Squirrel wisdom

He's got a point.

The Shut-the-Möhne-and-Eder-dams-down-without-hurting-anyone-ers

As ably blogged by Longrider and Max Farquar I see that the remake of The Dambusters, which I've been looking forward to, has caved under politically correct pressure over the real life name of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's dog, which, in case either of my readers (hello Mum) weren't already aware, was a black labrador called Nigger. Actually I think my mum would have seen the original before they began changing the name for PC reasons. As far as I can remember I have only ever seen the sanitised version in which no dog's name is also a derogatory term for a person of any particular ethnicity, but in which I'm sure Germans were still referred to as 'Jerries', 'Krauts' and possibly even 'filthy Huns' (with an option on 'Boche') and well over a thousand of them were eventually killed by the good guys in an operation that would now be prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Clearly bad-mouthing a whole nation before killing off large numbers of its civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure is a mild character flaw compared to the swivel-eyed racist psychosis that must be necessary to call your dog 'Nigger', but I digress.

The remake is being produced by David Frost and Peter Jackson and scripted by Stephen Fry, so it's safe to conclude that the people behind the film are bright and well aware of the historical facts, but of course they are also aware that the word offends a lot of people and they've known for some time that this was going to be a bone of contention.

[Peter Jackson] said, when announcing his plans in 2006: "It is not our intention to offend people. But really you are in a no-win, damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't scenario.
"If you change it, everyone's going to whinge and whine about political correctness. And if you don't change it, obviously you are offending a lot of people inadvertently."

To be pedantic, Pete, people are taking offence where you are offering none, but we all get what you were saying. To be honest I'm not strongly in either camp and if you're adapting an historical account for the purposes of entertainment it's not too big a deal if changes are made, right? It's not like you're rewriting history books or making a documentary and deliberately including a 'fact' that you know to be incorrect, eh?

Except...

Except that for a lot of people these days mainstream entertainment is nearly all the exposure to history they get, and while artistic licence is to be expected from the world of fiction, movies and TV - especially the latter two - when you then slap 'based on a true story' all over the posters you will inevitably get people leaving the theatres and turning off the TV assuming that what they saw on the screen was what actually happened. Hells bells, there are a small number of people out there who can't distinguish between a fictional character and the actor or actress who plays the role on TV, it's hardly surprising that, thanks to the magic of Hollywood, there are people who think that an Enigma machine was first captured by the US Navy in 1942 rather than the Royal Navy the previous year (and months before the US had even entered the war) or, to stick with just one nationality, that Apollo 13 was saved largely by the guy out of CSI: New York while the astronauts on board nearly came to blows (all of which was politely corrected by astronaut Jim Lovell on the DVD commentary). I can understand why it's done - the makers of U571 wanted bums 'asses' on seats in American cinemas and sticking to history in those bits of Apollo 13 would have meant having to increase an already large cast and losing some good dramatic tension - and clearly we can't expect a little red warning sign to flash up saying 'this bit didn't actually happen this way'. However, the problem is that people do go away having been told that the film is based on reality but crucially without knowing which bits were not. Peter Jackson worries about inadvertently offending people but arguably Hollywood has a track record of inadvertently offending people who value history by, again inadvertently, dropping certain historical facts down various memory holes.

As I said I've been looking forward to the Dambusters remake since I first heard about it, mainly because I like special effects to be convincing enough for me not to notice that there was a special effect and what was available in the 50s stood out like a dog's balls.* And while I'm not a history pedant I was also hoping that Peter Jackson, having already stood up to the legions of the professionally thin-skinned and offended by refusing to rename The Two Towers on the grounds that not many would confuse fantasy Middle Earth thousands of years ago with New York on September 11th 2001, would show the same stuff again and not change the dog's name. And that wasn't the only reason (my bold):

Stephen Fry, the actor who is writing the new script, was asked to come up with alternative names for Nigger.
But Sir David Frost, the executive producer, is reported to have rejected all the options Fry offered.
Sir David has been quoted as saying: "Guy sometimes used to call his dog Nigsy, so I think that's what we will call it.
"Stephen has been coming up with other names but this is the one I want."

But that was then and this is now and it seems that in the remake the dog, and incidentally 'dog' is Australian slang for a despicable person who's a bit of a scumbag, is now to be called 'Digger', which by the way is a nickname for Australian and New Zealand soldiers that dates back to World War One. Presumably this is no worse than a thousand or more German civilians being casually referred to as Krauts, Jerries and filthy Huns before being drowned in the dark following the destruction of the local dam.

Of course the film makers can spend their money how they please and make whatever changes they feel they need to in order to sell as many cinema tickets as possible and maximise their return. If they want to call the dog 'White Trash' knowing that a lot of people will call them on it then they're free to do so, and of course that would get just as much discussion as, well, as simply calling it anything other than 'Nigger'. And of course that's had the unintended consequence of making nearly everyone who'll see it well aware of what the dog was really called because the word is being used in articles about the new movie nearly as frequently as it was used in The Wire by black characters to refer to each other, which, presumably because it was being grittily realistic, was also not offensive though I'm not sure why the same would not apply to an equally realistic portrayal of something that happened two generations ago. It can't be just that a white guy is saying it because allowing people of one ethnicity to do something that people of another ethnicity may not would obviously be racist.

Musical interlude, apropos of nothing

Personally I feel they've missed a trick here. Stephen Fry, whose knowledge may be vast but whose intelligence I've doubted in the past due to his inability to grasp why politicians fiddling their expenses is wrong, could have written a script which sent a subtle message that this was how people thought in the 1940s and that doing so today would be frowned upon in the same way that, say for the sake of argument, bombing to destruction a dam causing mass civilian casualties would be. Sort of 'we did that then but we do not do it these days', or at least not on purpose if we can possibly avoid it.** But instead of that or even just an honest admission of historical fact we are again treading the path of political correctness.

Well, fair enough. No reason to avoid offending people if you don't have to, especially when you want them to be your paying audience. With that in mind when I go to see the movie I expect it to be completely inoffensive by being completely Kraut, Jerry and Hun free and by implying that Barns Wallace's genius was to design a bomb that would safely disable the dams' generators and drain the reservoirs without harming a soul, and perhaps even a brief apology to the Australian Defence Force at the end for using the word 'Digger' to name a dog. Perhaps many Diggers wouldn't care much and many Germans will be over it all by now, but if you're so desperate to be even handed about anything and everything that might cause someone somewhere a degree of offence then there isn't much option but to sanitise it completely. To do otherwise would be putting the interests of one group ahead of others and, er, just a wee bit prejudicial.


* Probably a dog called "Whitey" or something. Just to be on the safe side.
** Yes, I know it could be argued that sometimes we could have avoided it by not getting involved in a pointless and unnecessary war but I'm sure you get my point.

Victoria and Victorian attitudes

Apparently we're not allowed to swear in Victoria anymore. In fact it turns out that offensive language has been an, er, offence, since the sixties even if there isn't anyone around to hear it, but Victoria's wonderful new improved Liberal with a silent 'Il' government have decided it's a good idea to give the police powers to impose fines of $240 for

... using language deemed to be indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening.

Deemed to be? Deemed? And who gets to decide that, because since it's an on-the-spot fine it sounds awfully like it'll be the cops. Currently that might not be a big deal since they're having a bit of a work to rule at the moment and are sufficiently annoyed with the government to flash their lights at drivers to warn them to slow down for speed traps, so I can imagine them choosing to turn a blind eye to someone's potty mouth, but that's not going to last beyond the time they get a pay deal sorted out or give up.

And what's the thinking behind this? Beyond the possibility that the Liberal In Name Only government of Victoria wants everyone in the state to sound like characters from a Jane Austen novel all the time. Believe it or not they think it'll give the police more time to for real police work.

Yes, they really said that.

The crackdown — which extends the Baillieu government's ever-growing law-and-order agenda — means police will be able to issue infringement notices for offensive behaviour and indecent language similar to parking and speeding fines.

Attorney-General Robert Clark said the idea was to lower the police workload by allowing them to issue fines instead of tackling bad language using the court system.

"It frees up police time for other law enforcement activities and enables them to more readily issue penalties against those offenders who deserve them," Mr Clark said.

While I can see a certain amount of sense in the idea of not getting cops to waste heaps of time on prosecuting a trivial swearing offence through the courts it's clearly not occurred to the AG or the government that with coarse language being so commonplace that even Prime Ministers have been known to swear live on air they could end up with police doing little but hand out swearing tickets all day long. Hardly freeing up police time for other law enforcement activities, is it? Look, Robert, if you really want the police out there doing high value police work the answer is not to encourage them to spend even more time go after the low hanging fruit of easy crimes offences committed by not-actual-criminals against non-existent victims, but instead to identify all the victimless crimes on the books

However, being a law abiding citizen I will be washing my mouth out from now on, which means a change to my usual blogging subjects. I will no longer blog on things that annoy me and induce me to apoplectic and sweary rage, so from this point on this will become a travel blog. I have two destinations to talk about today, one in Austria and one in the Orkneys, both of which I'd hope will meet with the approval of the Attorney General.

That okay, Rob?

Easily confused

Via the Ranting Kingpenguin, a story of breathtaking offence seeking to the Nth degree. A persons who is a living, black woman with a lack of facial hair consistent with her gender claiming offence over the similarity she has with a scale model of a dead white guy with a beard you could insulate your roof with.

Yes, really.

For a poster advertising a primary school parents’ meeting, it is certainly unusual.
Using models, it depicts scientist Charles Darwin surrounded by an angry mob wielding flaming torches and makeshift weapons.
According to the school governor who created it, City executive David Moyle, it is a satirical joke about pushy middle-class parents demanding higher standards.

But...?

Yet when black headmistress Shirley Patterson saw it, she believed it represented her surrounded by white parents.

Do fucking what? What, did she think it was supposed to represent?

She reportedly compared it to a scene from Mississippi Burning, a film about the Ku Klux Klan’s racist lynchings...

Starring Morgan Freeman as Charles Darwin? Oh, wait, no.

... saying it left her ‘fearing for her and her family’s safety’.

Oh, please. Anyone with a torch is evocative of Deep South Klansmen lynchings? Really? Indiana Jones? The Statue of Liberty? The Fellowship of the Ring? Shall we go on?

Torch and a scale model. Also bearded.
RAAACIST!

Needless to say the constabularists were called in although they said there was no law against it, which is slightly surprisingly since the definition of racism seems to have been broadened to include anything that anyone anywhere might perceive as racist even if it's not aimed at their own race. But you just know that's not going to be the end of it, don't you?

Although the police realised Darwin was white, and said no crime had been committed, Southwark council insisted it had ‘appropriately’ investigated the ‘deeply disturbing’ poster.

Seriously, guys, the only thing that's deeply disturbing is how quickly some people are able to see a race issue in something so patently unrelated to anything to do with race, and even a fairly cursory investigation should have found that out simply by asking David Moyle.

He found the image on a website mocking ‘creationists’ angered by Darwin’s theory of evolution...

And a few minutes googling backs this up since I've found the same scene photographed from a different angle in a piece dated March 2009 about Darwin and the creationist/evolution argument. So you'd imagine the investigation would be over pretty quickly, eh?

I'm kidding. Of course you wouldn't. Not only is it a local council and almost certainly shot through with political correctness, but it's a Labour run council and likely more prone to PC bullshit anyway. And so inevitably...

‘A two-week investigation was carried out into the toy Charles Darwin’s ethnicity, before it was ruled “indeterminable”.
[...]
The Labour authority refused to reveal details of its inquiry – which involved half a dozen officers at a time when 500 jobs are set to be cut.
And it will not discuss how a model of a white, bearded, Victorian scientist could be confused with a black 21st century headmistress.

I doubt it's justifying its assessment of the image as disturbing either. Oh, sorry, not just disturbing but

“deeply disturbing and damaging to children”

Altogether now: Won't someone think of the chiiiiiiildren?

Fucking twats.

And the poor sod painted as a racist by this collection of idiot offence seekers, self righteous arsewipes, and bullying pricks? What of him? Well, having been suspended as a school governor over this lunatic claim he's not surprisingly thinking of taking his kids out of there and sending them to another school. Personally I think he has another lesson to learn.

"[...] as an ardent supporter of local government, I was taken aback by the reaction of the council, who not only fully endorsed the disproportionate reaction of the school management, but also contrived additional charges about the poster that had no relation at all to the original complaint.

An ardent supporter of local government, eh? Mr Moyle, I think I've just spotted your mistake.

Veil fail

Well, we all knew the French were going to go ahead with their plan to liberate women by ordering them about what they should wear, and predictably enough the tiny minority who do go veiled are a bit pissed off about it.

Kenza Drider, a 32-year-old, travelled to Paris from her home in Provence to force a confrontation with police, and was one of those arrested.
There were minor scuffles as officers apprehended her outside Notre Dame Cathedral together with another niqab-wearer staging an illegal demonstration against the new law.

So not just dictating to women over their choice of clothing but also telling them they may not protest and arresting them if they don't comply. Yep, that's women's lib alright. I'd recognise it anywhere.

/facepalm

Although Belgium has approved a ban in principle, France is the first to introduce a full ban on a garment which immigration minister Eric Besson has called a "walking coffin".
While French women face fines and "civic duty" guidance if they break the law, men who force their wives or daughters to wear burkas will face up to a year in prison, and fines of up to £25,000.

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks daft as well, though I've always described it as looking like a Ninja version of Demis Roussos, and it should go without saying that I have no problem with the law going after men who force females in their family to wear veils when they'd rather not. But if a woman wants to then for fuck's sake let her. I haven't hit my head and come over all PC here. I just feel that it's her life, her choice, and respecting her wishes even if we don't like them or view them as archaic is what's truly liberal. Forcing her to dress as we'd prefer is anything but.

Still, in the spirit of compromise I've had a look through the interwebs and found that someone has already created an ensemble outfit which should be an acceptable middle ground. Or at least offensive to everybody.

"Restorative" justice

Click for linky

Oh FFS.

The woman officer had visited Purbeck School in Wareham, Dorset, last month to talk to the boys about a playground scrap as her role as a school liaison officer.
It is understood she was called the names 'PC Nipples' and 'PC Ball Sack' while she was out of the room and was told of the remarks moments later.
The boys were sent home and their parents were informed about the incident that night and asked to attend the restorative justice conference which took place last week.

And what happens in one of those, then?

In this instance the woman PC, a sergeant and two other officers met with the boys to make them aware of the consequences their behavior had on the victim.

Victim? Oh, Jesus. I'd explain how ridiculous this is except that one of the parents already has.

"I presume this woman officer will be called other names during her policing career, is she going to hold a restorative justice conference with all of those who do it?"

Quite. I can be contacted by email if PC Thin-Skinned Fragile Chinwobbling Timewaster wants to talk to me about what I've just called her, and in that unlikely event rather than apologise I'll suggest that she could do herself, her sex, her career and her profession some favours in the image department by learning how and when to put down a couple of pretty pathetic comments by teenage boys who, stolen wank mags aside, probably haven't caught sight of a nipple since they were weaned and whose own ball sacks contain little of interest to anyone. You ought to have been able to walk in there and reduce them all to about an inch high each in front of their entire peer group, but instead you chose victimhood. How's that going to play with your colleagues? Are they going to wonder if someone who can't take the pressure of duty at a school without becoming a victim of a few puerile comments can be relied on when the chips are down? Are some of them going to think that PC Delicate might be best off behind a desk in an interior office or even, dare I say it, in front of an oven while the boys and girls who can take the stick that goes with the job go out and get on with it?*

Frankly you'd do everyone a favour if you just came out and said that you were just being officious because the kids gave you an opportunity to do so and you thought 'fuck it, why not'.


* I freely admit that I couldn't take the stick and would probably have quit or been sacked or jailed inside a year if I'd joined the police. Which is why I, you know, didn't. Just a thought.

What did you learn in school today, hon?

Unusually for me I can't make my mind up about this one.

[Smithereens,] a book of gruesome short stories, which includes a task asking students to write two suicide notes, is being taught to 13-year-olds at some schools, prompting adolescent health experts to warn it could encourage vulnerable teens to self harm.
...
Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive Joe Tucci said schools should not be asking students to rehearse potentially harmful behaviour. ''When you encourage adolescents to undertake activities that blur the line between fantasy and reality … it might tip them into undertaking that activity,'' he said.
Childhood pyschologist Michael Carr-Gregg said Smithereens should be immediately removed from schools.
''It could give them ideas about self harm and potentially lead them to believe the world is a bleaker, darker, more miserable place than it actually is,'' Dr Carr-Gregg said.

Well, actually I'm settled on one or two things, chief of which is this paranoia that children and adolescents are so fucking fragile these days that almost anything is seen as liable to tip them over the edge in some way, is probably a bit over the top. Newsflash: at school we did Lord of the Flies without becoming savages (well, more savage than teenagers are naturally), To Kill A Mockingbird without instantly becoming racists, lawyers or Gregory Peck, and a couple of Shakespeare romance comedies without anyone expressing a desire get into any item of female attire except in the sense that teenage boys normally want to. My teenage years are not so far behind me that I don't recall them quite well, and I can say without any hesitation that we were able to tell the bloody difference between the written word and the real world. Teenagers don't shatter when they read something depressing. No, probably not even the emos.

On the other hand it does seem like the kind of book I'd have hated to get in English class. Lord of the Flies was depressing and bored my arse off so thoroughly that I used to fall over sitting down. Part of its educational effect on me was that I didn't learn what a good book it is until school was a few years behind me, but at the time I had to read it I did not actually read it at all. I read just enough of it to get the homework done without too many really crap marks, and not a single sentence more. What I'd like to have read would have been some Tom Clancy or something. Or perhaps Alastair MacClean or Ian Fleming if it had to be something a bit older.* Something with some bloody excitement in, for Christ's sake. So if at the start of a new term the English teacher had plopped a copy of Smithereens on my desk it might have induced feelings of suicide, though not for the reasons that have been suggested, but they would quickly have given way to narcolepsy and catatonia.** And that's it.

Maybe it's different if you're a parent. Maybe I'd also send my offspring off each day with a little part of my mind gibbering and fretting about their safety and their wellbeing until I saw them again each evening. Actually I'm sure I would, but I hope I'd also recognise that they're likely to be little different from the rest of us at the same age. So despite the headline that made me think it'd be more of this or this the thing I'm really unsure about is just the appeal to kids of that age and wether it can tear them away from fluffy and non-violent things like World of Modern Zombie Warfare Combatcraft 2. And Facebook.

So why the hell are they actually bothering? Ah, silly me, the answer has been staring me in the face all the time. Looks like they're afraid of someone suing for compo.

If a student harmed themselves after reading it, the school could be in breach of its duty of care.

And they're worried about the stuff in the book making people depressed? What the fuck do they think their reaction to it is doing?

* Just about everyone read Lord of the Rings themselves. Boys' school. I imagine it's normal.
** The thought of Cerys Matthews might have woken everyone up again. Boys' school. Probably normal as well.

Un expected news: the BBC caves in.

Twice in quick succession, in fact. Most recently to Mexico, of course, because a proud nation can so easily be brought to its knees by jibes about its cuisine from some shortarse Brummie TV presenter with a famous dislike of any food that looks like it comes from further than Kent, along with some old stereotypes that nobody takes seriously anymore.

The BBC said it had now written to the ambassador to say it was sorry if the programme caused offence.

And also to Japan because of the A-bomb comments on QI, because sixty-five years is too soon even for what were very light hearted remarks.

We are very sorry for any offence caused.

The usual format non-apology apologies again, you'll have noticed. Why can't a 'spokesperson' just be fucking honest one day and say that they're not bloody sorry and that this culture of offence seeking is the worst kind of one-sided, passive-aggressive, bullshit control freakery, and it says far more about the people who practise it than those whom they seek to silence. For Christ's fucking sake, Stephen Fry has had to cancel plans to go to Japan because of this! Watch the fucking clip - the poor bastard is being nailed to a fucking cross despite the fact he barely said anything beyond Yamaguchi being either the luckiest or unluckiest man ever depending on how you looked at it. And what the fuck's wrong with that? Yamaguchi was unarguably very unlucky to have been present and on the receiving end for both hostile uses of a nuclear weapon, yet he was also incredibly lucky to have survived both. An entirely factual remark delivered with no hint of disrespect (a word I don't like to use because it's one of the favourite verbal whores of the professionally offended). Is it because Fry hosts the show and sits in the middle that some Japanese are blaming him for the less sensitive (but still very lightweight) comments of other panelists, or does the translation into Japanese imply something beyond Fry's fairly neutral and factual remark? Could be the latter.

Roland Kelts, a half-Japanese author who had been due to work on the parts of the production due to be filmed in the country, suggested the reaction to the QI comments had been over the top.

"In video footage, one can easily see, if one speaks and understands English fluently, that the hosts are tiptoeing around the obvious offence, trying to strike a balance between humour and respect."

He added: "In this age of instantaneous visual language, all subtlety was lost, especially on reactionary right-wing Japanese folks keen to kick up a fight."

Maybe, but I also worry that the 21st Century is becoming the age of the professional offence seeker and the professional apologiser (usually know as an unnamed spokesperson for the offending organisation).

Well I'm offended too. I'm offended by the way these constant apologies make my native country look like a bunch of weak-kneed, insecure, spineless, contemptible softcocks who are so pathetically worried about what other people think that they don't dare have an opinion or a thought of their own in case someone else doesn't agree, takes it the wrong way or finds it even vaguely upsetting for almost any reason whatsoever. It reflects poorly on... ancient nation... noble... proud history... national pride... particularly disappointed that apparent admission makes Britons look guilty of accusations made... implies we are ignorant and xenophobic savages... deeply hurtful...  cultural values...  etc, etc, etc.
Fill in the fucking blanks and send me a cheque.*

Alternatively just harden the fuck up next time and explain to whoever complains that the right to free speech means accepting that in return for being able to say what you wish you must accept that you may not always like what you hear, that there is not and cannot be a right not to be offended, that how one person chooses to interpret and react to the remarks and opinions of another is their own choice, and above all that if any of this might lead to problems then not watching the TV, or indeed not ever even leaving the fucking house, is the only practical course of action.

And if that offends anyone, that's too fucking bad. I try to be honest enough to let you know that I'd be lying if I said I was sorry.


* Actually I will think seriously about drafting a letter taking offence at the constant capitulation to offence seekers. It might be interesting to see what sort of response it gets.

Useful idiot wants thought police to get money for her.

Oh for fuck's sake.

A Mexican has instructed lawyers to bring a test case against Top Gear after her countrymen were branded 'lazy, feckless and flatulent' on the hit show.
Iris de la Torre, a jewellery design student in London, is bringing the claim under a new equality law. Her lawyers claim it could cost the BBC £1million in damages.
They have demanded the hit BBC1 motoring show is taken off the air and an investigation made into the comments.

For holding a fucking opinion, even if it is a bit of a childish one?! And only the other day they were saying how things had apparently now reached the heresy by thought stage.

On Sunday night's show, Richard Hammond was discussing a Mexican sports car and suggested that vehicles reflect the national characteristics of the country they are from.
He added: 'Mexican cars are just going to be lazy, feckless, flatulent, leaning against a fence asleep looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat.’

Oh, dear, poor poor Iris. God, being a Mexican in England and dealing with that must be like, oh I don't know, maybe being English and living in Australia where everyone calls you a pom and jokes that you're from a nation of people who can't cook and won't wash properly. Oh, hey, that's... that's awful. Where's my cheque? Who do I sue? C'mon, Iris, help me out here. We're in this together, you and me and other folk oppressed by the hurtful thoughts of other people.

Or we could just, y'know, grow the fuck up and laugh it off. You are, if reports are to be believed, thirty years old. Thirty! You're not a child anymore, Iris. You're a grown woman, for fuck's sake. Isn't it time to act like an adult instead of a kid whining about what someone else said in the fucking playground? Or is there a possibility that a big fat cheque for basically doing nothing at all other than holding an opinion and taking umbrage that not everyone shares it just too big a fucking lure? For what it's worth I'd agree that Hammond's comments are probably ignorant in a literal sense, especially about the food - just watch the show for a while and you'll see how his laughable unadventurous and picky eating is a running joke whenever they go abroad. And the whole idea that cars reflect national character is silly anyway. Aussie cars don't chuck a sickie when the cricket's on and British made cars come with a satnav that doesn't know anything about anywhere beyond the end of your own road.

'I was shocked at what the BBC allowed to be broadcast. I have never had a bad experience in the UK due to my nationality.'

Well you can probably fucking expect a few now, though not because of your nationality so much as your character. It took me less than ten minutes online to find both your website and that of a gallery where you've worked or exhibited your work, plus your rough CV and your photograph. And if I can then what's to stop someone else? So don't be surprised if some "grow the fuck up" type messages appear (though not from me - I've better things to do).

And you want to know what the really sad thing is for Mexicans? British perceptions of their national character probably will change as a result of this, and not for the better. Because the two Mexicans who had more newsprint used to write about them in the UK than probably any of their countrymen in the last decade or more (with the possible exception of Alfonso Cuarón - directing a Harry Potter film will do that) are acting like whiny little children with angstrom thin skins, fragile egos, low self-esteem and absolutely no sense of humour. Which I'm sure is unrepresentative of most Mexicans, and is certainly unedifying even by comparison with what was said on Top Gear. Fat, feckless and flatulent actually sounds like much better company to be with than pathetic, attention-seeking, whinging crybaby.

Oh, and a special nod to Harridan Harperson, without whose work this woman might have had to act like everyone else does when they hear something they don't like and just fucking deal with it.

If it goes to court, the case could be the first to be brought under the Equality Act which came into force last year.

Well done, Harriet, you've made thought crime even more of a reality than it was before. Thanks for fucking everything, you hateful bitch. Now do the human race a favour and disappear up your own arse before you deal any more harm to personal liberty.

H/T Down With That Sort Of Thing.

Scoring own goals.

Now that I've got the sexist humour out of the way, seriously fellas, women, eh? What do they know about sport?

Actually I'd say that many of them know quite a lot, and not just about sports that are played mostly by women and not just because Mrs Exile is standing behind me with a double barrelled Beretta. And it should be obvious even to a couple of chauvinistic middle-aged soccer players turned commentators that a woman who's a qualified professional match official probably knows a great deal about it, and if she's got any sense she'll make it her business to be particularly knowledgable about the rule which middle-aged chauvinist ex-soccer players are going to say she can't understand.

So what should be done when middle-aged chauvinist soccer players turned commentators gob off about a female match official, her looks and that incredibly tired old line about the offside rule, as Andy Gray and Richard Keys did to linesman (lineswoman?) Sian Massey at the Wolves vs Liverpool match last weekend? One option is to throw a few names and sexist jokes right back at them and another is to accept that everyone can have their opinion but to rise above, ignore it and let Massey get on with her job. Either is fine by me, but one course of action that does nobody any favours is to get all offended on her behalf, cry foul and demand that they be silenced and punished and to nod approval when they're fired. Aside from how incredibly patronising it is to take offence on behalf of another as if they lack the ability to decide for themselves if they're offended, that road leads to a worse destination that having to put up with the sexist opinions of middle-aged ex-soccer players. That destination is thought crime.

I'm not exaggerating by playing the Orwell card here - what else can we call it when someone is punished for holding an opinion? Yes, it's an opinion that many find unpleasant and disagreeable and it's probably an opinion that these days is probably not shared by the majority. But that's kind of the point: it's a minority opinion, and what do we now think of minorities and their rights and views? Yes, exactly, they must be respected. Except that this shows that the implementation of this noble (or possibly ignoble) aim has gone a bit wrong. Minority views that align with those the establishment likes are fine, especially if they run counter to majority views that are frowned upon or if they go some way to making up for rather embarrassing and illiberal majority acts in the past. So for example, it was once considered to be wrong for a homosexual to hold the opinion that their sexuality was just how they were and what they did in the bedroom was their own business (not to mention illegal for them to act on it - that still had the fucking death penalty less than 150 years ago), and to make up for it now anyone who says they don't like homosexuals risks being accused of hate speech or convicted of discrimination.

The same goes for changing sexuality for gender, skin colour etc. All we've done is swapped the oppression of some minority groups for the oppression of others and called it anti-discrimination, forgetting among all the self congratulatory circle jerking that after all that effort we still have people prevented by law from being themselves. So it is if we punish people for being middle-aged chauvinist ex-soccer players turned commentators and making about the oldest and lamest joke about women and football. We might not like their opinion and we certainly don't have to agree with it, but it does less harm to take the position of hating what they say while defending their right to say it. Punishing and criminalising people for their views doesn't make disagreeable opinions vanish in a puff of love and understanding, it's just imposing our own views on them by force.

And along the way we can lose the opportunity to let the facts speak for themselves to show just how misinformed those opinions can be, which is what's happening to poor Sian Massey right now. Despite having reportedly performed her job faultlessly during that Wolverhampton-Liverpool match she found herself withdrawn from the next game.

Meanwhile, Professional Games Match Officials confirmed that Massey had been withdrawn from the League Two game between Crewe and Bradford where she was due to act as an assistant referee.
PGMO general manager Mike Riley admitted the 25-year-old did not deserve to be subjected to further scrutiny at this time.
"PGMO and Sian believe that, with any football match, the focus should not be on the officials but on the players and the game itself," Riley said.
"Sian is an excellent professional who has unwittingly found herself in the middle of a story that has nothing to do with her competence as a match official.

And the one after and the one after that.

Referees' chiefs have again withdrawn Sian Massey from the spotlight following the Sky sexism row.
Massey was due to referee Corby's Blue Square Bet North game against Eastwood on Saturday after also being due to run the line on Tuesday at Crewe's League Two game against Bradford City.
She was withdrawn hours before kick-off then and was not awarded an FA Cup fourth-round tie this weekend.
She will also not be involved in any of next week's Premier League matches.
...
The Premier League, who speak for the PGMO, refused to comment on whether there would be any financial loss for the official.
...
A PGMO spokesman said: 'The focus needs to be on the football match, not the officials. It would be unfair on the clubs involved.'
But both managers appeared to have no issue with Massey taking charge of their match. Corby boss Graham Drury said this week: 'We've had Sian before and she had a fantastic game.
'She stamps her authority on the game and she interacts with players well. We've got a top referee for this game.
'I don't mind if it's a man, woman or even an elephant refereeing as long as they do it properly.'
...
Dennis Strudwick, general manager of the Football Conference, said the FA, who appoint officials, had given them no reason for Massey's withdrawal.

So unless it was simply an opportunistic move by someone who simply disliked Gray and/or Keys to get one or both of them into trouble and hopefully fired, which would be selfish, manipulative and pretty shitty, nobody wins. But if whoever blew the whistle on Gray and Keys' conversation and their boorish and frankly boring comments thought they helping society in general or Sian Massey in particular then it's backfired in just about every way possible. As a result of the exposure she's not getting the chance to do a job that she clearly enjoys and is apparently good at, and might be out of pocket as well.

So well done to whoever leaked it. I hope you're pleased with yourself, you complete and utter dickhead, but everyone would be better off if you'd just go fuck a mains wall socket next time.
That's just my opinion of course.

Strange sort of maths lesson.

I have no idea what sort of questions will be asked in lessons as a result of this.

Children are to be taught about homosexuality in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to "celebrate the gay community".
...
Lesson plans have been drawn up for pupils as young as four, in a scheme funded with a £35,000 grant from an education quango, the Training and Development Agency for Schools.
...
Among the suggestions are:
Maths – teaching statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population, and using gay characters in scenarios for maths problems;

"If Alan is being spit roasted by Brian and Charlie but all three change places every time and go at it twice a day how long will it take for them to get through a 12 pack of condoms? There is certainly no need to show how you arrived at your answer."

This is for kids as young as four, yes? An age at which homo-, hetero-, bi- or anything-sexual is meaningless. Oh, sure, kids that young might use gay epithets but without any real understanding of what it is they're saying. At that age just fucking tell them how to add up and subtract for Christ's fucking sake. You can leave it 'til they hit puberty to tell them not to beat each other up because someone thinks someone else is gay.

'Kinell.

Cultural understanding goes only so far.

Shortly before Christmas, which readers of a sandal wearing Guardian subscribing disposition may prefer to think of as that corrupt display of decadence and materialism based on an outmoded religious festival that happens around Diwali time, or sometimes Ramadan (not Channukah, though), I blogged on the story of one of the young actresses in the Harry Potter films who was experiencing what some might like to think of as culturally related domestic issues.

A young Muslim actress who appeared in the Harry Potter films was beaten by her brother and told by her father that he would kill her after she began a relationship with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.
Afshan Azad, 22, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the boy wizard, was called a “slag” and a “prostitute” in a violent confrontation at her family home which left her so scared she fled through a window, Manchester Crown Court heard.
...

Every time I read something like this my jaw drops, but in this instance what the fuck were they thinking? Nobody would notice or something? She's not A-list and hasn't had anything like the exposure of the three big names but it's a relatively safe bet that someone would ask questions. The mind boggl... wait, no it doesn't.

Abul Azad, 53, and his son Ashraf, 28, were charged with making threats to kill following the incident in Longsight, Manchester, on May 21. Both were cleared of the charge yesterday after a judge heard that Miss Azad had refused to give evidence despite “expensive and time-consuming” attempts to encourage her to attend court. After going to the police, she “made it plain” that she did not want any action taken against her family, saying that the arrest of her father or brother would put her in “genuine danger”, the court heard.

Now the mind boggles. You had to do a runner through a window, kid. It sounds like you were in genuine danger already.

And now I see this:

The 35-year-old woman had accused her 34-year-old husband - a convicted sex offender - of raping her twice and was due to testify against him at a trial earlier this week.
But prosecutors were forced to offer no evidence and the case collapsed when the women suddenly decided to retract the allegations.
Judge Simon Newell said he was concerned ‘sections of the community’ were ‘exerting influences’ and ‘inhibiting the police’ from carrying out their duties. He implied justice was being interfered with by those close to the woman who wanted her to drop the charges.
The husband, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has two previous convictions - one for assault causing actual bodily harm against his wife and another for a sexual offence against another woman.
He has already been ordered to sign the sex offenders register until September 2014.
Despite expressing concern that the woman had been pressurised into withdrawing the rape claims, Judge Newell allowed the husband to walk free from court.

And what else could he do?

'It seems to me there are persons who have an interest in this case, who are minded to express opinions and exert influences which are possibly inhibiting the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts in carrying out their proper functions,' the judge said.
'This will not be tolerated.'

And there I think I see part of the problem, because to an extent it is tolerated. Yes, reporting and then withdrawing a complaint is self-defeating and does a victim no favours but we shouldn't ignore the fact that certain people are so concerned about offending someone's culture or religion and so determined that all of us should bend over backwards to be accommodating that they forget that individual people are getting fucking hurt.



Respect someone else's culture or beliefs by all means, but spouting shit about awareness and understanding as you stand by and ignore the violence and abuse is shows neither respect, awareness or understanding of what individual people are going through. If someone refuses help then there's little that can be done, but all this effort to be understanding sends a message that you're inclined to tolerate certain violent acts if committed by certain ethnicities. And that's not avoiding inadvertently oppressing them with our white anglo views, it's just being a fuckwit.

Leopards and spots.

Ali D in da Big House

I sometimes wonder if it's there are suit-friendly laws that are encouraging it or if it's possible to actually become addicted to playing the race card. If it is possible then surely Ali "Is It Coz I Iz Black?"* Dizaei should be checked because he's at it again.

Disgraced police chief Ali Dizaei plans to sue the prison service for failing to protect him from a brawl in which he allegedly attacked another cellmate.

Wait, what? He's suing the prison service for not protecting him from a fight he initiated?

Pffffft.

The corrupt former Metropolitan Police commander is demanding damages from prison authorities - even though he is being investigated by police for allegedly assaulting another inmate.
The 47-year-old, who is serving a four-year sentence for misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice, is accused of lashing out after a family photograph in his cell was apparently defaced by a cellmate.
...
He claims that he was the victim of a racist attack. And he has complained about a spate of racist and violent abuse by his assailant, saying not enough has been done to protect him.
He claims the inmate made threats to his wife and children in June, culminating in a heated row last Sunday when the prisoner allegedly attacked him.
The fight at HMP Prescoed, an open prison in south Wales left both prisoners with minor injuries.
...
Gwent Police are investigating after both men blamed each other. Dizaei's lawyers claim he was taken to hospital following the assault, which is denied by prison officials.

Odd. Shouldn't be difficult to prove one way or the other so it sounds like one side or other is being very stupid.

The former officer, who has been attacked a number of times in prison...

There's a shock. Were they all racially motivated too? Or were some because he was a new prisoner or a bent copper? With multiple reasons - not, I should emphasise, justifications - for hitting him it's hard to say which, if any, were racially motivated or why the racial ones are somehow more worthy of reparation than if someone just thought he was a prick who deserved a shoeing.

... has now been moved to another jail for his own safety. But his possessions, including clothes and photographs of his wife and children, were smeared in excrement before he arrived at his new cell, it is claimed.

I'm prepared to believe he's been on the receiving end of racist abuse, though being both a Muslim and a bent copper I do wonder if he'd choose to view any pig related remarks to be racist (even though Islam isn't a race) even if they were meant to refer to his old job. Prisons are unlikely to be full of nice race-aware Guardian reading types who'll pick over their words with extreme care so as not to cause offence so it'd be surprising if someone hasn't called him names and resorted to his ancestry in the process. But sticks and stones, Ali, sticks and stones. Yes, smearing crap over your possessions and in particular your  photographs was completely out of order, but the actual motivation for it might simply be that the person involved thinks of you as an unbearable cunt or hates police officers - yes, I know, cop haters in prison, of all places. Look, the prison authorities should certainly investigate it and, if possible, punish the person responsible, but they should do that anyway. It's not necessarily race related and it certainly isn't racist of the prison staff to allow the other to put his face in the way of your fists. I'd call that a personal self control problem of yours rather than a racism problem of theirs.

* Since he's Iranian born and therefore, I presume, ethnically Aryan (oh, the irony) whatever "it" is because of it certainly isn't because he's black. I've never quite got how not being ethnically British qualified him to be President of the National Black Police Association, but since they're careful to point out that they are all inclusive and have no colour bar on membership presumably we can expect a white police officer to lead it at some stage, right?

Getting white to the point.

Via Counting Cats, Morgan Freeman on racism and Black History Month.



I'm not usually a fan of actors and other slebs pontificating but you just can't argue with this. More to the point, white people are so hung up on racism and so terrified that they might say something that might even be thought of as racist, even if it's by another white person - actually, especially if it's by another white person - that we need to hear this stuff from a black guy.

Stop talking about it.

Indeed. Racism will be around as long as people make an issue of their race, and if you think about it we wouldn't expect to read something like "black actor Morgan Freeman..." would we? It'd be "actor Morgan Freeman", or maybe "Oscar winning actor Morgan Freeman..." or even just "Morgan Freeman". We don't define the guy by the colour of his skin, we define him by his ability in his profession.

So it's a bit sad that skin colour still results in controversy when it comes to certain jobs.

AN Australian woman has made American magazine history - and sparked a storm of protest - by becoming the first white fashion director of iconic black lifestyle publication Essence.

The hiring of Elliana Placas in the role - after a 40-year history of having an African American as fashion director - has been met with a vicious reaction from both readers and industry identities.

Essence, dubbed the ultimate fashion and lifestyle magazine for black women, has been slammed for the decision, with the magazine's former fashion editor, Michaela Angela Davis, launching an attack against Ms Placas' hiring.

I'm not going to go "Aha, black people can be racist too" (it should be patently obvious that absolutely anyone can be a racist) but look, if she can do the job why should anyone give the faintest shit that she's white? Presumably someone at Essence noticed her skin colour when she was interviewed and decided that it didn't matter, and to me that sounds like A Good Thing.

Stop talking about it.

Or, if you prefer:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

...

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

Mixing issues.

Over at The Age Dick Gross asks a strange question:

What do heroin and female genital mutilation have in common?

Since I've strong opinions on both the answer had to be worth a read, even if I was a little worried about what it would turn out to be.

Not much at first blush but they share one controversial attribute – both heroin and female genital mutilation are the subject of ferocious harm minimisation debates.

When we despise something, we generally react with prohibition. But there are certain practices that do not lend themselves to prohibition and so a ban causes more damage than good.

True. Go on.

Prohibitionists inevitably command the high moral ground in any debate about something we detest. On issues from crime to drugs to Paleolithic religious practices, critics line up to compete about who can get the most cross. Prohibition is simple. It most directly expresses outrage and opposition. When we find something repugnant, outrage is what we really want to see expressed in public discourse. So we see bidding wars on who can evince the most anger:

"I hate (crime/drugs/object of detestation)."

"I don't just hate (object of detestation), I deplore (object of detestation) and I believe all purveyors of (object of detestation) should be jailed."

"That's nothing. I believe anyone caught anywhere near (object of detestation) should be impaled."

"That's nothing. I despise (object of detestation) so much that I reckon (insert your own dire consequence)."

You get the picture. The vilification of the heroin or mutilation or whatever is so pronounced that no rational argument is easy or even possible.

Sorry to interrupt but a rational argument against prohibition of [insert issue here] may well be possible. The problem is simply that many people don't want to listen rationally.

If there is evidence that prohibition has failed or even exacerbated harm, that evidence does not receive sustaining oxygen as the vigilantes pounce to condemn not only the problem but those who might promote a non-punitive response. So we see with heroin, where murderous harm comes not so much from the drug but from the prohibition that condemns users to unsupported pariah status and makes their suppliers move into the violent shadows of criminality. The flow of blood in Mexico's borderlands is a hideous example of the counterproductive effects of a crap form of regulation.

Couldn't agree more, DG, but surely you aren't going to claim the same applies to female circumcision? Well, sorta kinda.

There, my self-protective rave is out of the way. I cannot abide even the thought of female genital mutilation (FGM). Genital cutting is something I would wish on no one (although I have been cut myself without memorable trauma).

Glad to hear that you are opposed to the practice, even though your own experience didn't damage you. However, couple of points there. First, presuming that you're referring to the ritual circumcision of Jewish male babies, naturally you can't miss what for all practical purposes you never had, so providing the op isn't stuffed up - which can and does happen now and then - of course it's done you no harm. But does that justify the process? Would you approve of cosmetic procedures such as tattoos or piercings on a week old infant on the basis that it's safe and will not have, to use your words, memorable trauma? The fact is that there will be memorable trauma for an unfortunate few and the rest of you can never know if you've lost out. Only men who have been circumcised as consenting adults can answer that, not those who were forced to undergo the procedure as un-consenting infants. The second, and far more obvious point, is that there is a large difference between male and female circumcision, and your experience as a circumcised male may not be analogous.

And that's not the only problem I have with Gross's thinking on this.

... please open your mind if you can. Notwithstanding the revulsion we all feel at the reports we read of this barbarism, there might be a solution other than prohibition. It takes a certain courage to move beyond simplistic prohibition in the interests of the victims.

I have been involved in several harm minimisation proposals, from heroin use to street sex work. I have lost most of these battles for many reasons. But it seems to me that people generally prefer a punitive approach on these issues. Evidence-based solutions, such as safe injecting rooms and safe precincts for street sex workers, are thrown aside in horror and in error. However, we must seek the best for the victims, regardless of our desire to magic away evil in the world.

Oh dear. Yes, a lot of people do prefer, even demand, prohibition and punitive action to, well, not to put too fine a point on it, to a few minutes of rational fucking thought. And yes, this is why most governments in western nations still stick to the tried and tested policy of prohibiting drugs, despite the fact that the results of the trying and testing is decades of epic failure and that every dinner party argument suggested to support prohibition applies as much to the glass of wine the prohibitionist usually has in front of them. And yes, all this leads to evidence based solutions being ignored. I'm with you on all of that.

But, and it's a bloody monster of a but, does all that apply as well to female genital mutilation (I'm no more a fan of using an acronym to hide the 'mutilation' elephant in the room than I am a fan of the practice itself)? I'd say it doesn't and for the same reason as some of the commenters over at The Age, which is that there's a world of difference between accepting that prohibition of drugs does more harm than good and applying the same reasoning to setting about a child's crotch with sharp implements. That difference hinges on two things: the presence of an identifiable victim and the fact that their consent has not only not been given but it hasn't even been sought.

I've tried for several hours to make this point in the comments at The Age but the bloody thing's playing up, so I'm going to give up and paste what I've tried to post there here instead.

There's a huge difference between the argument for ending drug prohibition and that of allowing limited female genital mutilation. It's not just a case that both would reduce harm, which might well be true, and so therefore we should no longer punish either. I can see the pragmatic argument but I feel it misses another aspect entirely. Taking heroin or any other drug is, in itself, a victimless crime. There may be associated crime (at least some of which would probably vanish with legalisation), as there is with alcohol, but if you want to stick coke up your nose or heroin in your veins why should it not be your choice providing you can do so without harming or stealing from anyone else, just like it is with booze? Does that apply to female genital mutilation? In short, no. Taking drugs is a victimless crime, or at least it could be if legalised. That Dick Gross talks of moving "beyond simplistic prohibition in the interests of the victims" concedes that FGM is *not* a victimless crime. And it's hard to see how it could ever become a victimless crime when no matter how much it's minimised it necessarily means an intimate and medically unnecessary procedure on someone without their consented. In that respect the discussions of female genital mutilation and drugs are not at all comparable. The last point that DG makes, that prohibition will fail, is a strawman. DG's correct but continued prohibition of rape and child abuse won't eradicate those either. Should we then agree - with great reluctance, natch - to copping a quick feel and other minor sexual assaults, and stuff the rights of those victims, if in turn rape etc was reduced? It'd be no different to allowing little nicks of infant girls' genitals.

It may be true that this small concession will lead to a diminishing of this hideous practise, and incidentally I'm with Dick Gross that it's at least as much cultural as religious (as shown by its occurrence in some Christian nations) but the price would be to sanction many generations of victims to come. Even if it could be reduced to something as harmless (arguably and usually) as circumcision of male infants, is that a price we should pay? Or should we treat it as what it is - an unnecessary assault on a child too young and helpless to give consent or offer resistance, and worthy of a very hefty prison sentence?

I don't think I need to repeat myself to say where I stand.

Advertising complaints up over and down under.

Over at the Filthy Engineer's I noticed that these two adverts have been banned after making the Advertising Standards Wibblers upset.

Well, clearly the first one is a little suspect because there's no evidence in the photo that the ladder is properly supported or, given that she's not holding on properly, that the girl has received adequate health and safety training. Presumably the second should carry some kind of warning about the dangers of wild animals. Am I right? Ah, no. The ASA were flooded by literally some complaints about the merest hint of side boob in the first and the completely gratuitous porn shot reminder, for those that might need it, that the girl in the second is in possession of a dangerous vagina.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said 33 people complained that the ads were unsuitable for children, offensive and condoned or encouraged anti-social behaviour.

...

The ASA said the two banned ads contained sexual undertones and appeared in an untargeted medium likely to be seen by children, ruling that they breached rules covering responsible advertising and decency.

Oh, the humanity!

It said both images were "likely to cause serious offence to many adults".

Bad news, fellas. Banning things because 33 humourless, hand-wringing killjoys with vaginaphobia offends me on a very deep and personal level because of the implication that I can't cope without you doing my thinking for me and that I can't decide for myself what is and isn't moral. No joke, when paternalistic moralising twats like you decide what's good for everybody and ban what you feel isn't I am genuinely offended. Now, you could attempt to ban bans or you could decide that there's no fucking right not to be offended and un-ban what you've banned. Either way, your move.

Still, hopefully the Filthy Engineer will be cheered by the news that not all bansturbation succeeds. Early last month I blogged on some road safety ads that had aired here in Victoria, and had attracted complaints because they dared to be a bit tongue in cheek and suggest that whenever someone uses a mobile phone while driving ginger people will have sex with each other. At the time the Advertising Standards Bureau ruled that the ads were silly but not offensive.

Oh noes!

And now it seems the ASB has had more complaints about an ad for the ANZ Bank featuring a red haired woman giving really bad customer service (my bold).

... the latest complaint focuses on the hair colour of Barbara, played by veteran performer Genevieve Morris.

"The advertisement patently slurs red-haired persons as obnoxious and inferior," the anonymous complainant wrrote (sic).‘‘If any other ethnic group was identified thus you would promptly shrink from allowing the advertisement and brand the producer.’’

The bank has defended its advertisement, saying Morris was chosen for the role because of her comic ability rather than her copper locks.

Got that? She could have been bald for all ANZ cared, anonymous auburn person. Or russet or strawberry blonde or whatever you prefer. And that's probably why, despite welcoming our new titian*-haired overlord, the ASB told you to stuff off again. Even if you are genuinely offended, and you shouldn't be, stop playing your hair colour as a victim card. Being beaten up at school for having red hair is one thing but getting upset about joke adverts? If it's not heightist to suggest it, life's just too short.

Ooops, sorry.

* H/T to Roget, without whose work I would have run out of synonyms for ginger during the course of this blog.

Own goal - UPDATED

Either you are free to speak as you think and feel, or you are not. Any restriction on what can be said by definition means you do not have freedom of speech. It's one of life's absolutes. Mrs Exile should be free to call me a pom with an unhealthy obsession with the weather and the correct form of queueing. I'm should be free to call her a typical fucking colonial with a cultural inferiority complex. We should be free to refer to the Scots as a nation of orange haired, drunken porridge wogs* who deep fry anything edible, perhaps anything at all in the hope of making it edible. And the Scots most certainly should be free to say they'd rather support anyone but England in the World Cup.

Arguably the performance of Rooney & Co is enough to make English fans consider supporting anybody but the Italian led bunch of overpaid, talent-free, embarrassing, salad dodgers on whom England's hopes rest(ed) anyway, but given that the Scots, as usual, don't have a dog in the fight, why shouldn't they support who they want for whatever reason they want?

Because it's racist, apparently.

High street retailer HMV has withdrawn "Anyone But England" World Cup posters and T-shirts from its Scottish stores following complaints they were racist.

/facepalm

Racist? Oh, behave. I wouldn't call that racist if I heard it from an Aussie, much less a Scot. I might accept that "Anyone But England' has possible racist overtones, though not that it's explicitly racist, if it came from someone black or asian etc, but really it's more nationalist than racist. And even if you do accept as racist, it's about a bloody soccer tournament for Christ's sake. How bloody thin-skinned do you need to be to get upset by this? Harden the fuck up!

And who's behind the complaint?

The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) contacted police about the "insensitive and provocative" items which, their website claimed were "criminally irresponsible".

/double facepalm and oh shit. I'd been meaning to link to the CEP since I thought these guys stood for a return to common sense, fairness and liberty for all. I may still but this move seems awfully like a touch of "if you can't beat 'em, join in". The CEP seems to want freedom of speech for England, and of course that's great. I'm all for freedom of speech so I'm absolutely with the CEP on that, but why stop at England? Personally I'd like to see the day when any North Korean can say that Kim Jong Il is a cunt, so England (or Australia, depending on who/where I'm ranting against) is no more than a first step. But if so then restricting the same freedom elsewhere seems like a step backwards, especially if it's within your own country. Would we get more freedom here in Victoria by persuading Canberra to put limits on Queenslanders, or would it be more likely for them to apply the same restriction in all states?

You're not gaining more freedom for yourselves by demanding limits on the freedom of your neighbours, and I think the CEP have scored a massive own goal here. I'd hope that the idea was to try to ridicule the tendency to cry 'racist' whenever anyone says something that someone else (not necessarily themselves) finds something vaguely objectionable, but I think they've succeeded only in legitimising it even for something as trivial as fucking football. In turn this opens the door for the Scots to cry 'racist' if an Englishman says he'd rather eat anything but a clootie dumpling.

As far as I know I haven't so much as a molecule of Scottish glomahaeblin in my blood but I'm on their side. Screw the English who killed Mel Gibson and won't let them support whatever football team they like - HMV should have told them to fuck off. Anyone but England indeed, though in the interests of free speech I'll say I think Scotland's twelfth most talented footballer is Wee Jimmy Krankie.


UPDATE - I left a brief comment to this effect on a post about the Scottish HMV at The CEP blog at 9:58am on 20/6/10. It's still awaiting moderation, though ten comments made afterwards seems to be up. [Shrugs] Wonder why.


* In the Aussie sense a wog is a Mediterranean European providing they're not French and therefore already covered by the term 'Frog'. The people covered by 'wog' have been extended by the use of modifiers. Some, like 'porridge wog' for the Scots, I've heard fairly often. Others. like 'potato wog' for the Irish and 'clog wog' for the Dutch, seem more rare. The fact that Australians have given us English the unique and unmodified term 'Pom' all to ourselves I take to be an indication of the special place we occupy in the cultural hearts of this linguistically gifted people. Either that or the sand-grubbing bastards loathe us so much that we deserved our own insult.

I don't lose any sleep over it either way.

Some Aussie culture - part 11

Australians apparently believe that unsafe driving habits cause ginger people and emos. Not cause them to do anything, just cause them.





Quirky perhaps, but no stranger than a lot of beliefs. And if they're right about what'll happen to Facebook I'll be on the phone without my seatbelt all afternoon until I run out of petrol.




Incidentally, these ads were the subject of literally some complaints. I'm relieved to say that they haven't been pulled or banned till after the watershed or anything. YouTube, on the other hand, gave me a content warning and made me sign in to watch them. Wankers.

All your house are belong to us... sort of.

Let me take you back to mid-February when I blogged on Pauline Hanson.

Pauline Hanson, one time federal MP for the Queensland seat of Oxley ... is apparently going to migrate to Britain. She's apparently fed up with the nanny state here and says that this is no longer the land of opportunity...

Ahahahahahahahaha. Ha hah hahahahahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahahahaahhahaahahahahaahaahaaaaahaa.

Pauline, love, if you think Australia is over taxed and over regulated just wait till you get off the plane at Heathrow.

Oddly enough it was just the other day when I found myself wondering if she'd gone yet, and then the very next day it turned out that she was in fact still here. Can't sell her house apparently. Actually it's more like not allowed to sell her house, at least not on her terms. Being who she is it's not a great surprise to learn that she doesn't want to sell to certain people, namely Muslims or non-resident asians. You can call it stupid, unreasonable and xenophobic if you want but it's her house to sell to whom she wants, right?

Wrong. There's actually a law against it.

Ms Hanson this afternoon hit back at Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Commission for saying she would be breaking the law if she knocked back a potential buyer on the grounds of their race or religion.

"I'm the one who decides if I want to put my signature on my contract, it's my right I will decide whether I want to sell my land to a certain person on that contract or not," the former One Nation leader told Fairfax Radio 4BC.

Personally I think she's an idiot but she has got a very good point. It's her decision to sign the contract and it's very hard to see how the law can make her sell to someone she doesn't want to deal with. More to the point it's hard to see why it should even try. If she's offered X dollars from someone who slots neatly into her views as being okay by her and is willing to turn down a much larger offer from someone else because of his religion then she's the one losing out. And beyond that all this anti-racisim pro-tolerance legislation is having a rather nasty side effect which means all of us, not just Pauline Hanson, lose out. The right to associate freely is sliding slowly away from us, and while we may chuckle and sneer at the Pauline Hansons of this world we do so at our peril. Today it's them being told what they can and can't do and who with. Tomorrow it could be any of us.

Needless to say Chez Hanson is now off the market, though that hasn't stopped the hate mongers - no, not the xenophobes but their equal and opposite counterparts - abusing the poor real estate agent who was unfortunate enough to have been hired by Hanson before the controversy broke.

[LJ Hooker Yamanto agent Keith Edwards] expected the fall-out to continue, with the real estate agent receiving a "torrent" of abusive emails and phone calls.

Anti-racists once again becoming something very much like that which they say they hate.

Recycled news.

Oh for fuck's sake, is this self righteous, offence seeking fucknuts still going on about that bloody Tintin book?

A Congolese man is trying to get controversial cartoon book Tintin Au Congo banned in Belgium over its racist and offensive depiction of Africans.
Bienvenue Mbutu, a Congolese national living in Belgium, has asked the Belgian courts to ban the book, but has said he would accept a ruling that the book must display a warning about its content.

Would this be the same bloke who was whining about the same book over six months ago? Why yes, despite a minor variation in the spelling of his name I do believe it is. And did I see this in the same place on both occasions? Again, yes.

I don't know if it's the lazy recycling of an old story that adds almost nothing beyond the point that the self-righteous wanker will settle for a warning sticker on the book or the self-righteous wanker himself that annoys me more. Actually I do - it's the wanker, of course. Not being offended is not a right and, despite what certain legislators would wish and maybe even believe, for a single very simple reason it is completely impossible to make it a right: it's utterly incompatible with free speech. In fact any attempt to create a right never to be offended should itself be offensive to anyone who values free speech, which means it would break its own terms. If I thought this would then become some kind of legal black hole that would begin to suck in all the shit laws and the tools that created them it'd be worth putting up with, but sadly that's not going to happen. All I can do is repeat what I said last year...

[This] is about history and how we can learn from it. Mbutu Mondondo and his lawyer should consider that if those who forget the lessons of history are frequently doomed to repeat them then those who would deliberately bury a chunk because it offends them are likely to be partly responsible for future repeats. But I agree with [Mbutu's] lawyer that it is also about the law - specifically whether we can ever apply it retrospectively and remain fair.

... and hope the Belgian court tells him to harden up and fuck off. Yes, it's archaic and patronising, but do we look at it and learn better or do we look at it and demand that it must never be seen again? A warning might be a happy medium if - and I stress 'if' - the publishers are willing, though I feel that a page one note simply pointing out the historical context would be better, especially if it ended with the point that it is wholly up to the reader whether they take offence or not and if they think it's likely that they will they should please put it back on the fucking shelf.