Sippenhaft

The authority announced on Friday that the first eviction notice had been served – to the mother of an 18-year-old boy accused of violent disorder and attempted theft. (Guardian; Saturday 13 August 2011)

The shameful idea of punishing families for crimes committed by family members has been applied occasionally throughout history. However, the idea is so absurd and so unjust that until recently, it had been codified in law in only one place and in one era: Nazi Germany at the end of WW2, in the form of Sippenhaft ("kin liability"). Now, thanks to Tory maniacs trying to use the riots for political gain, there is a second example.

Anyone with a shred of decency should be deeply ashamed to see this country sliding back to the England described by Charles Dickens, when one could receive capital punishment for stealing a loaf of bread.

"But excessively harsh punishment means that no one will commit crimes anymore." No, it doesn't. It didn't in the 19th century and it won't in the 21st.

I feel truly sorry for everyone whose property has been damaged in the riots of the past days. But if a young man without prior convictions is put in jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water from a looted shop, I am beginning to find it morally objectionable to help the police identify rioters.

Sai Baba

Thousands flock to funeral of India guru Satya Sai Baba (BBC News, 27 April 2011)

Once more it is clear for all to see that BBC News is a bastion of religious apologetics and a haven for irrationalists of all hues. The lengthly article is full of praise for this con artist, charlatan, and quack.

There is one short passage with critical notes: "They say that he was a persuasive fraudster [...]". But this is immediately followed by "These charges were always strenuously denied by the guru and his followers, and were never proved."

For a more informative account of the life of Sai Baba, see:

India would have been a better place without Sathya Sai Baba by Sanal Edamaruku (New Humanist)

moral compass

Vatican tells U.N. that critics of gays under attack (Reuters, Tue Mar 22, 2011)

Vilifying gays is ok. Vilifying those who vilify gays is not ok. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

(Morality according to the Vatican.)

Bill of No Rights

Statement on sex offenders' register (Home Office, Wed Feb 16 12:14:14 GMT 2011)

The sex offenders' register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes.

Where is the evidence that the sex offenders' register protects anyone against anything?

Does anyone realise that 'sex offences' include such things as brothel keeping (read 'two prostitutes sharing a flat so that they can protect one another if a client becomes violent')? (Sex workers put in danger by British policing, Melon Farmers, 13th February 2011.) How about people convicted of having sex with inanimate objects? (Bike sex case sparks legal debate, BBC News, Friday, 16 November 2007.) A wide range of other victimless crimes could be listed such as the truly moronic Dangerous Pictures Act. (UK prosecutors drop 'tiger' sex video case, Register, 6th January 2010.) So Theresa May considers these to be the 'most horrific of crimes'? And in the case of sex with bicycles and cartoon tigers, where exactly does protecting the public come into it?

This is Britain all right. Any mention of sex and all fuses blow, and Home Secretaries with puny brains start reciting well rehearsed, but meaningless phrases such as "most horrific" and "protecting the public".

the right of the public to be protected from the risk of re-offending

The risk of re-offending is never zero. The risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime, any crime, is never zero either. In the case of certain 'sex crimes', the risk of re-offending is smaller than the risk of someone not convicted of any crime so far committing a crime some time in the future.

The risk of crypto-fascist Home Secretaries in sheep's clothes tomorrow turning into chain-saw murderers is never zero. So we'd better lock her up, shouldn't we?

The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police

And we know how concerned the police is with our rights, don't we, boys and girls? Letting the British police decide matters involving individual freedom is the best guarantee that citizens' rights will be trampled upon until it is an unrecognisable goo mashed through the cracks in the floor.

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights.

For those who have been hoping for the creation of a British Bill of Rights to safeguard human rights in the UK, let it be a sobering thought that if this crowd of right-wing loonies gets its way, that Bill of Rights will codify the status quo with the public (a euphemism for the state as an abstract entity) having all the rights and the criminal (meaning any individual who steps out of line) having none.

It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts;

And a populist mob law it will be.

that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals;

Let's not forget that by definition anyone is a criminal who has been convicted of a crime, and crimes are defined by law makers. Once homosexuality and sodomy were crimes. Women resorting to civil disobedience in the late-19th and early-20th century, in order to demand the right to vote, were breaking the laws of that time. The brave people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fighting against tyrany and oppression today are committing acts labelled by various repressive regimes as crimes.

and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.

If moving against insanity were the objective, our first step should be locking people like Theresa May away for good.

There is the usual blatant government propaganda from the BBC, dressed up as scientific fact:

Who, what, why: When is a sex offender not a risk? (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Often these offenders are incredibly furtive," Prof Wilson says.
"They may have committed many, many offences before being caught - their conviction is only the tip of the iceberg."

"furtive"? Does he want to say that the crimes are so hidden that no one notices. Are we, by any chance, talking about victimless crimes again?

Sex offender registration appeals to go ahead (BBC News, 16 February 2011)

"Adults who sexually abuse children should stay on the offenders register for life as we can never be sure their behaviour will change."

If sex offences were distinguished into different categories, such as sex with inanimate objects, indecent exposure, possession of videos with cartoon tiger sex, brothel keeping, and child abuse, then we, the poor readership, would find ourselves intellectually challenged beyond our limited capacities. Therefore the BBC simplifies the discussion by equating sex offence to child abuse. How thoughtful of them. And utterly misleading.

Dinner-table test

Viewpoints: Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe (BBC News, 20 January 2011)

Viewpoints? Points (plural)?! The BBC's idea of fair and balanced is to balance a religious apologetic point of view against more of the same. For goodness's sake, don't let anything remotely controversial be said.

To be fair, it seems that also The Telegraph has after reconsideration found the topic too hot to handle. I recall that hundreds of comments were posted yesterday while now none remain. This is confirmed by Richard Dawkins.

Warsi's claim that criticism on an ideology equals prejudice, hatred and bigotry is untenable. In a healthy debate, had any been allowed in the mainstream media today, it would have been possible to challenge such a claim.

wishes

Happy Celebration-of-a-biological-impossibility, everyone!



Virginity Claims Despoiled... (Melon Farmers, 24th December 2010)

rape

Background information least likely to be found on BBC News:

When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along (Crikey, Thursday, 2 December 2010)

The obsession with prosecuting sex crimes has come to a point where, just like in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the victims of rape are put in jail:

I accused my husband of rape. I was locked up – and he was set free (Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010)

Fitwatch

Met closes down anti-police blog (Guardian, Tuesday 16 November 2010)

[...] the blog was "being used to undertake criminal activities". [...] The Fitwatch blogpost, which last night had reappeared on several other websites, recommended that students "get rid" of clothes they wore at the demonstration and change their appearance.

"If you don't want to get convicted, then don't get caught!" Here, free advice to "undertake criminal activies". Will this blog be closed now, by friendly request from officers of the Met, elected by no one, answerable to no one, following no written law or due process involving judges or magistrates?

And Cameron dares criticise China on matters of free speech:

David Cameron tells China: embrace freedom and the rule of law (Guardian, Wednesday 10 November 2010)

A small reminder of the kind of police thuggery that motivates groups like Fit Watch:

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number (Guardian, Sunday 21 June 2009)

Update:

FITWatch: We're Back... (Melon Farmers, 17th November, 2010)

When the law is unjust, civil disobedience becomes a moral imperative.

Children, sex is bad, mmm'kay?

Children 'over-exposed to sexual imagery' (BBC News, Friday, 26 February 2010)

Author Dr Linda Papadopoulos said there was a clear link between sexualised imagery and violence towards females.

Sorry to be a pain, but, where is the evidence?

"Unless sexualisation is accepted as harmful, we will miss an important opportunity…

Sexualisation is harmful? What exactly is sexualisation and why is it harmful? The dictionary defines "sexualisation" as "To make sexual in character or quality". Then what is the alternative? Let people grow up asexual? Isn't that more harmful, to survival of humanity for example?

Printing photos of topless models in British tabloids is an abject phenomenon that a few more civilised countries somehow can do without. Publishers are given a choice to print those tabloids, and we are given a choice not to buy them, but some Neanderthals among us do anyway. I think this is called freedom, you know, that trifling issue that brave men and women gave their lives for throughout the centuries.

to broaden young people's beliefs about where their values lies," said Dr Papadopoulos, a psychologist.

Ah, "values", dictated by Big Brother. Was this 'expert' recruited by the Labour government by any chance?

Other recommendations include:

* A ban on "sexualised" music videos before the TV watershed

* A ban on Jobcentres advertising positions in lap-dancing clubs and massage parlours

* Internet service providers to block access to pro-bulimia and pro-anorexia websites

* The creation of a website where parents can report any "irresponsible marketing" they believe sexualises young children.

"Ban", "block" and snitching. Yes, this is New Labour all right. If people do something that is inconsistent with your world view, just criminalise them and put them in jail if they persist.

Dr Papadopoulos said there should also be symbols to show when a published photograph had been digitally altered - such as pictures of celebrities manipulated to make them appear thinner.

Have a look at the web site of TV personality Dr Papadopoulos: Dr. Linda. Should I believe her cover photo is not digitally altered? If it is not, then an unlikely amount of make-up was applied. This is a good role model for young women is it?

Dr Papadopoulos said: "The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm.

So in countries where there are no "sexualised images", there is a much lower incidence of violence against women? Well not exactly. The reason why women in e.g. Saudi Arabia don't report rape is because it is not in their interest:

Rape victim sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail (The Guardian, Saturday 17 November 2007)

The review forms part of the Home Office's broader attempts to have a louder public debate about how to combat violence against women and girls.

The last thing this government is interested in is debate. They are interested in pushing through their narrow-minded plans for social engineering. New Labour has learned to its detriment that debate and hiring critical people are bad ideas:

Profile: Professor David Nutt (BBC News, Friday, 30 October 2009)

and

Drug adviser joins exodus after ban on mephedrone (Guardian, Friday 2 April 2010)

So instead of asking for independent scientific advice, Labour now recruits malleable TV personalities to write reports with pre-determined conclusions, dressing up opinion as science.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "We know that parents are concerned about the pressures their children are under at a much younger age, which is why we have already committed to a number of the recommendations in this report.

They already know, do they? How many parents were asked?

As to porn hysteria:

We must speed up to protect children from online porn – expert (Scotsman, 30 March 2010)

"And I'm very proud that Britain is now the only country in the world to have a comprehensive internet safety strategy."

Wrong: Iran, China and North Korea beat us to it.

New Labour protects us from the evil interwebs. Who protects us from New Labour?

Let us on May 6 please wipe this club of warmongers, social engineers, zealots, cheats and charlatans off the face of the earth.

(But don't mind me, I'm just 'bigoted'.)

Collateral Murder

Collateral Murder (rop.gonggri.jp)

There are no words to describe the shame.

Reason beats quacks (this time)

Science writer Simon Singh wins libel appeal after 'Orwellian nightmare' (Guardian, Thursday 1 April 2010)

But a grim reminder of the dark forces that are among us:

Libel laws: judging the truth (Guardian, Friday 2 April 2010)

Four Labour MPs joined Conservatives and Lib Dems to block a government change to the libel system.

next decade

As a belated Christmas present, see:

Cassini Holiday Movies Showcase Dance of Saturn's Moons

Who needs religion when there are true wonders.

See also:

• The Atheist's Guide to Christmas
  
• Richard Dawkins' contribution therein read by himself
  

Those who use and abuse the term "new atheism" ought to listen to this interview with Bertrand Russell in 1959, who sums up all the relevant arguments and counter-arguments in a nutshell. E.g.:

It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it is useful and not because you think it's true.

Irrespective of his sharp mind and exceptional eloquence, Bertrand Russell in fact only repeated existing arguments. For example, the suggestion that there is a causal relationship between belief in a god and morality was already convincingly refuted by Socrates.

So what is "new" about "new atheists"? Perhaps it is that theists feel more threatened than ever, now that they seem to be losing ground to the voices of reason, at least in the Western world. By calling their opponents "new", they demand that atheists justify their position from scratch, as if such justification hasn't been around for at least two and a half millenia. By bickering about the "tone" of the arguments set forth by "militant" or "fundamentalist" atheists, they attempt to distract attention from a lost cause on the intellectual and scientific battleground, trying to take the discourse into the realm of cowardly irrational sentiments and ad hominem attacks.

Belief in, and promotion of something that is patently false isn't morally defensible, and has never been. What may have changed over the last decade is the growing awareness that religion is a serious threat to civilisation. The Aids epidemic in Africa can be largely blamed on Christian and Muslim interference in prevention programmes. G.W. Bush's motivations for the disastrous war in Iraq were his wacky beliefs in Old Testament prophesies, and he found his ally in Tony Blair, whose deranged religious convictions were still in the closet at that time.

As to the 9/11 attacks, there is no rational basis for criticising Islamic fundamentalism without criticising Islam, and similarly, there is no rational basis for criticising Islam without also criticising Judaeo-Christian beliefs and related forms of delusion, including pseudo-science. Suppressing criticism because of the assumption that believers are such vulnerable weaklings that they would be unable to cope with rational arguments could well be regarded as a form of racism. Respect is due to people, but no respect at all is due to a mistaken belief, whether it is astrology, homoeopathy, Scientology or Islam.

At the top of the list of my hopes for humanity in the coming decade is therefore that religion will continue to lose its unwarranted air of respectability, and that some of the most serious forms of quackery will follow suit.

Some more pointers:

'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009

'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009

Scientology 2009…Year Of Epic Fail

heroic pun

Shoe attack on Bush shoe thrower (BBC News, Tuesday, 1 December 2009)

Muntadar al-Zaidi is widely considered to be a hero, and in my opinion justly so, for reminding the world of the plight of the Iraqi people caused by the insanity of Bush and Blair. He payed for his symbolic gesture with nine months in jail, not to mention torture. The little shit from BBC News who commented on the footage, Andy Mar, expressed solidarity with his Iraqi colleague using such phrases as "taste of his own medicine" and "you reap what your throw".

With such "defenders of democracy" as the BBC, it is no wonder why Britain today is anything but.

unaccountability

Call to elect local police chiefs (BBC News, Saturday, 7 November 2009)

Only 0.18% of all complaints against riot squad officers over the last four years were upheld (Guardian, Friday 6 November 2009). This is not a typo! If you're bad at maths, let me explain that 0.18% amounts to about 1 out of 556.

Does that mean that 99.82% of all people who filed complaints were doing so just for the fun of it? I would lean towards believing instead that a culture of unaccountability has pervaded every echelon of law enforcement.

So what do we do about it? Do we organise mass demonstrations to demand punishment of officers who have abused police powers, or to demand punishment of those in government who have entrusted those powers to a fruity club unworthy of them? Do we start an armed revolt against the state perhaps?

No, the cunning plan is to have elected police chiefs. If anything, this will add to the illusion that police have a mandate from the people to fuck up the way they have done in the past. One may also expect an increase in police brutality against "pervs", "social deviants" and other minorities, to please the tabloid-reading, self-righteous masses.

If the voters are stupid, then the easiest way to achieve repression is through a pretence of democracy. This is demonstrated in Britain more than anywhere else (save the US of course).

More repression is on the way:

Her Majesty's Pleasure: How England "Safeguards" Sexuality, by John Ozimek (Carnal Nation, via Melon Farmers 7th November 2009)

comparisons

Iran protesters hijack 30th anniversary of US embassy seizure (Guardian, Wednesday 4 November 2009)

Iran may aspire to have nuclear weapons. Britain has nuclear weapons.

At the head of Iran's government there are nutcases who might one day start a war against Israel motivated by religious beliefs. Britain got involved in the war in Iraq thanks to Tony Blair's divine revelations. Our next PM doesn't seem to be much of an improvement, to put it mildly.

Misogyny is widespread among Iran's political elite. The same can be said of Britain.

Iran has the Basij militia, who are answerable to no one. In Britain, MI5, MI6, special "anti-terror" forces, and even the regular police appear to be answerable to no one. (See here and here and here and here.)

Many judges in Iran are also clergy, passing sentences while firmly believing in fairy tales from the Arabian peninsula. In Britain, the legal system is dominated by bigotted clown in wigs, and juries who believe anything they read in the Daily Fail.

In Iran there are show trials against the leaders of the opposition. In Britain, people can be held in custody for 28 days without even being charged.

Speaking out against Islam can get one seriously in trouble in Iran. Speaking out against quacks damaging the health of patients can get one seriously in trouble in Britain.

There are reports of torture in Iranian prisons, Britain mostly outsources torture to third-world countries.

The Iranian authorities ban some films for vague reasons. (One such film is Crimson Gold, which I much recommend.) Similarly, cinemas in the UK are receiving "free advice" from police not to show certain films.

The Iranian government reveals its authoritarian nature by implementing software to monitor and filter internet traffic. This corresponds to mandatory data retention and IWF block lists in Britain. And more is to come.

Iran has a democracy in principle, but the government does not reflect the will of the people. The British government is currently supported by perhaps one fifth of the electorate, and will continue to give democracy the finger until the summer of 2010, when another political party will take over that doesn't care a jot about democracy, justice or common decency.

The people of Iran are showing exceptional bravery and dignity, becoming of the Persian culture, with its recorded history going back 5000 years. This may in the end break them free from tyrany. The people of Britain...

Ah, forget it! What's on the telly tonight?

Labour in La La Land

Chief drug adviser David Nutt sacked over cannabis stance (Guardian, Friday 30 October 2009)

Last time scientists were told to lie in order to support government policy, on penalty of dismissal, was under Ceauşescu.

Science is no longer wanted, nor critical thinking, nor common sense, nor human rights, nor common decency. But who needs all that when we have New Labour ideology.

the new lepers

One in 10 inmates is sex offender (BBC News, Monday, 26 October 2009)

Most repressive regimes invent a term to refer to people who stand in the way of whatever the regime wants to achieve. The term is given a strong negative connotation, and subsequently the populace tends to treat those branded with the term as less deserving of life and happiness.

Examples of such terms are "infidel", "unbeliever", "sodomite", "social deviant", "subversive", "Untermensch", "asbo", and lately "sex offender", which is another concoction of New Labour's mass criminalisation programme, making clever use of Britons' innate pathological fear of sex. The term includes those who have been convicted of rape or child molestation. But it also includes a policewoman who moonlighted as a prostitute, a man who gave a woman a lift from the train station to a nearby brothel (so called domesting trafficking; yes, people have been sent to jail for that), a father owning a holiday photo of his 17 year old daughter in a bikini, people who read explicit Japanese comic books or watched videos with "extreme pornography", as well as many dozens of innocent people (innocent in every respect except that of British law) whose credit card information was stolen by paedophiles.

Responsible journalists would not use a crude term like "sex offender" for such a wide spectrum of individuals, many of whom don't deserve to be treated as criminals in the first place. But of course, we are not talking about responsible journalism here, we are talking about BBC News.

Police target hip-hop nightclubs

Police target hip-hop nightclubs (BBC News, Friday, 16 October 2009)

"Detailed research identified which events are most likely to attract crime and disorder," a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police told BBC News.

"At the end of the day, you've got to say that certain events attract more trouble than others.

We're shifting the focus away from live music. Originally the definition of what Form 696 applied to was extremely broad so by narrowing it down, it's thought that we can better tailor it to our requirements."

Detailed research identified that Muslims are the most likely ethnicity to blow up subways, so by narrowing down security checks, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

Detailed research identified that men between 30 and 35 are most likely to possess child pornography, so by narrowing down pre-dawn raids to houses of randomly selected men in that age group, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

Detailed research identified that opposition MPs are most likely to leak information embarrassing to the Labour government, so by narrowing down our unlawful arrests, search warrants and intimidation, we can better tailor them to our requirements.

fear of knowledge

We live in an age of fear, fear of sex, fear of nudity (cf. here and here), fear of the spoken word (cf. the whinging about swear words on radio and TV), and fear of knowledge, exemplified by:

British Museum's Aztec artefacts 'as evil as Nazi lampshades made from human skin' (Mail Online, 27th September 2009)

Solid and scholarly as this exhibition is, I would rather not have the memory of half of these carefully preserved objects in my mind.

The fear of knowledge is perhaps the most pernicious of all, as it promotes ignorance, breeds bigotry, and engenders hatred, Fear of knowledge is what makes history repeat itself, letting people make stupid choices and start pointless wars over and over again.

New Labour is responsible for creating much of that fear, which today borders on hysteria. But let us not forget the contributions made by our 'friends' from the Daily Mail.

extremely cruel

First prison sentence for extreme porn (Register, 29th September 2009)

"Nothing will be gained by sending you into custody, because you wouldn’t survive because you would be vulnerable. Support and assistance is needed."

Does the judge perchance admit that jail is a nasty place where strong men rape not-so-strong men? If so, this means that the first individual mentioned in the article has been sent to jail for six months for possessing images of a horse being sexually abused, so that he in turn may be abused. But whereas the horse may not even have noticed, he will, every time he reaches down for the soap, for six long months.

I thought the Hammurabi code (ca. 1790 BC) had put an end to such disproportional punishment.