Keep the UK secular!

I read with utter dismay that Ruth Kelly, the UK Government's 'Community Minister', is requesting that a new government appointed commission consider a request from Muslim leaders in the UK that Muslim festivals become bank holidays.

Only three of the UK's current bank holidays fall on religious days - Christmas Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday. The rest are secular days.

One of the reasons, I believe, that the UK has such an integration problem between it's disparate groups of people is that the creed of multiculturalism has always been placed higher than an emphasis on shared and common values. This has led to race and religious ghettos springing up across the country from Bradford to Leicester. We need to break down divisions between groups NOT increase the divides. If Muslims are allowed to take off their religious festivals as bank holidays what is to stop Jewish people doing the same or Hindus or Siks or Buddhists? It would be chaos and would further increase the 'us and them' culture. Britain needs LESS religious segregation not more. If Muslims, or any other religious group, want to have days off for religious festivals then they can use their annual leave.

The UK is a secular country which has its traditions in Christianity. It is as simple as that. If any more bank holidays are introduced they should be secular in nature and capable of uniting the whole country - they should not be introduced by the Government as a sop to the Muslim community because the government is worried about them being pissed off.

If people want Sharia Law and days off for religious festivals maybe they would be better off moving to countries where these practices exist. They have no place in secular Britain.

Labour drops to 19 year low

The Guardian today has the (not so?) shocking news that Labour's support in the latest ICM opinion poll stands at a 19 year low of 31%. The Tories, meanwhile, have risen to the magic mark of 40% and it now looks like the election in 2009 will be a very close affair.

The reason for this fall in support appears to be down to UK foreign policy. Only 1% of respondents thought that the government's foreign policy had made the country safer. That is a damning indictment of the policies that Blair and New Labour have been advocating over the past 5 years.

Even though I have not been living in the UK for two years I remain a loyal Labourite. I am opposed to most of Blair's foreign policy agenda but I think domestically they have done pretty much what they said they would - they have reduced poverty, introduced a minimum wage, increased democracy in the UK via devolution to Wales & Scotland, achieved a peace (of sorts) in Northern Ireland, reduced crime, introduced civil unions, increased spending for the NHS and education and seem to be sorting out public transport. That is a record to be proud of in my opinion, the tragedy for Blair is that his term in office will be defined by the utter mess in Iraq and his slavish devotion to George W Bush - his legacy will be one of reckless foreign adventures and an increasing terror threat to the UK.

We should not change our foreign policy because the risk of terrorist attacks has increased - that would be ridiculous, the UK cannot be blackmailed by a tiny extremist minority. But we should change our foreign policy because it is wrong, immoral and deeply damages the UK's national interest. It's time to change course Mr Blair.

Party Poopers

The party poopers are out in force today on The Guardian...

Charlie Brooker laments the very concept of parties whilst Jeremy Langmead bemoans 40 something drug takers.

Funny reading from both.

Hero & Villian

Hero of the day award goes to Judith Troeth, whose courageous decision to vote against the government's proposed migration amendments has meant that John Howard withdrew the bill from the senate rather than watch it be defeated. Hurrah for Judith - nice to see that there are still conservative MPs out there with integrity, decency and compassion. The Age has an interview with her here

Villian of the day goes to Don Randall who disgracefully linked the migration amendment bill with terrorism. He said:

The majority of Australians want tough border security. When you see what happened in the UK over the last week, it sends a very strong message to those pandering to the minorities in the Australian electorate.

Don't let the facts get the way of your argument Don! The alleged terrorists in the UK are all UK born and all have UK citizenship - they didn't arrive in the UK as 'boat people' fleeing persecution. No one is suggesting that the borders be open but people who are, genuinely, fleeing persecution do have the right to make applications for asylum and do have the right to appeal against any decision made - that's a fundamental right of anyone in a supposed liberal democracy. Sure, they are stay in Australia during the appeal process, but I don't think they are going to do much harm whilst locked up in detention are they? I hope the Australian people don't fall for his despicable scaremongering.

Round Up

So, I've suffered from bloggers block again it appears! But there have been some interesting things that have gone on over the past few days. Some worthy of a 'Yay' for sure!

If you are a sad bastard like me with an interest in US politics, and you are of the liberal left anti-war section of society, then you'll be very pleased to know that Democrat warmonger Joe Lieberman has been defeated in his primary which was held in Connecticut yesterday. Hurrah! Read more here

My hero of the day award (which I am going to start today) goes to multiple winners: Liberal MPs Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan, Russell Broadbent, Bruce Baird and Judith Troeth - all of whom are courageously standing up to the government over its outrageous new asylum laws which have been bought in to appease Indonesia. Let's hope they all have courage of their convictions and follow through on their threats to cross the floor in the upcoming vote.

Johann Harri, of London's Independent, has written a superb column on why the British Right hates the UK so much. I've been meaning to write a blog on exactly this for a while but never got round to it. So, now Johann has done it I can be lazy and point you here to read it!

A big boo goes to Telstra for pulling out of their plan to build a super fast broadband network in Australia. But then again, what do I care? I have ADSL2+ anyway. The only people who are going to miss out are those living in the bush and quite frankly fuck em! If you decide to live in the middle of nowhere then you really shouldn't expect to receive super fast broadband. End of.

Oh, and Melanie Phillips replied to my email with a very curt 'Thank you for your comments, Melanie'. Thanks Mel! :)

Ecstasy

Rarely, if ever, is the drugs issue in the UK (or Australia) debated sensibly without misinformation, scare tactics and prejudice. But sanity does appear to be emerging in the drugs debate in the UK - a parliamentary committee there has been looking at the way that the UK classifies drugs and has found, surprise surprise, that the categories are based more on policy than on hard empirical science. You have the ludicrous situation in the UK where Ecstasy and Mushrooms are in the same class as Heroin and Cocaine. This simply makes a mockery of the whole system as it simply does not have any credibility.

The committee of MPs asked a panel of scientists, psychologists and experts to put drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) in order according to their real harm. Heroin and Cocaine came out at the top, as expected, but probably the biggest 'surprise' was that ecstasy was classified as the third least harmful drug - way behind tobacco and alcohol. Of course, those of us in the real world have known this for some time and have long argued that ecstasy should be downgraded, hell even David Cameron has floated the idea of downgrading it (no doubt because he used to take it in his wild days).
















I welcome this new approach to drug classification but remain extremely sceptical about it being implemented by the Home Secretary, John Reid. After all, governments of all colours have never allowed facts to get in the way of drugs policy so why will anything change now? Ecstasy will remain a class A drug alongside Heroin and people whom the government targets anti-drug campaigns at will continue to laugh at the ludicrous drug laws that exist.

Australia

PS - Please do not mistrue my comments in my email to Melanie Philips as being some kind of anti-Australian rant. They aren't. I love Australia and I love Melbourne - I was merely trying to tell Ms Philips that Australia is not the land of milk and honey like she thinks it is. It has its own problems just like any country does...

Mad Mel loves Howard

Mad Mel from the Daily Mail has penned a lovely tribute to John Howard in her column this week. I felt strangely compelled to write to her to take her to task over the outrageously one sided argument she presents. Here is her column and below is my email...

Melanie,

You write in your Daily Mail column that Mr Howard, the PM of Australia, is a phenomenally successful PM. He has been PM of Australia for 10 years, Tony Blair will be PM of the UK for 10 years next year – will you be writing a similarly congratulatory and fawning column about his success come May 1^st next year? No, thought not.

What you neglect to mention in your column is how utterly inept the opposition is here in Australia, how Howard only won by the skin of his teeth in 2001 (due to the ‘Tampa’ incident.) You don’t mention how people have been locked up for EIGHT years in detention centres waiting for their claims to be processed, how the poor of Australia now subsidise the lifestyle choices of the middle classes, how aboriginals have a life expectancy of some TWENTY years below that of white Australians, how Australia has interest rates of 3% above the UK, how rich students in Australia are allowed to gain entry into courses with entry marks LOWER than other students. You didn’t mention any of this – why should you, it doesn’t fit into your ludicrously one sided perspective on the topic? Sure, Mr Howard has been extremely successful electorally, but as someone who is always banging on about morals you should realise that his electoral successes have come on the back of an alarming lack of morality, compassion and empathy. Australia does have a strong community spirit and is confident in it’s own identity (most of the time) and these things do contribute towards a more stable society (as does it’s more egalitarian make up) but Mr Howard is trying to destroy the very society he wishes existed by ramming through divisive new labour market laws – which has meant that Australia now has a less regulated labour market than the US! Rampant individualism is growing here and is replacing the bonding and ‘mateship’ that has made Australia into a peaceful, functioning society. When Howard’s generation grow up then expect Australia to quickly slide as happened in the UK when Thatcher’s ‘me first’ generation became the dominant force in society.

You talk about Mr Howard being against welfare but he has actually MASSIVELY increased the welfare state in Australia by extending it to the middle classes – the welfare state is now not just a safety net for those at the bottom but a payment system in which payments go to people & families in Australia that conform to his ideal of a ‘good’ lifestyle. My tax money goes to people who don’t need it just so they can send their children to private school. That’s the problem with conservatives – they say they don’t believe in nanny governments, but they clearly do. If the government is funding lifestyle choices they approve of then they are all for it. Give money to the feckless poor though and it’s a different matter. It’s the same all over the world.

As an aside, do you ever get tired of being so angry? The world really isn’t that bad Mel. Enjoy it J

Shaun

Big Brother comes to an end...

Quelle Surprise! Mediocrity wins the day again as last night Jamie won Big Brother 2006. In a surprisingly close race he beat Camilla by 6% to take the title for this year. I was always doubtful that a strong, opinionated woman like Camilla could win BB and I was proven right - the Big Brother's producer's decision to reunite Jamie with his in house love, Katie, before he exited the house no doubt helped him secure the victory (before that slushy moment happened him and Camilla were running at 50% each). Why are the two remaining housemates allowed to meet people from the outside until they both exit the house after the winner has been announced? Isn't that, like, the point of BB? Last night's show was absolutely awful - two hours of cringe inducing shite and the show gave Jamie a blatant push in the voting, disgraceful.

This has been a very disappointing Big Brother year for me. It's clear than Channel 10 are now simply using it as nothing less than a cynical tool with which to make a fuck load of money. I have no problem with the premium rate SMS costs, no problem with them charging people to spend $1 a time to phone up their premium rate phone line, no problem with charging people to access the 'premium' services on the BB website. What I do have a problem with is the outrageous use of the show to try and flog products that are sold by their sponsors - the integration of '3' phones into a few features of the show was blatant (such as getting Jamie to try out the new Eye Camera thingy around the house *plug!*), the pathetic 'surprise' appearance of the Rogue Traders performing in the BB backgarden was clearly a stunt dreamed up by the Rogue Trader's PR company to increase publicity for their latest piece of musical dirge. Do Channel 10 think their audience is really that stupid not to see through all of this?

Channel 10 also introduced gimmicks a plenty into this year's series. 'The Insider' idea was moderately appealing but others were simply awful. Top of the list has to be BB's decision to let the housemates' Mums go into the house a few days ago whilst the housemates were locked in the diary room. They exited to find their mums had made their beds, left them food and bought new clothes with them. What???? The point of BB is that the housemates are kept away from the outside world AND their friends and families.

Obviously, Channel 10 are introducing all of these gimmicks (and there were plenty more that I can't be bothered to go in to) as they want to keep the program 'interesting'. Well, I've got some advice for Channel 10 - instead of all these tacky gimmicks why not just choose some INTERESTING house mates? Of different outlooks, ages and backgrounds - rather than just 10 18-21 white, middle class girls and boys with a token gay guy and a token older woman thrown in for good measure. I won't hold my breath though - expect more identikit housemates next year and more cynical attempts to use the show as nothing more than a PR tool for corporations to flog their products/crap music.

Will I still watch? Of course I will. Expect a similar moan this time in 2007.

Until next year.

Paris in IBIZA

Paris Hilton was spotted at Space, Ibiza last week for Carl Cox's Tuesday shindig. If she was avin' it to Mr Cox then she's gone up in my estimations. I doubt she even knows who Carl Cox is though and probably spent her time ligging around the VIP area. I haven'tseen any pictures to confirm it either way but I can't imagine her front centre, all sweaty and having a bosh to some techno...Can you?

Hurrah! Goodbye David...

My faith in the Australian public and general humanity was given a massive boost last night when David was booted out of the Big Brother house. I was beginning to think that he may win the whole bloody thing as people would warm to his pathetic emotional bluster and his 'sincerity' and 'integrity'. I didn't buy it for a second and instead saw a completely emotionally retarded individual who was utterly incapable of communicating with groups of human beings, patronised people on a regular basis and was earnest to the bitter end. He did have some good qualities of course and I'm pleased for him that his coming out experience on TV went well and that he now feels accepted by the Australian public.

So, we're left with Camilla & Jamie for tonight's final. It really is a matter of choosing the lesser fuckwit of the two. I've not really warmed to anyone on this series of BB and there hasn't been a Vesna like character who has really made me want to back them to win. I'll be voting for Camilla tonight though, I think it would be good for a strong, opinionated person to win for a change rather than just a nice, boy next door type like Jamie. I don't think the public really likes bolshy women like Camilla so I'll be amazed if she pulls it off...More tomorrow.

Howard stays on

In the most predictable news story to emerge since the announcement that there were no WMD in Iraq, John Howard has announced that he will stay on and fight the next election. Peter Costello has also announced that he is staying on as Treasurer but when asked what he thought of the PM's decision to stay on he tellingly replied, "It doesn'’t matter how I feel. That's the outcome." I think it's pretty safe to say that Costello is feeling as sick as a parrot!

Anyway, even though I don't like Howard I think he was right to stay on - it's clear that he has massive support still in the Liberal Party and more importantly, in Australia. There is no doubt in my mind, that baring a major economic downturn, Howard will romp to victory next Autumn and another three years of Liberal government will be secured. Why risk that and try out Costello? There's no way that Blair would be going in the UK if he enjoyed Howard's level of support. The saying is that all political careers end in failure, is John Howard destined to become the exception to this rule?

The banana shortage in the People's Republic of Australia continues. The Australian has more....

Election Day?

It appears that the traditional election night fest that occurs at the end of a British general election may be under threat - this is because of proposed changes to how postal votes are counted and verified. If the changes are enacted then the results will be announced in the afternoon after election day was held.

A massive big BOO to this I say!!! The Guardian's editoral today explains why it would be a shame to change this tradition...

Reasons to vote Labor

I can't vote in next years federal election (as I won't be a citizen by then) however, if I did have that privilege then Labor would have just given me the first reason I've seen thus far to vote for them (other than hating Howard/Liberal Party of course).

The current system of full fee paying students being able to get into university courses with marks lower than Govt supported students is a disgrace and an anathema in a supposed merit based society. Labor is absolutely right in it's proposal to abolish these places and right to pledge to make up the funding gap. Maybe they could use the $112 million pledged by the Govt to subsidise anti-porn filters as start...

Subsidising the rich

The true Tory party agenda, to make rich people richer, is being suppressed by David Cameron who wants to portray his party as a movement in the mold of Continental European Christian Democrats. The problem with this, as I have mentioned before, is that the true beliefs of his 'comrades' keep coming to the fore. The latest is a ridiculous proposal from the Bow Group to replace council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and the TV license fee with a single flat rate tax equivalent to 1% of the value of the payer's home.

Ross Clark superbly pulls apart this proposal in today's Times. Spot on, Ross.

Here in Australia we've seen a rightwing government introduce scheme after scheme which have resulted in the poor of society subsidising the lifestyles of the wealthy. I can only hope that Labour in the UK doesn't implode and realises that it must do all it can to prevent the Conservatives regaining power. This means an end to it's squabbling, an end to any hint of corruption and a concentration on what really matters: governing well and selling it's progressive message to the UK populace.

It's a Scorcher!

Britain has experienced it's hottest July day ever - temperatures peaked at 36.5c in Wisley, Surrey. Of course the UK has gone into meltdown over this as it once again reasserts it's claim to be the country in the world that is the most incapable of coping with extreme weather.

One great thing though about the onset of the extremely hot weather is that it has heralded the annual appearance of a quintessential British classic - The Sun's 'Phew What a Scorcher Guv'nor!' splash.

All the boxes have been ticked...

- Is the temperature in the headline expressed in Fahrenheit rather than Celsius as this makes it look like really really hot ? Tick!

- Is there a picture of some fit bird probably called Denise on her lunch break from Natwest, frolicking in a bikini in a fountain in Trafalgar Square / Lake in Hyde Park / Random waterfall? Tick!

- Is there reference to how the temperature in the UK was better than that in [insert Caribbean / Mediterranean resort] ? (That'll show Johnnie Foreigner who is the boss when it comes to super soaraway scorchers!) Tick!

- Have some Page Three girls been wheeled out to perform some wacky stunt in the sun for the benefit of the hardworking lads of the world? Tick! (go here)

ha ha - it's so predictable but still gives me as much joy as in previous years....Go the Sun! ha ha

Middle East Crisis? No Comment

I've been wondering if I should post a blog about the Middle East crisis but have kept hesitating since I simply don't know enough about the situation to comment with any sense of logic or reason.

I am also baffled by the black and white views espoused by the left and right - that either Israel is a peace loving guardian angel who is being attacked by evil men all around her OR that Israel is the devil incarnate and those fighting her are fearless, brave, freedom fighters. Both views to me seem prepostorous - surely neither 'side' is blameless in any of this?

Anyway, I came across this Matthew Parris article in the Times today and it perfectly sums up my feelings on the issue. Go Matthew!

A COLUMNIST without an opinion is a pitiful thing, like a windsurfer without wind. As the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and now Lebanon has intensified, I have wondered whether holding forth on every subject but this might look feeble — though Heaven knows the world is not short of ranters on the Middle East. But when I try to compose my thoughts, the resolution to write keeps slipping: doubly undermined.

First from a feeling of boredom. The boredom arises from neither carelessness nor apathy, but the quiet anger we may feel when a subject is endlessly and passionately debated by disputants who are unlikely to change their minds and — if the truth be known — mentally armoured against opposing thoughts. The rest of us wish we could walk away.

This conflict has flickered and flared across the daily news through most of my adult life, and I have sometimes wondered whether it will be viewed by future historians rather as the ancient battles over the Corn Laws or Catholic Emancipation are now seen: intrinsically important issues of vast consequence for some, but where even the uninvolved took sides with a passion that succeeding ages have found hard to share. I have even wondered whether, if we in Europe could agree to take no further notice of the story (as we have taken no notice, for instance, of the uncounted dead in the conflict in Congo) it would make matters any worse.

The second is a desperately tricky thing to express. I steer clear because I have too many friends who are Jews whose feelings I don’t want to hurt. You will wish to remind me that to be Jewish is not to be a supporter of everything (or anything) the state of Israel does, and of course that’s true. You will point out that among the harshest critics of Israeli policy are Israeli and Jewish voices, and of course that’s true too. But it’s a personal observation which one cannot just brush aside that, on this, those who are Jewish tend to have much stronger feelings than others, and that they are overwhelmingly if not universally sympathetic to the Israeli cause, more inclined than most to justify the actions of Israel, and prone to feeling personally wounded if one disagrees. Such feelings inhabit some of the people I like and respect best in my life.

The problem is that I cannot agree with them. The past 40 years have been a catastrophe, gradual and incremental, for world Jewry. Seldom in history have the name and reputation of a human grouping lost so vast a store of support and sympathy so fast. My opinion — held not passionately but with little personal doubt — is that there is no point in arguing about whether the state of Israel should have been established where and when it was because it has become a fact. To try to remove it now would be at least as great an injustice as the one originally done to the Palestinians. But Israel’s best and perhaps only security for the future would be to rest upon a settlement that everyone the whole world over — everyone but the anti-Zionist fanatics — could see was reasonable. There would need to be no room left for argument. Then Israel would be able to feel confident of the full-hearted support not just of governments but of their peoples.

That settlement has to be a return to her pre-1967 boundaries. Precisely because Israel is by no means forced to make so generous a move, the international support (even love) this would generate would secure her future permanently. It would bring her back within the pale.

Sadly, nations and individuals tend, by moving only when forced and never quite far enough, to keep resentments burning which, by going the extra mile, it lies within their power to extinguish.

The truth hurts

The fallout from a South Australian Democrat MP telling the truth about the club scene continues.

Truly pathetic.

Blogger's block

I haven't posted for over a week now. I know, I know.

It's not as if there hasn't been anything going on. There is apparently some small disturbance occurring in the Middle East at the moment and in Australia, Peter and John got all worked up about who is going to lead the Liberal Party into the next election. For some reason I have not felt the need to comment on either. The Middle East thing is frankly too damn complicated for me to comment on - my rather quaint view is that all the protagonists there are cunts. But I'm not sure what value that adds to the debate.

As for the Peter and John ding dong it's obvious to me that Johnnie is clearly going to stay on for the next election and Peter has probably blown his chance of ever becoming Liberal leader. But that's just pointing out the obvious surely?

Mmmm...I will post something properly tomorrow - this period of inaction cannot continue. I think I can count on one hand the amount of times when I've had nothing to say (in fact it's once - this time) . I'm sure I will bounce back...

For now I'll leave you with my favourite lyrics of the moment from the slightly bonkers 'Underwear goes inside the pants' tune by Lazyboy...

We’re in one of the richest countries in the world,
an and the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago.
There are homeless people everywhere.
This homeless guy asked me for money the other day.
I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol.
And then I thought, that’s what I’m going to use it on.
Why am I judging this poor bastard.
People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they’re just going to waste it hes gonna waste the money.
Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit?
Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He’s homeless.
I walked behind this guy the other day.
A homeless guy asked him for money.
He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don’t you go get a job you bum.
People always say that to homeless guys like it's always that easy.
This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants.
Outside his pants. I’m guessing his resume isn’t all up to date.
I’m predicting some problems during the interview process.
I’m pretty sure even McDonalds has a “underwear goes inside the pants” policy.
Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically I’m sure it is on the books.


How very very true.