Thoughts on the Leveson Inquiry

So for anyone unaware, there is currently a government enquiry underway to look into the case for increasing regulation of tabloid newspapers. This is mostly in reaction to the News of the World phone hacking melarkely, but it's been a chance for celebrities and commoners from all corners of the British Isles to reveal various journalistic misdeeds which have so far slipped under the radar.

And some of the stories are shocking. It is clear that the tabloid press have been acting unacceptably, but then I might not be quite as shocked if the BBC had not decided to present what's going on in the way it has. Slight irony there, but there we go.

I am in favour of tighter privacy laws and generally giving a slap around the face to the tabloids (which, in my opinion, are one of the greatest forces for evil in the western world). But let's be clear that the government ministers commissioning the inquiry will personally benefit from a reduction in tabloid power. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, while hardly men of conscience, are one of the main factors for holding the government accountable for it's actions. Yes, News International et al don't publish govenment scandals for any reason other than for their own profits, and yes, the enormous influence newpapers have over voters is unacceptable. But we do need investigative journalism in the world. Our politicians are constantly performing anti-democratic backdoor deals and acts of spin in order to placate the CEOs and union leaders and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. That is the truth. And as residents of a democracy, we have the right to know what laws and policies our leaders are making and why. We cannot have access to that information without a relatively unregulated press.

So one of the main concerns I have about the Leveson inquiry is that it will act as an excuse for the government to slip in some piece fo legislation which restricts the media from doing exactly what we need it to do. We need the papers to stay independent of government control, or this country will completely cease to be a genuine democracy. The problem is, in a climate currently characterised by the phone hacking and similar scandals, with the never-ending parade of people who's lives have been torn apart by vicious tabloid journalism being shown to usevery day, that no-one will ever dream of objecting to an Act of Parliament which restricts the activity of tabloid journalists.

And maybe that's right. Privacy matters, of course it does. And the way that Charlotte Church, JK Rovwling, Hugh Grant, Kate McCann and all the rest of them have been treated breaks my heart as much as anyone else's. There is no doubt to that.
I am in favour of retracting the coils of journalism from the private lives of individuals. Celebrities, grieving mothers, writers, even politicians- we all have the right to the privacy of our own homes, and it is none of the general public's business who we may have slept with and what diets and fashions we are choosing to sport. If the government introduce regulation which stops the papers from publishing or attempting to find out that kind of information, and that kind of information alone, then I will sing my praises from the nearest rooftop along with the rest of the country.

But the government would be foolish, from their point of view, not to strike while the iron is almost melting and slip in some regulation which stops the press from investigating poltiical sleaze and dishonesty. So I will remain wary of such regulation being part of whatever legislation results from this Inquiry.

No profession or group of people is ever purely a force for evil. While investigative journalism is currently running riot and ruining lives, that does not mean that investigative journalism is an evil thin in itself. And is does not mean that we will not be far worse off as a society without it.  

Hey! You! Have some heartwarming propaganda:

I will post a proper blog post soon, promise, either tonight or tomorrow. But for now, you should all watch this amazing gay marriagey video:

Watch your Language! (in a gay way)

So yesterday, or some other such day, I found myself reading this column in the Guardian, which asserted that people should stop using the word "homosexual" to refer to The Gays. The columnist's argument is that homosexual sounds too much like a medical term, and will always sound as though it is being used to refer to a crazy person. He points out that homosexual is the stubborn word of choice for stuffy, rightist publications like the Torygraph, and has no place in papers like the Guardian.

He sort of has a point. Not a point I agree with, but a point nonetheless.

As he pointed out, the word "homosexual" was coined by a German doctor examining same-sex attraction as a symptom of mental illness. It often has a bitingly clinical tone to it, which many prominent gay writers have objected to. The word gay, does, overall, just sound more embracing.

But then, the origins of the use of "gay" to mean homosexual are hardly more innocent. As we all know, gay initially meant to be carefree and happy. The semantic shift started when its meaning of carefreeness became more narrowed, laden with implications of immorality and hedonism. In the seventeenth century, "gay woman"  meant prostitute, "gay man" meant womanizer, and a "gay house" was a brothel. It is from here that it became a sneering, judgmental term to refer to men who engaged in unholy shenanigans with other men. "Queer", another term now fully embraced by the LGBT community, also began as a derogatory term for effeminate men in the kitchens and schoolyards of traditionalist England.
So if we can bring the words "gay", "queer", and in some cases, even "fag" into acceptable use, why on earth not "homosexual"?

If we got rid of every word to refer to those of a non-heterosexual disposition which had been used in a derogatory way at some point, then we would have no words left. We'd have to create new ones, like "foojillybob". Then fairly soon, once that was used as an insult by some compensating teenager, we'd have to ban that too and coin another word. It would all get very confusing. Or alternatively, we would have to simply not have a word, and everyone would have refer to people like us as "oh, you know, those people who sleep with people with the same genitalia as them". (Actually, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but it probably wouldn't work in today's culture.)

On a more serious note, censoring, as a rule, has worked less well for the gay rights movement than embracement. We will never be able to stop everyone using words we dislike, but if we accept them and attempt to embolden them with more positive connotations (like has been done with queer), then we will go much further in achieving acceptance (or at least tolerance) for LGBTers everywhere.

Personally, I don't believe that a single word can hold much power, unless we let it. All that matters is context. If the S*n prints a headline saying "ZOMG Guys Look What The Gays Have Done Now!!!!" (or something), then that will be a lot more flinch-inducing then reading the word "homosexual" in our belovedly left-wing Guardian.

Let's not fall into the trap of siding with the Political Correctness Squad. Rather, let's let the gay rights movement be seen as a banner for inclusion and tolerance by everyone. 

Thank You For The Universe

So I recently stopped believing in God. Sort of. Pretty much.

It's no big deal. I may start believing again some time soon. I just feel that the question of whether or not there is a God is far less relevant than both the priests and Dawkinsites of the world would have us believe. I have other questions to explore about life, myself and the universe, and thinking about whether or not God exists was taking up too much of my thinking time. So I have withdrawn myself to a "meh" kind of position on the matter.

The reason I'm telling the internet this is that it's a convenient starting point to talk about how amazing the universe is. Because even as a meh-theist, I can fully understand why people believe in a God (largely because I did so for such a long time). The universe is so huge, and so wonderful, and so complicated, and so bemusing that it seems highly unlikely for it to have formed itself on it's own. It is difficult to process the world without thinking there was an intelligent mind behind it, without an all-powerful being that we can blame, and also thank.

This thanking thing is really important, to me anyway. So even though I now lack a specific being for me to thank, I'm going to put it out there anyway.

Thank you that I am conscious. Thank you that I was born into a human body with the capacity to think.
Thank you for the incredible body I have. Well, in my case the amazingness is mostly internal. But still. Thank you for the trillions of cells that perform immensely complicated chemical processes at mind-bending speed to ensure that this human being can exist.
Thank you that there is food, water, oxygen, warmth, and land space enough for me to survive. Thank you further that I have enough of it to live extremely comfortably. Let me never forget how lucky I am to essentially be able to eat at will.
Thank you that the human race was not wiped out with a meteor or solar flare or deadly disease or anything before I had the chance to be born.
Thank you that the planet Earth at the almost impossibly precise conditions necessary to harbour life.
Thank you that there is a star nearby which conveniently creates more heat and light than my entire species will ever need every hour. Thank you for all the stars, where the elements that make up me and the things I love were forged.
And thank you that the universe is just so damn beautiful to make conscious existence the miraculous opportunity that it is, even if it only lasts for a short while.

On a similar note, we as humans often fret about the meaning of life. We act as though there has to be some predetermined task for us to accomplish in order for conscious existence to be worth it. I disagree. The way I see it, life is even more exciting without a meaning that has been decided for us. We have been given the most miraculous thing on earth- thought- and we get to decide how we are going to make it matter. Even if we can't manage that (though I think we can), even if all we can do is exist selfishly, then at least someone was here at some point to look at the universe and think: "Goodness. How marvelous."

And, that is all. Sayronara. Live well, everyone.

















(8) "Thank you for the universe,
The stars I'm seeing,
Thaaaaank you fooor my con-scious be-ing..." 

In Defense of Helping Poor People

Now, I know what you're thinking. Well, admittedly I don't, I'm not some sort of psychic woman with a shawl and an arsenal of mystic hand gestures. But I can make a guess at what you're thinking, which is something along the lines of: "Why would you feel the need to defend helping poor people? Everyone likes helping poor people! It's like my favourite thing to do!"

The problem is that while the vast majority of first-world dwellers like the abstract idea of throwing money at those in poverty (preferably those who live in Africa or some other such magical faraway place) and making their lives better, a lot of us tend to be much less eager to redistribute wealth to the impoverished in our own country. Especially if it means MORE TAX or GOVERNMENT SPENDING or other such force of evil.

A distressing number of middle-class and upper-class residents of this United Kingdom of ours have handily convinced themselves that people are only ever poor because they aren't working hard enough, and that people are only ever rich because they are working very hard indeed. This is a handy view of the world to have in order to justify dismantling industries in the North and South Wales ("just move somewhere with more jobs!") or flat tax rates ("why should people pay more for working hard?"). Such a viewpoint assures the rich that they have no responsibility whatsoever to help those in need, as if they really wanted to stop being poor, they would get off their backsides and work for money. It also assures them that they and their chums deserve every penny they possess, because they only have so much money because they're just so darned better than all those poorer types.

The truth is vastly different.
In this world, if you are poor, it takes a colossal amount of intelligence and talent to stop being poor. Similarly, if you are rich, you have to be incredibly stupid to stop being rich.

In the UK in particular, a child born to a low-income family is likely to experience inadequate schooling, little chance of getting into a good university, dismal job prospects in their local area, and few employment opportunities in later life as potential employers always want either a) qualifications which they can't get or b) experience which no-one will give them.
By contrast, someone born to middle-to-high income parents (like, say, me) is far more likely to get decent schooling, a good place at uni, a successful job, and they're likely to also have the deep delves of their parents pockets to help them out when the going gets any kind of tough.

This isn't just a class issue, either. There are those who take a similarly contemptuous attitude to any and all unemployed people- "they're only not working because they're lazy blah blah blah". This is a complete lie. The reason so many people aren't working is because there are less jobs in Britain that there are people of working age. All the hard work and dedication in the world isn't going to help you if there simply isn't room for you in the jobs market.

This is why the state needs to commit it's resources to helping those in our nation who are poor. The government needs to dedicate itself to proving work and the opportunity for betterment to impoverished people, families and areas Failing/on top of that, we need a comprehensive welfare state and progressive taxes to provide the unfortunate with basic quality of life. Because we cannot ever simply dismiss the poor as idiots who have brought their situation on themselves. The poor are poor because they are stuck in a system which systematically prevents them from becoming otherwise. 

Foreign Aid (again)

So the UK government want to stop giving foreign aid to countries who persecute gay people for being gay people. I admit that when I first heard the news my reaction was a sort of knee-jerk "hooray! pro-gay stuff!" But it turns out the issue is more complicated than that (naturally).

This decision raises all sorts of questions about whether it is right to stop giving money to nations if their government makes a law we don't approve of, and whether politics should get in the way of third world development. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable taking an action which will (presumably) make 32 million Ugandans' lives worse because of the actions of a government consisting of no more than 100 people. I know that's simplistic, but as someone who doesn't support the Conservative party, I would be consider it unjust if the entire country, including me and my determinedly socialist family, were punished because of the policies of the current government.

There are, ultimately, a lot of problems with delivering aid money into the hands of the governments of those countries we want to help. There's the matter of politics getting in the way, which has been highlighted by the issue at hand. There's the authoritarian and selfish nature of many of the Third World's political elite. There's the imperialistic aspect of it, the whole "we gave you money now you must do what we say" thing which sometimes happens. And above all, there's the fact that all the governments we aid to are in heavily debt to Britain and all the other nations of the West anyway, so most if not all of our generous contributions flies straight back into the UK treasury anyway.

However, helping developing countries to develop is, I believe, a good idea. Firstly, I'm anti-nationalist and believe we should use what we can afford of our resources to help those beyond our borders. Secondly, we would ultimately benefit from the development from the third world anyway, in the same way that all of a national society benefits when the rich-poor gap is narrowed.

I think a better way to do foreign aid would be for the government to redirect whatever money it currently gives to third world governments to NGOs which are committed to the economic development of the same countries. That way, politics cannot get in the way (or would be harder to and the money isn't going on anyone's secret nuclear-weapons programme. Also, NGOs are not in debt to Western governments.


(The end.)