression, along with a lack of motivation and ideas for writing (besides having been lax with the news) have led me to withdraw. It's a vicious circle, as the less I write the more dejected I feel, yet feeling this way seems to stop me from writing. I've been told it's not uncommon but it's still not much consolation.

Anyway, it seems that I may be sucummbing myself to the 'confessional culture' that most of the time I treat with a lot of scepticism. I'm not against talking about problems, in actual fact a good thing I find about Americans, for instance, is their ability to be open about issues and not keep it under the carpet as us 'stiff upper lip Brits' have been more inclined to do. But as we've seen with the growth of the 'recovery' movement in the States and here, the narcissism that it seems to induce, along with it's introduction into the political sphere (witness the David Blunkett diaries) it seems that it may be going a step too far.

I don't think I'm the only one to find the notorious Dave Pelzer a little sickening, along with the writers who have followed in his footsteps. Many of their accounts are being challenged by their relatives, including that of the British Judge Constance Briscoe. But whether or not it happened as they said is not the point, the therepeutic culture, based on a pop pyschoanalysis, dictates that the patient's version of events' even if not exactly true to the fact, is just as valid as any literally true account. So it seems Oprah Winfrey missed the point when she was disillusioned with one of her guests for twisting the truth in a book he earlier claimed was a true account of the abuse he suffered. But his book, I believe, still sells. Dave Pelzer has created an industry, a whole genre.

2006-10-13T11:14:00.000+01:00

Hijab and Stuff...

I know at least one reason why many young women today reject 'feminism'. Because very often it used as a veneer for liberal busybodies who wish to lay down a code of conduct on how women should behave. It says nothing about the experience of non white women. In actual fact, it can often serve as a thinly veiled (no pun intended) rationale for racism, which most often manifests itself today as Islamophobia.

This post from the aptly titled blog (which references itself to the drunken convert to neo-conservatism Christopher Hitchens) sums it up entirely.

As it made me extremely angry I thought I would vent my rage via a weekly rant.

The post begins:

"Well, everyone knows what Jack straw thinks about women wearing the veil, so I thought I'd share my thoughts.

Whilst I understand and accept that people like to wear various apparel to show an allegiance to the particular religion they subscribe to, the wearing of the veil overspills the religious and even the cultural arena. The veil demands of a woman an extreme form of modesty which both isolates and subjugates her. Anything that does this to women, be it in the name of religion, culture, or whatever else, is wrong."

If she 'understands' why people wear religious apparel then why is the veil singled out in particular? What makes her assume that women who wear a hijab are either 'isolated' or 'subjugated'? She is automatically 'othering' the Muslim woman, hence objectifying her and denying her a voice of her own. Brownfemipower has some very interesting posts and comments following on this very phenomena (i.e white middle class feminists 'othering' the woman of colour, mostly the Muslim woman, laying claim to the veil as the ultimate symbol of oppression). As she states, this is only one step removed from the mentality that was used to justify the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Nice white guys saving the helpless brown woman from those evil brown men (as remember, the brown woman is too oppressed to be able to fight back in any way). She is silenced not only by the sexism of her own culture, it seems, but by her would be 'left' redeemers. She plays pretty much the same role that the third world prostitute has often done for feminists, managing to personify and epitomise the sufferings of the category 'woman'(See link). In actual fact the efforts of Western feminists to 'rescue' these women has sometimes hampered their efforts at self organisation, as they are not always unable to fight back. Neither are Muslim women, in this country or elsewhere. It is an arrogant, elitist, and racist assumption that presumes they are not. If they were not then organisations like Rawa would not exist.

Getting back to Britain - the veil allegedly 'overspills' the cultural arena. What is implied by this? At times I admit I have myself felt discomfort in the past at the sight of a full Jilbab. I used to believe the veil to be a symbol of oppression but having come accross Muslim women who are anything BUT downtrodden I have long changed my mind. And recognised much of it was my own unconscious racism.

It subjugates because one of the many things a veil does is put the responsibility for controlling male sexual desire squarely on a woman's shoulders. She must cover-up or risk being sexually harassed or raped. But it is not woman's responsibility to control male sexual desire. How long have feminists fought the damaging idea that if a woman wears a short skirt that she is "asking for it". As a feminist, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to such a misogynistic view just because some ancient belief system is involved. And I never bought into cultural relativism even before I knew what that term meant.

A case of projecting your own assumptions and prejudices. Perhaps some women wear the veil not because they fear assault but because they are deeply religious, as are Hasidic Jews? They wear some funny clothes, you know.

"The veil also physically restricts the woman. How does she go swimming? Or attend a gym? Or ride a bike? How many times is she denied the pleasure of feeling the sun on her skin?"

Hmm....I suggest you leave that to her.

"Or the friendly smiles of strangers, both to give and receive? How hard is interaction with other women, never mind other men, outside her social circle? How many casual conversation is she denied in waiting rooms, libraries, bus stops, or anywhere else that humanity gathers? How many jobs can't she do? How many careers can she not follow? Just how small does that small piece of cloth make her world?"

Firstly it would have been preferable had the writer clarified as to what she meant - did she mean the niqab (as Straw specifically did) or did she mean the veil per se? Even that is not fully clear, as only the niqab (which covers the face) would prevent facial contact. But if she chooses to dress this way it is her choice. While I accept that not every single veiled woman in the UK may be doing so out of pure choice, it is still not the right of white feminists to presume to speak on their behalf. Women's groups comprising of and focusing on the issues surrounding ethnic minority women exist and they can be built upon.Southall Black Sisters is a case in point. As for integrating - Muslim women are less likely to do this if they are constantly being berated and judged by white people over what they wear!

The fact that Muslim women may face discrimination is not the fault of what they wear - it is a new discrimination, an acceptable face of racism, not based on skin colour but rather on cultural differences. Why should she not be able to engage in conversation? Perhaps, partly because of the prejudice of others? Yet the sentiments above seem to blame Muslim men for the existence of this racism, casting the woman as being helpless and an object of pity. White people are not in any way to blame for this marginalisation that occurs - it is entirely the fault of the Muslims. Neither is the system, neither is racism.

Muslim women (and men) are not generally in a powerful socio economic position. It is futile to focus on the veil as the root of all evil.

"And if the above seems insignificant to you, then just imagine this being asked of men. Imagine it being asked of you."

Shock, horror, a nice English girl like me?

"And I don't for one minute assume that all women who wear the veil, in this country or elsewhere, are made to do it by men. I know the veil is increasingly becoming a thing of choice for women in this country at least. This is because there is much currency to be found in her immediate and perhaps wider community for doing so. And what is the market for this currency? It is a market that trades in the value of women as wife and mothers, and in her rejection of the world outside of this. She is rewarded for squeezing her existence into the tiniest and tidiest image of what a woman should be, and for her rejection of idependence, individualism and freedom of choice."

Funny, but many Muslim women who choose to wear the veil do not fit into this crude racial stereotype. Many of them have been quite independent, individual and make conscious choices to do what they do. They have rejected none of the above. Many have jobs and are not just wives and mothers. Perhaps the writer should get out or at least read a bit more.

"I find such a market as unpalatable as the market that trades in women's flesh and immodesty. The women who buy into this extreme form of modesty are at the opposite end of the scale to the women who get their tits out for the lads. The Page Three Girl and the Burka wearing Muslim may be at opposite ends of the scale, but they have something in common. Both rely wholly on the approval and the mercy of men for their existence. I suggest that either place is not a healthy place to be."

What bilge. Now, I'm no fan of page three either. But to suggest that the women involved 'rely wholly on the approval of men' for their existence is stretching things a tad. They have lives beyond their jobs. And the 'existence' of the shop assistant depends on the approval and 'mercy' of shoppers, the call centre worker that of customers etc in that sense. Not only are Muslim women being 'othered' but the writer also turns her ire and projects her own preconceptions on to the classic group - namely sex workers or glamour models. The sex worker has long been the 'other' of the feminist, the 'fallen woman' being ideal both as an object of pity (needing rescue) and to categorise the sufferings of the female sex as a whole. She has long symbolised the opposite of what the 'emancipated woman' (i.e the feminist) imagines herself to represent and to be. Hence the sense of mission on the part of the latter. Today it appears the Muslim woman is becoming the target - and thus being objectified and silenced in the process. Anything she may attempt to say to counteract it can be written off on account of 'false consciousness' or something similiar (in the 1970s they sometimes called it 'male identified'). I thought such stuff was over. Clearly not.

Which makes me ask why this issue was not raised by one such as Clare Short. She, and other high profile women, spoke out against the issue of soft porn in our papers and how this degrades women twenty or so years ago. Where are these voices now? Why isn't the cultural habit for woman to obliterate their form and turn themselves into non-beings on our streets, as repellent as the cultural habit for women to expose every aspect of their body and being in our newspapers? Why are we struggling to see this as a feminist
issue?

Non beings now? You say it, not I nor they.

And above all, should our media not be finding the time to talk to as many Muslims who are anti-veil as they are talking to Muslims who are pro-veil? Because coming through once again loud and clear is the voice of the regressive over the progressive.

What about those who are neither 'pro' nor 'anti' veil? Is there not room for women who believe it should be purely the choice of others as to what they should wear?

And unfortunately I'm also hearing the voice of the racist who sees this issue as yet another chance for a bit of Muslim bashing. I desperately hope I haven't come across as a Muslim basher here. It is precisely because I don't see a dividing barrier between myself and Muslim women that makes me want to speak out.

I suggest you think again. What you write is patronising to Muslims as you attempt to force on them your own cultural norms and dictate to them what they should wear. You may not see a dividing barrier but that doesn't mean it is not there. It is obvious by your writing that it is there. People are people, and they are not defined solely by their clothing. Clothing, be it religious or non religious, makes a statement.

But clothing does not say everything about a person. You reduce the Muslim woman to the sum of her clothing, which there is a BIG problem with. Accusing your opponents of racism strikes me as being a bit of projection. The whole analysis is way too simplistic.

Meanwhile there is a good story here from a Muslim woman who does not wear the veil herself but has more of an understanding of it than the author of the article I pasted, and does not berate other women for wearing it.

If feminism is to be anything for Muslim women it must come from themselves. Any oppressed group must emancipate itself, no saviour from on high can do this for them.
White feminists by all means should support and show solidarity to Muslim women in their struggles but they should not dictate in a patronising way.

2006-10-11T15:03:00.000+01:00

France Proposes Genocide Denial Bill...

This bill sets a dangerous precedent. At the very best it is can be read as an attempt to stall Turkey's bid to join the E.U. At the worst it could set a precedent for further restrictions on freedom of speech. If expanded it could, in effect, be used against any journalist or academic who challenges the official view of events (such as those who question the Western line on the events in Bosnia, for instance).

'Genocide' is defined as a deliberate and planned policy of ethnic cleansing, which is difficult to prove in most cases. Mass deaths in a civil war, for instance, where there have been atrocities on every side, would not necessarily qualify. Some academics have criticised the definition as it only applies to national groups, not to political or social groups. For example Joseph Stalins extermination of the Kulaks (wealthy peasants) would not count as such as they were a social group, not a nationality. But did that make it any less of a crime?

Holocaust deniers are using crank history for political ends. David Irving is one such example. But his views have no credibility among mainstream historians as the Nazi genocide is a proven fact. His followers are only a small band of far right extremists, who would have their views with or without him. His views should be dismissed, but he shouldn't be in jail.

It is dangerous to give the State power to clamp down on any expression. Another example is the illegality in The Czech Republic and Hungary of communist symbols. In the Baltic States communist organisations find their activities curtailed, while fascist groups can operate legally. In December last year part of a resolution by the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)resolution read that:

“Communist parties are legal and active in some countries, even if in some cases they have not distanced themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes in the past.”

This resolution is in effect a threat. In effect laws that curtail political expression can be used against anybody, be they of the left or the right.

2006-10-09T18:34:00.000+01:00

Why is it that despite the fact that crime has fallen, prisons are being stretched to breaking point? And how on Earth can police cells work as a substitute, with the lack of facilities they have? But the government will not suggest locking fewer people up and working on community based alternatives for rehabilitation.

2006-10-09T18:30:00.000+01:00

A good article on the niqab on the Guardian website by Madeleine Bunting. Due to her rejection of militant secularism she receive a lot of hostility on their talkboards.

2006-10-09T16:55:00.000+01:00

Abortion Rights...and Wrongs

The hardcore 'Abortion Rights' group are opposing this summers early day motion by a Geraldine Smith, which is:

"That this House endorses Recommendation 77 of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law; and calls on the Government to set up a joint committee of both Houses to consider the scientific, medical and social changes in relation to abortion that have taken place since 1967, with a view to presenting options for new legislation."

Let's look at exactly what is being proposed. Smith is in fact opposed to all abortion herself, but the motion is not to make all abortion itself illegal. It is simply asking for an inquiry based on scientific and medical changes that have occured since 1967, and the social effects of abortion. Any new legislation that may result will only be a reduction in the upper time limit, based on earlier viability and greater medical knowlege about the development of life in the womb. This is not 'anti choice' (sic) pseudo science' as they claim but actual medical knowlege gained by the use of technologies such as ultrasound. At 18 weeks a foetus can show signs of distress (such as grimacing), yawn, respond to sound and touch, along with taste. At 20 weeks it can open it's eyes. As premature babies born at 24 weeks are not treated without anaesthetic it is wrong to make the assumption that they would not feel pain in the womb, although they would probably have no memory (as we would understand it) or anticipation of it. But it is disputable as to whether some lower animals do either.

And this brings me to another question: Imagine the bad press the scientific community would receive if they actively opposed an inquiry into vivisection and the level of pain experienced by animals. They would be shunned by most people as being unfeeling sadists. So why are human foetuses given less regard than animals in this respect? They would be laughed at if they stated that to claim that animals have feelings is 'pseudoscience' promoted by animal rights extremists. They would in effect be doing the work of 'animal rights extremists' themselves. In many ways, then, 'Abortion Rights' are assisting their opponents.

'Abortion Rights' earlier made the claim that a reduction in the upper time limit would result in illegal abortions. This does not stand up. The abortion time limit is among the highest in Europe here. Yet other countries such as France are not filled with an epidemic in illegal abortions.

Neither should 'Abortion Rights' call themselves 'pro choice'. It is only one choice they are interested in - namely abortion. If they really were pro choice they would spend time campaigning on other issues besides, such as forced abortions in China and the forcible sterilisation of Roma women in the Czech Republic. Yet they are silent on these matters. The human rights activist Chen Guangcheng (whose picture is in my blog header) is currently in a Chinese jail for exposing the forced abortions and sterilisations under China's one child policy. If an Irish or Polish abortion rights activist was under arrest for fighting against the criminalisation of abortion in their country they would no doubt be campaigning for this person's release. So I won't do these people the favour of calling them 'pro choice' - they are pro abortion. They have a nerve labelling their opponents (many of whom, unlike them, have exposed coercive population control measures) as 'anti choice'.

They are currently following the example of the US based 'Ms' magazine, who recently launched a petition for women to speak out about their 'no regrets' experience of abortion link.
Considering, however, the enormous numbers of abortions having taken place in that country since the procedure was legalised, 5,000 seems a very small amount to sign their petition.

Their British counterparts have this to say:

"Abortion Rights is always looking for opportunities to publicise women’s ordinary, usually positive, experiences of abortion in order to break the taboo and anti-abortion media bias around the issue. We are frequently contacted by women’s magazines, newspapers, radio and TV programmes for interviews with women who have had an abortion and want to run fair, balanced features on the issue.

We have recently worked with Marie Claire magazine on a special 'I had an abortion ' feature and speak out event in parliament, with Cosmopolitan magazine, and with numerous other magazines, newspapers, radio and TV shows."

'Usually positive'? They cite no statistics to back this up, as there are none. Any opinion about this is bound to be somewhat anecdotal, but in my own experience I have only come accross one woman who told me of an abortion experience that amounted to being 'positive'. Second hand I have come accross a couple of others. But predominately in the research I have done and my own experience the feelings of most of the women amounted to being if not regretful (as was the case with some, especially those who had been coerced in some way by relatives or a male partner) at the very least ambivalent. This was even when they believed themselves to have made what was the right decision at the time.

There is no 'anti abortion' bias in the media either. The right wing 'Daily Mail' seems to have an anti abortion slant, and the Telegraph does slightly, the Independent is neutral (as is the BBC) while the Guardian is strongly pro. What this group really want is for the whole of the media to have a pro abortion stance. It is not enough that the left wing press are virtually held to ransom by this self selected clique that represent nobody but themselves. Their views certainly do not tally with those of most British womenlink. YouGov has not been the only survey that has shown such results.

Groups like 'Abortion Rights' show a callousness towards women who have had painful experiences of abortions that they regret, by portraying 'most' experiences as being positive. Despite my stance on porn and prostitution, for instance, I would never claim that *most* experience of women participating in them is positive, just that of *some*.

The fact that this organisation commands the support of many unions is a worrying fact. It has the support of Unison, which represents a large number of medical workers, not all who support abortion. Both rail unions, the RMT and ASLEF, support this group. Workers in these professions who feel very strongly against abortion will resent their funding going to such a campaign. If they feel strongly enough they may even pull out as a matter of principle and thus lose representation. I don't know exactly how this was decided by the Unions concerned, it was probably via *some* kind of democratic process. But the Unions have been known to make decisions in a bureaucratic way that represents the views of those at the top of the hierarchy, not always the rank and file. It would be far preferable if they made it a policy to remain neutral on this highly charged issue.

Meanwhile one of the reasons given why unions should affiliate is this:

"Access to safe, legal abortion is crucial for women's equality and has transformed women's employment and education prospects, incomes and opportunities."

It is only 'crucial' in this sense if women are forced to adapt to a wombless male world, a capitalist system initially created by and for men to work in, without taking into account the needs of women, who need time off to give birth and nurse children. It has only 'transformed' women's prospects under a harsh condition, that they adapt to become as men and not give birth at inconvenient times. This is why the birthrate is at an all time low and professional women often have no choice but to wait until they are well into their thirties to have children. The workplace is not a friendly place for mothers, and pregnancy discrimination is rife. Yet by the sentence above we are supposed to relax as we have been given the sop by our employers of legal abortion to rid them of our biological problem (pregnancy). If anything unlimited abortion will increase pregnancy discrimination. I'm sure an unsympathetic boss would find it much more expedient for a female employee to abort an unplanned pregnancy rather than give her adequate maternity leave and a flexible working environment.

Such a stance is not 'radical' in the slightest' - it is a sellout and an endorsment of the status quo, which in this case stems directly from the leftovers of the patriarchal public sphere and the man made working environment. Capitalist working conditions were put in place to accomodate men, not women, who traditionally stayed at home. In the modern age when women are in the workplace the workplace should adapt to meet their needs, not women who should adapt to meet it's needs. To suggest the opposite is a right wing position and should be inimical to anything claiming to be representative of any kind of feminism or socialism.

Which is why the unions should not endorse this view. And why the 'feminist' credentials of 'Abortion Rights' should also be questioned.

They claim that their aim is to defend the current time limit (24 weeks) and to make abortion available on request up until 14 weeks. A closer reading of their material, however, implies their position is more extreme than this.(link).

2006-10-07T19:20:00.000+01:00

Does North Korea have any right to possess nuclear weapons? The answer would have to be no. No State does have this right, to possess such weapons of mass destruction.

But this includes the West. The hypocrisy of the United States must always be stressed, that it is in no place to lecture anybody until it rids itself of it's own weapons.

Without making any apologies for the Kim regime - it is quite possible that it would not even exist (or at the very least not in it's current state) had it not been for the ferocity of the Korean war, which the US was contemplating making nuclear. That was in the day when Britain did not simply echo US foreign policy, when Clement Atlee was said to have had some influence within the 'special relationship' in persuading the administration not to do that (i.e nuke Korea). The United States is hated in South Korea more than anywhere else in South East Asia.

It is little wonder that the regime in the North is paranoid. It must be seen in the context of the history of the peninsula. The Soviets withdrew after the end of WWII, but the United States did not. Troops remained while a right wing puppet dictatorship that had almost no support among the population was installed and propped up. It was only relatively recently that South Korea became democratic.

The pro-Soviet regime in the North did initially have backing among the largely peasant based population in both regions (many in the South in fact welcomed the Northern troops as liberators). Councils did exist which represented some form of popular representation. It is impossible to say what the regime would look like had the country not been so devastated by war, or had the whole peninsula been under the regime in the North. But mere speculation leads one to suspect that it would look a little different than it does.

True, there is nothing defensible about the current regime in the North from any progressive standpoint. It would not be desirable for it to have nuclear weapons.
But as is Bin Laden and his friends in the Taliban, it is partly a product of US expansionism itself. What the US terms as 'rogue States' are not isolated products on the world stage. It is unlikely they exist in isolation from the world's only superpower either.

Update: Sanctions are now being considered following the nuclear test. These should be firmly opposed by progressives as they will only hurt the already hungry population of N.K

2006-10-07T17:46:00.000+01:00

Scottish Socialist Party...

I don't know how much truth there was in the allegations against Tommy Sheridan. Nobody outside of the organisation really does.

I once admired that organisation, now I have to say that I despise them. The latest that has surfaced (i.e a video tape) deserves a few comments. I have no firm opinion as to whether or not the tape is authentic. But suppose that it was. What kind of a man would record a conversation with a friend for the purpose of later using it against him anyway? Very calculated and cynical. But it is curious as to why it has only taken until recently to surface anyway. Why was it not produced before and handed to the NOTW defence team? Why did it show up in the paper only last Sunday?. The lateness of it's emergence seems to lend question to it's authenticity, along with the contrived nature of one of the comments allegedly made by Sheridan:

"I ask, eh, I ask Alan and Keith to give me the opportunity to see it down and I say to them: "I guarantee you if I am presented with incontrovertible evidence — video tapes, CCTV, something of that character — I'll put my hand up and say ‘I'm sorry'...and I'll walk away."

Fuller and relatively neutral coverage is at the Scotsman.

2006-10-06T13:49:00.000+01:00

What right have politicians to dictate to women what they should wear? As the hijab is worn by many Muslim women as a sign of modesty, I don't imagine that Jack Straw's comments would go down well with their menfolk either. Asking them to wear less? What a perve, they will say!

Whatever one's views are on religious clothing (or on religion) defending the right of people to wear it should be a basic libertarian issue. Politicians should butt the hell out.

2006-10-06T13:08:00.000+01:00

The militant atheists and secularists of the Graun seem to have no problem bashing Roman Catholicism as a pastime. I don't quite follow the line that anti Catholicism is the new anti Semitism, but Anglophone liberals seem to write about this particular religion in a way they would not dream of doing about Judaism, or Islam. If anything the Graun goes out of it's way not to offend Muslims out of political correctness, or fear of retribution.

The prods don't get much flack either, I've never seen an article equating all Protestant clerics with the wacky fundies in the American South. The 'Face to Faith' column on a Saturday normally features a writer from the nice old C of E, or another protestant denomination. Never noticed an RCer though.

People are welcome to criticise, nay attack any religion as far as I am concerned. Nobody has a right not to be offended. But please keep it in balance. Why single one in particular out?

As far as this article goes - a big crock of shit as far as I can see. Judging by the writers clear ignorance of Catholic theology he is clearly having fun in ridiculing a religion he has never been involved in. If he knew better he would realise that 'Limbo' had never been a binding doctrine on Catholics.

But the militant secularists seem to glorify in both an ignorance and a total misunderstanding of religion.

2006-10-04T13:42:00.000+01:00

Russia and Georgia's Diplomatic Spat

Some interesting comments to the article here.

Imagine the USSR still existed. Let's imagine that the Soviets financed a movement in, say Mexico that overthrew the previous, pro US regime and replaced it with a pro Soviet one. Not only this, but the new regime was desperate to join with the Warsaw pact. Similiar movements were being financed and built accross the region, a couple of which had also been successful. Russian troops are stationed in Mexico.

It is doubtful that Uncle Sam would have taken that lying down.

Putin has a point about South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The West actively encouraged seperatism in the former Yugoslavia - so what is the difference? If Kosovo is to be granted independence from Serbia it would only be consistent that those regions be given similiar consideration.

I dispute the leader's assertion that it is 'no longer deemed acceptable' that Latin America is seen as the US's backyard. By whom? Not by the US, who still continue with sanctions against Cuba and who only a few years ago financed an attempted coup in Venezuala.

2006-10-03T15:30:00.000+01:00

More Style than Substance?

Such is the charge that New Labour make against Cameron's Conservatives (see link).

How rich of them. If I recall it was the charge that the Tories initially made against them (all spin and no substance) and they were, on that occasion, right. Blair ditched almost every principle that his party once stood for in order to become elected. Now it goes in full circle, it seems that Cameron is remaking his own party to look like Blair's in order to make it electable. Will the Tory right soon occupy the same place that the Labour left currently do in their party? It seems as though Cameron is likely to appeal to swing voters, as was Blair in his prime.

I am not one of the optimists who believe that the Labour left will show any signs of a major resurgency (at least not where it most matters - i.e in power). They will remain a pressure from within, it being, of course, a good thing that they at least remain as a somewhat viable force to put pressure on the party and the government.

In the advent of another right wing Labour prime minister I remain indifferent to who wins the next election. It will be the same government essentially, a situation partly brought into being by our undemocratic first past the post system (which ironically New Labour promised to reform but backed out after they found it to be to their advantage in their landslide victory in 1997).

This blog is now two months and a day old, and I have to give myself a pat on the back for keeping it up. Consistently writing something round about every other day isn't so difficult once you get into the habit. Hat tip:Temperama.

2006-10-03T15:03:00.000+01:00

This case is a horrific example of a vulnerable woman being used as a pawn by her lawyers for a cause she did not believe in. Whatever one's views are on abortion, they should at least concede that the person that lawyers decide to use an an example actually believe in the cause they are fighting for.

I also know how this person feels. Too well.

2006-09-30T15:22:00.000+01:00

Borat Row...

Sasha Baron Cohen did have his moments as Ali G. It could be funny when he managed to trick establishment figures. His playing stupid act could be amusing and similtaneously clever. Having said that though, I was never a big fan.

Cohen always has walked a fine line between satire and reaction, but with his latest 'Borat' incarnation the scales seem to weigh on the balance of the latter. His
'Ali G' character may have been a rather cruel satire on poverty and ignorance (along with a crude racial stereotype) but at least people in Britain have heard of Staines. Likewise most white people here know some Black people, or at least know something about the Black community in Britain. Cohen's spoof did not bring the existence of this particular group to the attention of a public, or create any new prejudices. It's also worthwhile adding that 'Ali G' was not even supposed to be Black, but rather a white person ripping off that culture (i.e. a 'wigga' or a 'chav').

'Borat'(see link), on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish.
How many people in the West (especially the United States) had even heard of Kazakhstan prior to it being an object for Cohen's ridicule, let alone know anything about it? What Cohen is doing is simply trading on racial stereotypes that he imagines people will have about Kazakhstan or countries like it (Impoverished Muslim nations that were part of the former Soviet Union). Kazakhs are portrayed as a group of anti Semitic, incestuous misogynists.
I especially love this piece of 'comedy':

"When Mr Nazarbayev marked the start of his three-day state visit by dedicating a statue in front of his Washington embassy, along with a four-page advertisement for the country in the New York Times, Borat denounced the publicity as "disgusting fabrications" planted by the Uzbeks, "who as we all know are a very nosy people, with a bone in the middle of their brain"."

As 'we all know'? Really?

Cohen can say what the hell he likes, however abhorrent. I would be the last one to favour any State imposed censorship. Defending his right to express himself doesn't equate with having any support for what he says, or giving it any credibility. I can quite understand while the Kazakh government take offense at his movie. It is not a question of them needing to 'lighten up' or gain a 'sense of humour' at all (as the former Tory MP Neil Hamilton seems to think). Nor is it political correctness gone mad. There is very little that is either funny or true in Cohen's portrayal of Kazakhs. As the more discerning people noted in the comments of the 'This is London' article , if Cohen (or, even worse, a non Jew) decided to satirise the Jews of Israel the anti defamation league would have pulled the plug long ago. Or, at the very least, it would not be viewed as being acceptable. If anti semitism is not acceptable than neither should be any other type of racism.

Bernard Manning, who is openly racist, homophobic and sexist, is no longer thought of as being funny in liberal society. But Cohen acts under a different persona, and that seems to make all the difference.

2006-09-29T16:25:00.000+01:00

Those who know my views understand that I am no militant secular atheist. In fact, I find that kind of proselytising almost as irritating as the evangelicals. This, though, has to be the scariest incarnation of the fundies yet. Seems these guys were directly inspired by their enemies in the East. It amounts to child abuse if you ask me.

2006-09-29T15:54:00.000+01:00

The Return of Courtney Love....

I saw a good documentary on More4 the other night on the forthcoming return of my rock and roll idol Courtney Love (pictured left). Seems she has just been recording a new album. I look forward to it's release. Considering all her troubles the last few years she's done well getting it together so soon, especially as 'America's Sweetheart' took so long, six years in total after 'Celebrity Skin', her last effort with 'Hole'. Despite it's bad press I didn't mind America's Sweetheart, there were a few decent tracks on it. However it could have been better. It was true to say it didn't meet up to the standards of her earlier 'Hole' material. Perhaps it was, as they say, her problems which didn't help it. And they did, to be sure, overshine any impact her long awaited album would have had.

If the samples played were anything to go by it looks as if this new effort will be worthwhile. The songs have a far more acoustic feel to them than her previous works, a touch of Bob Dylan even. There seems to be more emphasis on the guitar and vocals and less on noise, as was the case with the heavy metal sounding America's Sweetheart. Courtney looked much healthier since she's managed to clean up. Let's hope she stays on track, as much for the sake of her daughter Frances as for her own.

Her lyrics have always had a special appeal for me. While they are obviously personal some of them could have been written for me and probably any other woman. As is the case with my other divas PJ Harvey and Kate Bush Courtney writes from a uniquely female standpoint.

Rock on, Courtney!