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)