It’s only through studying the European Union that the
absurdity of many eurosceptics’ positions has become apparent to me. An
instinctive pro-European, I’ve never seen much allure in the idea that the more
independence our arbitrarily-defined nation state possesses the better. More
can be achieved as part of a whole, resources can be pooled, neighbouring
countries can stop pointing guns at each other, and point them at some other
common enemy, perhaps a country where the people have a different skin colour
or religion. However, recently my concerns have become more codified.
My account of polling day for the local elections last year,
on this very blog, included a description of a three hour conversation I held
with a man running to be a councillor for UKIP. Quite why a party concerned
primarily with the UK’s position within the EU contests local elections is
another issue, but part way through the conversation he described the beauty of
capitalism in that it is a self-adjusting and extremely complex and intricate
system of resource allocation. It struck me odd then, as now, that someone
would support the free movement of resources in almost every area, and demand
the government simply allow capitalism to mould society as demand dictates, yet
hold such opposition to the free movement of labour in the form of relaxed
borders and immigration. Presumably in a capitalist world, the free movement of
labour is crucial if it is to be optimally efficient.
This being said, I take more issue with the criticisms of the
EU itself. It’s absolutely true that the European Union has a democratic
deficit. There is only one directly elected body, the European Parliament,
which has little power, comparable in terms of its scrutinising and
legislation-delaying role to the British House of Lords, a fact which is often
trumpeted by eurosceptics explain why the EU is unaccountable. But what these
critics fail to acknowledge is the correlation between the amount of power an
organisation has and the amount of democratic legitimacy it requires. No one
would seriously suggest, I assume, that every time an international treaty is
formed, it should require an elected international assembly between the
relevant countries, and it’s important to remember that this is how the EU was
formed and developed: by individual treaties. It’s wrong to view it as a static
organisation that was designed with the powers it currently has, as well as the
lack of democratic accountability it currently has. The EU is a continuing
project and has been changing and developing for the last fifty years. The
democratic deficit is something that, if eurosceptics would shut up and let the
EU carry on changing rather than blocking every new treaty or constitution,
will be addressed in time. It’s not sensible to argue for more democracy in the
EU without also believing it should have sufficient power to warrant elections
and democratic accountability. The way the EU has developed has led to the
current state of a slightly higher power to accountability ratio than would be
ideal, but this should change in time.
Both the Lisbon Treaty and the failed constitution of 2004
(both opposed by eurosceptics) wanted more powers to the European Parliament,
to match the EU’s increasing legislative role. It is, of course, true that the
EU is getting more say over more aspects of our lives, and as a result should
be accountable to the European people, so why eurosceptics would oppose these
moves is uncertain.
And at the other end of the spectrum, eurosceptics believe
countries are losing their independence, which would surely be more so if there
was a stronger supranationalist parliament, rather than the current reliance on
intergovernmental institutions. The areas of the EU in which countries retain
most of their independence are the Council of Ministers and the European
Council, which are the negotiating forums of representatives of member
governments who act in the interests of their people. On major treaties and
so-called “higher” policy areas such as defence and foreign policy, member
states exercise a veto, so no country is expected to sign up to things it
disagrees with. For people who object to the removal of power from nation
states, these appear to be pretty good measure to ensure sovereignty is
retained. It’s impossible to have an EU that’s both perfectly democratic, and
gives paramount importance to national governments.
So what frustrates me most about the eurosceptics is wanting
to attack, on the one hand, the lack of independence of member states, and when
the intergovernmental negotiating forums are mentioned as an answer to this,
they change their focus to democratic accountability, which they opposed the
improvement of in the form of opposition to any new treaty that comes from
Brussels, and fail to realise that there’s no use in having a democratically
elected parliament if it has no powers.
This circular logic is not grounded in reason, but in a deep
protectionism and a general dislike for the idea of their country being a part
of a whole rather than an end in itself. It’s a position born out of
nationalism, and nationalism alone.
I recently became aware of your organisation as I was investigating people who deal with issues of realigning sexual orientation.
At present I am a heterosexual man, but have many homosexual friends, from whom I sometimes feel excluded when we socialise.
I would appreciate if you could advise me, from your expertise in the area, on how best to gain homosexual feelings. I am not saying I would like to become a homosexual permanently, but I would at least like to try bisexuality for a time, and was wondering if you could give me some guidance on how to go about this.
I've recently been looking into the views of Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem, who is to women's rights as Nick Griffin is to multiculturalism, as he's speaking at Sheffield Hallam Islamic Society next week on, ahem, woman's rights in Islam. And while I could write an entire dissertation on the man's variety of views, resembling a pick'n'mix of hate, a selection box of contempt, a multi-pack of loathing, (available here http://www.assimalhakeem.net/ and here http://www.youtube.com/user/assimalhakeem) one thing that sprung out was his opinions on pubic hair.
Scanning through his videos, this gem popped up. "Eyebrows?" I thought. "Surely he doesn't have an opinion on them?"
It turns out that he does, and also on, erm, other hair. Watch this video again, while keeping in mind that this old man shaves his balls. Go on. Do it.
To save you the trouble of reading it, a concerned Mulism (or an atheist pissing himself laughing) has asked for specific information on shaving the following areas: penis, scrotum, anus, Thighs - the part around the penis and scrotum and their extent as some say we need to go down till the knees [very specific??], The area in between the scrotum and the anus [This is getting pretty graphic. Once you're onto parts of the body that don't have a name, it's surely not worth worrying about?], The hips near the anus and the part further away, The part which is below the belly button and above the penis.
I'm beginning to pity this guy. He's so brainwashed that he's gone on the internet to ask a stranger which parts of his genitals he should be shaving from fear of divine retribution. Particularly when he asks if he has to start shaving from the right hand side. "Is it my right, or the right from Allah's perspective??"
Admittedly, the reply simply says he should shave his pubes in a pretty self-explanatory way "like you would remove the hair in and around the armpits." Yeah cheers, I'll just do what I do when I remove my armpit hair.
I'm a liberal. I think people should be able to believe and say whatever they want. But is it just me who thinks that people believe a deity gives a rat's (shaved) ass about their pubic hair have either been ludicrously brainwashed, are trying to manipulate others, or are in complete denial about the stupidity of what they're doing?
When Kim Jong Il died I read/heard something about the crazy stories about Kim's birth and life. An "expert" of some kind was asked whether Koreans actually believed these things. He replied that even if they don't, if you can make people say they believe such preposterous things you've dominated them psychologically to such an extent that you eliminate all resistance. I can't help but think something similar's going on here. "If we get people to shave their pubes, we get them to do ANYTHING."
Hi guys. I occasionally draw cartoons. As it turns out, I'm not a particularly good drawer or cartoon thinker-upper, but when has low quality ever stopped me from posting on here before? This is my equivalent of putting it on the fridge. (because it's where shitty drawings and stuff go, and because it's a place where only the people I live with will see it)
Dun this one recently. It's about economics or sumfin.
This is about British response to bad weather. Dun it during the snow.
This was around the same time as the Sharia thing (2008ish?) when a woman had argued she should be allowed to wear a burka in a primary school. I thought it would be funny if a ventriloquist made a similar claim, but with hindsight I should have left out Darth Vader.
I dun this one in an EU lecture the other day on the Eurozone debt crisis and have now digitally rendered it for computer. Self explanatory.
It's fair to say I was rather looking forward to the "Islam vs Liberalism" debate due to be held by the Sheffield Hallam Islam Society. I don't know a huge amount about Islam and it's often hard to establish what the truth is beyond the polarised media. I have often seen interviews with moderate Muslims who have argued that Islam is a religion of love, peace and tolerance, which had led me to believe that mainstream Islam may well be in line with liberal, secular Britain much in the way moderate Christianity is.
My hopes were dashed fairly early on. When we were waiting to go in I observed that men and women appeared to be standing separately, but didn't really think anything of it. This became more obvious when the women were admitted to the lecture theatre first by one door, and the men by another afterwards. My jaw dropped yet further upon entering the theatre, when I saw that the women were at the very back of the lecture theatre and the mean at the front with maybe 20 empty intervening rows. I am aware of the somewhat sexist nature of Islam, but had not expected to see it so obviously and explicitly in the UK, at a University, and for them to ask the female members of the atheist contingent to sit at the back too. When people in the UK talk about sexism, they mean that women are under-represented in government or on the boards of FTSE 100 companies, or that previsions for maternity are lacking. What I observed here was so far beyond that. The open segregation of men and women was akin to apartheid. I felt like a white person at the front of the bus. I have sometimes wondered if it's possible to feel genuine, pure, blood boiling anger about something that is offensive to someone other than yourself. I discovered it was as my face was red with fury even as I said down. From that moment there was nothing that could be said to convince me that Islam is a tolerant, non-sexist religion.
When questioned on this issue, the Muslim speaker Hamza Tzortzis (whose hate speech is available on YouTube) claimed that women choose to be separate. I wonder how many of the women in there felt they could possibly consider sitting amongst the men? I wonder what would have happened if they had. I'm fairly certain that, particularly if there were no outsiders there, they would probably have been told they weren't allowed, and risk ostracism. Hamza argued that if an observer came in and saw the women at the back (in a tiered lecture theatre) they would assume they were more important as a result of being higher up. This misses the issue with segregation. Irregardless of who is higher up, segregation is still occurring. And his claim that they were more important than men was severely damaged by the fact that during the Q&A only a single woman from the back of the room asked a question, and others submitted them in written form, presumably either as a result of feeling they couldn't speak in a room full of men, or because being at that back of the room meant that no-one at the "unimportant" front, where the debate was actually happening, would be able to hear them.
Hamza was questioned further on women's rights around the issue of rape. In Islam there are various rules relating to the punishment of rape victims which he was challenged on. To claim that Islam respects women, Hamza's defence was that the punishment for a rapist is crucifixion. I think that even most supporters of the death penalty would argue that crucifixion is a step too far, and that he actually cited this as his defence opened up a whole other can of worms. To add to this, he said that the punishment for falsely claiming that a woman has been raped is 40 lashings and the removal of a hand and a foot. Again, this is rather an appalling defence by the standards of most sane people.
Fortunately the issue of homosexuality was not raised until the very end, at which point it is no exaggeration to say things almost came to blows. The issue was coincidentally raised by both a Muslim and atheist questioner in close succession, albeit from extremely different viewpoints. The answer Hamza gave to the issue was a regurgitation of Christianity's popular "love the sinner hate the sin" excuse for an argument. People are permitted, he maintained, to have homosexual tendencies (he himself knows "people with homosexual tendencies who call themselves Muslims"), as long as they don't act upon them. So far so predictable. Furthermore, the necessary conditions for punishment involve four witnesses, who are not allowed to be spying in people's private property, so the offence must, essentially, take place in public. Where the problem lay was that after further questioning, Hamza used the old "if we're going to allow this, why not allow paedophilia" argument. I was too incensed with rage to be able to remember specific elements of this exchange in order report it in any detail. Needless to say the comparison drew vocal outcry from the attending atheists, who were heckled by a Muslim gentleman sat a few rows in front to "show respect". There were several more vocal and angry exchanges on the topic at which point the debate was ended.
I am frequently amazed by the determination of religious people whose religions are full of sexism, intolerance and homophobia, who are determined to package it in the language of love and peace. Hamza was, to his credit, a fantastic speaker, although his petty descent into name calling, in spite of being in front of a generally sympathetic audience was remarkable, as well as his disingenuous misdirection and lying. His speaking skills can be seen in the video at the bottom of this page.
The problem, I think, is not an issue with "all Muslims" in the way people like to generalise. What I saw was a room full of, presumably reasonably intelligent people, who could sit in a room and, ignoring the terrible metaphysical and historical arguments, listen to someone who believes homosexuality is akin to paedophilia, and who believes that crucifixion is ever an acceptable punishment, and not only remain silent (as no-one from the atheist society felt able to do), but applaud, and, in some cases, cheer and think "this is a religion I want to be a part of". This terrifies me slightly, as these people are not crackpots like the Westboro Baptist Church that are known for their crazy views, these are people whose religious beliefs are respected solely as a result of being religious beliefs, when actually views like this are more objectionable than those of the BNP, who receive a significantly higher amount of attention from the media and politicians. Admittedly, the fact that Islam comes from a foreign culture makes it slightly less palatable to the secular Brit. When a brief prayer is said at the beginning of a Christian Union even (although it rarely is) it's relatively unremarkable to people who likely went to a Christian school and have probably been to church services in their lives. To see someone with a long beard chanting in a foreign language wrongly creates an impression of "other" which is unfair to use in claiming that Islam is more cult-like than mainstream Christianity. But if we stick to the facts, the views expressed were beyond anything I've heard before, and the segregation of men and women is an inexcusable custom. What was most disturbing about it was that the women there appeared to be convinced that by sitting at the back with their heads covered, and not being expected to speak, they weren't inferior they were just "different". This is something that can only come about as a result of brainwashing, particularly when they can see men and women harmlessly interacting with each other all around.
It's also possible to see how extremism comes about. In any group of similarly-minded people it's easy to get carried away by the fact that you all agree, and that your views are not challenged. In the atheist society, things are sometimes said or accepted without challenge that are perhaps objectionable as a result of being amongst the like-minded and the fact that nobody wants to be the sole objector. But when a group of people has already accepted that they can't sit with their equals of the opposite sex, and when lashings for someone who has told a lie is accepted as a reasonable punishment, this is extremism. And when that group believes they have a god on their side, and that they are going to receive eternal bliss in service of this god, it's not a huge leap to get violence and terrorism. This is not, of course, to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" but that any insular organisation that goes unchallenged, when they believe they have divine authority, is bound to become a breeding ground for extremism, particularly when their views are extreme to begin with. But in stead of facing up to this all we hear is denial. Whenever Hamza was questioned on the state of Muslim countries around the world, he replied that those people were not Muslims, or that they were Muslims under a dictator they didn't want. I am not about to claim that repressed people want a dictator, but the only way of not having a dictator in some form is to have democracy, a liberal principle which was not strongly touched upon in the debate, but its acceptance would entail an acceptance of a core liberal principle which would not have helped his cause. In Egypt, where a dictator was recently overthrown, the first elections has rendered an Islamists the victors. We have yet to see how this will turn out. Iran is a theocracy, under the control of Islam and its interpreters, and Saudi Arabia a country whose legal system is based on Sharia law. To deny these countries and their repugnant practices are connected to Islam is akin to putting fingers in your ears and going "la la la". Similarly, it is dangerous to argue that violent Muslim extremism is nothing to do with the Muslim community. If views like the ones expressed at this event are acceptable to even a small portion of Muslims, there is an obvious problem with extremism and potential for violence.
It's difficult to say how mainstream the views we heard were. Apologists will always try and argue that most Muslims don't have views like this. From Christian events I have been too it has become apparent that, while some of the more objectionable views are more common than a liberal such as myself assumes, a vast number of people who call themselves Christian apply this to only a small or non-existent extent in their lives, and even those who attend church regularly often have little in common with the slavery-supporting fundamentalists I have encountered. However, my impression of the debate was that the views expressed were more common than we might assume. I estimate there to have been 150 Muslims there (it was rather obvious who they were as almost everyone there was a Muslim or an atheist and there was an obvious racial difference, as well as bearded men and headscarved women), which must be a reasonably significant proportion of Sheffield Hallam's Muslim population. Furthermore, this was not a fringe group like Synergy, a Christian group at the University of Sheffield, it was Sheffield Hallam Islam Society, which I assume encompasses the mainstream of Muslim thought. Of course it's not possible to know what every Muslim thinks, but this experience, coupled with a survey that was done a short while ago in which no statistically recognisable proportion of Muslims could be identified who agreed that homosexuality is acceptable, suggests that the problem of Islam is one that's greater than many moderate secular people, who are keen not to appear in a league with the racist EDL and BNP, are prepared to recognise.
I know, I know, it's a very exciting topic, but please try and control yourself long enough to read what I have to say.
About twenty months ago, it was included in the Coalition Agreement that this Parliament would see the introduction of elected police commissioners. The reason this idea existed in the first place is because in the wake of the expenses scandal, the Conservative Party wanted to appear to be doing something to reform politics, without actually changing anything. For this reason they decided to support recall elections for MPs, primaries and elected police commissioners instead of reforms which would have actually improved our democracy such as a new voting system, lowering the voting age or seriously pushing for an elected House of Lords.
The elections for police commissioners, it has been announced, will take place in November of this year. Autumn and Winter are famously bad times to hold elections as apparently people are less keen on exercising their voice in democracy when there's a chance they might get chilly, and one can only assume that they are being held then, as opposed to May with the other elections, to force turnout down even lower than the 40% we see at local elections. But this may not be a bad thing, as elected police commissioners is a resoundingly awful idea.
Firstly, what makes the Conservative Party think that anyone will give enough of a rat's ass about who their police commissioner is to read up on their candidates and go out and vote? Only 60% of people do this (mostly without the "reading up" part) in general elections, to choose their government, amid a storm of media hype. Drop this to the previously mentioned 40% for local elections and it begins to look likely that the miserable percentage of people who turn out to put a cross next to their party's police commissioner could sink even lower than this already very low benchmark.
And do we really want a politicised police force? The police are surely expected to be neutral enforcers of the law. How would the policing of, say, a demonstration that a particular commissioner does or doesn't support work? And what about a police commissioner being elected who favours the legalisation of certain drugs, for example. Will we then see an area of the country where drugs laws are not enforced? Police commissioners don't make laws, they are enforcers of them, which is a role that should be neutral both with regards to the people being policed and the laws being enforced.
Next comes this issue of who will be running. The first article I read on candidates was this one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-16417374) on the BBC, which details plans of former Welsh First Minister Alun Michael to run for a commissionership. Delving into Michael's history we see that he has been a reporter, a youth worker, and spent 25 years as an MP save for a brief spell as a member of the Welsh Parliament. Not to launch into personal criticism, but I would much rather have, you know, a police officer as police commissioner. What, about a career in politics, qualifies you to run a police force? I know the same criticism could be levelled at electing governments, but it's necessary to vote for people in government as they direct national policy in a way police commissioners don't or at least shouldn't.
There's only one way I want my police commissioners to be selected, and that's by police. People who know what they're talking about in the field of policing. I don't know what this selection process should be, but whatever they do at the moment will probably be fine. Personally, I don't have a clue who the best police commissioner will be. I don't know enough about policing to judge. And, with no insult intended to my reader, most of the general public probably don't know much more than I do. I think a body of people who know everything they know about law enforcement from watching Police Academy is probably not the best source of wisdom on the matter.
It's particularly ironic that the Conservative Party who not a year ago argued against a new, fairer, voting system based on a fictionally-constructed cost and the basis that "there's no appetite for change" are now forcing a pointless election on people. The Liberal Democrats decision not to field candidates for £5000 a pop (why so high? *cough* Tories *cough*) may be a principled stand, or cynically-motivated necessity based on the party's finances, or lack thereof, and the fact that following recent electoral performance a few lost deposits may be in the pipeline.
So I urge you, come November, not to vote in this hideous masquerade. Personally I will be spoiling my ballot. If we can force the turnout levels even lower than the pitiful number our overlords are surely expecting than perhaps the whole idea will be scrapped.
Update
Since writing, this story has come to my attention http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-16627270#TWEET64805 . A police officer is facing disciplinary measure over tweeting in a personal capacity about police funding. Apparently this is prohibited as it may "undermine public confidence and bring discredit on the service". And just what will happen to public confidence in police when their local force is constantly under partisan attack from politicians eager to win votes? If a single police officer being openly political is a bad thing, it's surely even worse for a commissioner?
