Update And Another Question

Hi there. I'm sorry, I haven't been keeping with the blog of late; there's several reasons for that. Firstly, I've been tied up with a lot of hectic happenings of recent. Some good, others bad. Sometimes, escapism from it all isn't justifiable, let alone it actually serving its intended purpose. There's questions to be answered, and notions to be put to rest, and all of that, and I want to plough through all that just to sleep easier at night.

Secondly, I've had "politics block". This phrase might appear as a ridiculous exaggeration, but there's just times when it seems as if you've said all that's to be said, and that's it. I'm not recovered from that notion entirely, to be honest. In fact, my last post was merely a question on my mind, put out to the public domain, just because I had nothing else to talk about.

So, with this, I wouldn't expect any in depth political analysis (Pfffft, you're entirely in the wrong blog if you expect that from me!), but I do have a rather important question to ask.

Okay, here goes; and I want you to think about this one carefully, and answer with complete honesty (Yes, there is a point behind this question, which I'll reveal at a later date):

Supposing you're part of an oppressed group, who was discriminated on both an institutional basis, and a social one. Supposing there was a prominent, well known and erudite speaker from your oppressed group, who campaigned heavily for your group's rights against the oppressors. Yet supposing this eloquent campaigner was also partly infamous for bigotry, or bigoted comments against another group of people (Oppressed group or not); if you had FULL knowledge of this campaigner's bigotry against the other group, would you still support both them, and their actions within the general campaign?

Thanks; I'll look forward to your input on this :)

A Question

Is Peter Tatchell a douchebag?

No no, I don't ask this question in any rhetorical sense whatsoever; I'm genuinely unsure how I should look at this guy.

His citizen's arrest on Mugabe is certainly commendable; his strive for Gay Rights in awkward countries such as Russia is extremely honourable - without doubt, he does some excellent things. He does face criticism from assbags like Jon Gaunt and the Mail brigade on one side, and from the other side, equally moronic assbags like George Galloway, and his pathetic emulsion of a "Respect" (LOL) Party, on the other side. Being capable of annoying idiots from "both sides" is certainly a talent not to be overlooked.

But....I can't help thinking that he's somewhat of an...uhm, pantomime figure, almost.

I was just reading this article from Tatchell; a few things came to mind, when reading this excrement.

It seems increasingly common for gay rights activists to have a snipe at black people; I'm not accusing Tatchell of that, per se, but the constant accusations of there being a problem of homophobia within the "black community" that you hear, make me very wary; sure, there's a problem with homophobia within the black community, as there is with the white community, the Asian community etc. But the specific finger pointing does put me on the edge a little; Jamaica, as a disturbingly violent and homophobic country, is often used as a so-called "example" of black homophobia. This finger pointing is duplicitous to say the least, given that Jamaica is a country rife with Orthodox Christian fundamentalism. (A fact that is often ignored about Jamaica).

One also would argue about the homophobic lyrics in reggae and hip-hop; sure. That is undeniable, but influence from song lyrics is an influence which is often overstated. Fucking hell, if the Anti-Vietnam war movement within music, in its vast and powerful might, couldn't influence policy or even opinion, for the most part, then I don't think homophobic lyrics, coming from the scummy likes of Buju Banton, and "gangster rappers" are that much of an influence. (I have often made the case that politics and music don't really work well together, or achieve much, if anything) Sure, homophobic artists are fucking arseholes and bigots; that's stating the obvious. But they're really just not that influential, as far as opinions go. Books and newspapers are FAR more powerful for the objective of influencing opinion, than music could ever hope to be.

So, it seems like thin excuses, honestly. I mean, it's just a fact that there are people out there, who will be the first to play the persecution card, then go on to attack a minority group. (Think: White van man reading the tabloids, complaining how Political Correctness and affirmative action are hurting the white, heterosexual male, then goes on to make a racist, sexist or homophobic remark. That's an example)

The above trait seems to be within a few self-proclaimed Gay rights activists, who go on to attack black people.

Again, I'm not accusing Tatchell of that, but the article certainly does have a whiff of that.

Apart from this (And the laughable fact that Tatchell does view Malcolm X as a "hero"), it's really a pathetic trivialisation of the honourable cause of Gay rights. Perhaps Peter Tatchell is the one needs to "get over it", that Malcolm X was a bisexual? Given that it's BLACK History Month, who the fuck would care about Malcolm X's sexuality? Because, for most people (Evidently not Tatchell), Malcolm's sexuality is IRRELEVANT.

What would please Tatchell though? Oh, look, Malcolm X was a black nationalist, AND DID YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS BISEXUAL!?!??!?! DID YOU!??! DID YOU!??!?!?! I BET YOU FUCKING DIDN'T!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111

Of course, I take his point that some homophobes will make the endeavour of covering his sexuality up, but what makes Tatchell think that making it more apparent will have some vast difference? If he honestly thinks black nationalist homophobes (Surely the black nationalist element is fucking bad enough in itself?) are going to stop being homophobes, down to them knowing that one of their pioneers, and greatest spokesmen, Malcolm X, was a bisexual, then he's a complete fucking joke. And it would reaffirm my suspicion that he's a pantomime figure, all in all.

I don't know...he seems such a turd at times: his self-appointed nature of being this self-appointed spokesman for LGBT people, much to the disdain of many other LGBT people, as well as his one-trick pony nature, of making flagpoles out of matchsticks, yet often being silent about other humanitarian disasters. All are distasteful, to say the least. Yet at the same time, the kind of people who do fling shit at him regularly are often people who I have absolutely no time for. I don't know. Please come back to me with your thoughts, and I honestly don't want to view Tatchell in a bad light, but I am often placed in doubt.

Switching The Goalposts

The relentless onward march of trying to solve Broken Britain is fast turning us into a Stalinist society. The Daily Mail brigade is faithful to Lenin’s dictum that a crisis is too good to waste. An example is the ContactPoint database, designed to hold the most intimate details of children’s lives and circumstances. It came into existence on the coat-tails of a genuine problem. After Lord Laming’s report in 2003 into the horrific death of Victoria Climbié, there was a public outcry and a demand that social services get their act together.

One of the eventual outcomes was the devising of ContactPoint, a massive computer database to record information about children, for use by councils, healthcare and police, at a cost of £224m. Many concerns have been raised about its security – 390,000 people will have access to it. Now a fresh concern is being canvassed: that it may be used to demonise even toddlers who manifest yobbish tendencies and constitute a stigma attached to their names until age 24.

According to the civil liberties organisation the Manifesto Club, 250,000 “racist” incidents have been reported in schools since 2002. Most of these “incidents” were casual playground exchanges reflecting the naturally aggressive language of young children. But under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2002 teachers are obliged to record all such occurrences and report them to the authorities – as if hard-pressed teachers had nothing more important to do.

Every sensible adult knows that angry children trading insults will seize upon any aspect of their opponent that can be turned to insult (“Fatty!”) and that this does not indicate the emergence of a sociopath. But we live in a society where a mother cannot push her own child on a swing in a playground unless she has undergone checks for criminality. Recently a two-year-old was reported to the authorities for hitting a neighbour’s cat with a stick. Any mother will tell you this is the bog-standard, totally normal behaviour of the “terrible twos”.

The concern now is that “racist” and other offences may be recorded on the ContactPoint computer and effectively blacklist a child for 20 years. Even the Tories have said they will replace ContactPoint with a small, targeted database. Much more drastic action than that is needed. We are no longer living in a free society and it will get less free unless and until we stamp out tabloids as ruthlessly as they have trampled on our liberties. There is no room here for compromise: they are a cancer that must be cut out.

The means could not be simpler: one single-clause Statute of Repeal. In the standard formula “Be it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty…” it would simply declare the repeal of all the Acts of Parliament listed in Schedule I hereto appended. That Schedule would be a list of every oppressive tabloid-influenced law passed by Labour since 1997. At a stroke it would remove the poison from the bloodstream of British life and restore freedom of speech and expression, as well as personal privacy.

Any political party aspiring to government should have such a Bill drafted before the next general election; should include it in its manifesto; and should enact it in its first month in office. Any party not committed to that course of action should be regarded as ineligible to receive the votes of British democrats and patriots. The remedy is there for us, straightforward and completely practical. It only remains for the public to find the resolution to square up to the Murdoch tyrants and see them off.

- as amended from the original article. By the way, the only words (Apart from amendments for grammatical accuracy) I replaced, were "Political Correctness", or "PC". Fascinating how logic can be spun with the replacement of two words, and be far more accurate.