Monday, June 13, 2016 

The American circle of death.

The horrific massacre in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on the surface looks like an almost exact mix of the Islamic State Paris cell attack on the Bataclan concert venue, and the San Bernardino shooting of last December.  Nothing has been uncovered as yet in the investigation to suggest that Omar Pateen had any direction whatsoever from Islamic State itself, just as nothing has been turned up in the San Bernardino investigation to link Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik to any terrorist group.  Both Pateen/Farook and Malik it seems "pledged allegiance" to IS or its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi either during or immediately before their attacks, but this seems to have been almost an afterthought.  The FBI investigation into Farook and Malik suggests they had "self-radicalised" before IS had so much as emerged; their pledge was little more than an simple explainer as to their motives they knew would be quickly discovered.

In that sense, Pateen and Farook and Malik were relatively odd fish in the modern world of terrorists, spree killers and other murderous narcissists: they usually want us to know exactly why they did what they did, leaving behind videos, manifestos, etc that can swiftly be used by media organisations desperate to fill up airtime once the attack itself has either finished or been brought to an end.  It might well be that Pateen has left behind just such media which will subsequently be discovered, as there is yet to be any confirmation of whether, like Farook and Malik, he destroyed personal effects.  The belief was Farook and Malik did this to cover their tracks, yet no links to others have been found.  At this point it would be a surprise if Pateen did have accomplices: his method screams far more of the lone spree killer motivated by hate than it does of someone who has dedicated themselves to Islamic State.  The briefing since given by James Comey of Pateen claiming to have various connections with al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Boston marathon bombers rather underlines his confusion and Billy Liar qualities.

Not that this means Pateen wasn't inspired by IS.  He seems to have taken almost as a template the Bataclan attack, and the fact he chose as a target a gay club, somewhere he knew would meet with the approval of the repressed, hateful supporters of IS, is indicative of the impact he wanted his actions to have.  If an Eagles of Death Metal gig at the Bataclan was to the IS propagandists a "profligate prostitution party", you can but imagine how they would describe the Pulse on a Saturday night.  That more than a few on the right of politics in the US have yet to come to terms with homosexuality has only added to the discomfort felt; those who like me can recall the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming 9/11 on, variously, abortion, gays and liberal values in general can but reflect on how if he were still alive Falwell would be trying to comprehend Orlando without his head exploding.

In other senses, the assault on the Pulse is a grim refraction of many recent spree killings.  Pateen used both a semi-automatic assault rifle and a handgun, just as other recent mass murderers have relied on more than a single weapon, with most favouring an M16 or equivalent.  That these guns have no real practical use for hunting and are far too big to be concealed makes no odds to an industry that has poured more and more cash into variations, accessories and customisations.  That Pateen was engaged by an armed police officer providing security at the club also undermines the recent counter-argument made by pro-gun activists that more armed people means such attacks can swiftly be ended.  Unless they're really going to suggest bar and club patrons being allowed into such venues with concealed weapons, an idea so monumentally stupid you wouldn't put it past them, Orlando ought to put such notions to bed.

The fact is that America has chosen to make itself uniquely vulnerable to atrocities like Orlando, San Bernardino and Sandy Hook.  Guns can always be smuggled across borders, and pass through the hands of your average garden variety gangsters to inadvertently end up in the possession of terrorists, as we saw in Paris.  Even in this country we still have the odd Derrick Bird type figure, as tough gun laws are never going to stop those absolutely determined to do harm to their neighbours and themselves.

It's something else entirely though to have gun laws so lax that you can walk into a store, buy a weapon that was designed to be used in war, and then less than a week later kill 49 people with it.  You could argue that Pateen's interactions with the FBI, which seem down more to his being a mouth-breathing boaster than any real links to terrorist suspects should have meant he was barred from holding a licence, and yet the Republicans voted down just such restrictions.  You can argue that the problem seems unique to America, and that other countries with high gun ownership to population ratios don't have the same number of such killings, a notion I don't entirely accept but am open to.  Mark Ames, the author of Going Postal, for one says that gun control is pointless without measures to improve equality.

The choice in other words is no choice.  Hillary Clinton can call for an renewed assault weapons ban, only even if she wins she can no more force a gun-supporting house or senate into voting for one than Obama has been able to.  She could by contrast attempt to do something about inequality, only her husband accelerated the policies began by Reagan that did so much damage in the first place.  With no action on the latter, more and more people will only, as Obama put it, cling on to their guns and religion, with a little hating Muslims and supporting continued wars in the Middle East on the side.  Vicious circle doesn't even begin to cover it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, February 06, 2014 

The collusion and complicity of the IOC.

Is there a more ridiculous and self-evidently false bromide than the one that claims politics and sport don't mix? We seem to now have a biennial media battle between the hosts of the World Cup/Olympics/Winter Olympics/European Championship, FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and the various malcontents, protesting over either the exorbitant cost of staging the showpiece event, the abuse of those who built the facilities, alleged corruption, or the human rights situation in the country in general.

With the Sochi winter games every single one of these issues has come into play. Costing a staggering £31bn, or not far shy of 3 times the amount we pumped into London 2012, with almost the entire resort being built from scratch, billions have almost certainly been creamed off, to little apparent concern from the IOC. Despite this, and while it seems the athletes' accommodation is befitting of the no expense spared philosophy from the Russians, journalists report their hotels are unfinished and unfurnished, the staff not always particularly helpful either.

Something the IOC could not predict was Putin would choose the past year to sign into law the kind of antediluvian anti-gay legislation designed it seems to wind up the West as much as position himself as a defender of traditional values in the face of metropolitan liberalism. Think Section 28, only with even more transparent emphasis on linking homosexuality with paedophilia and you're pretty much there. When you have Putin himself and other officials all but saying gay men are desperate to inculcate innocent children in depraved sexual practices, you might have thought an organisation which in its charter decries discrimination would have had made a more substantial stand than it has.

The reality is that the IOC has been hand in glove with Putin from the beginning, and could hardly start expressing something resembling independence now.  The IOC forbids competitors from making political statements during the games, including according to the Russians at press conferences as well as on the podium.  This is then written into the contracts of the athletes themselves, according to John Amachei, something only half-denied by the British Olympic Association, who say that they have to balance an athlete's right to freedom of speech with the IOC's own rules.

It's this ever increasing stifling of anything approaching spontaneity or which could be construed as going against the values of either the organisers or the sponsors that has led to the current trend for either developing countries or authoritarian states to be favoured as the hosts for such showpiece events.  South Africa saw the introduction of a short-lived court system to deal with those who transgressed against the various rules and regulations FIFA had set down, while Sep Blatter's monopoly also demands the kind of tax concessions that would shame Vodafone and Amazon.  Brazil undoubtedly deserves the 2014 World Cup, but it's not a surprise it also won the 2016 Olympics.  WIth Russia due to host the 2018 World Cup before it then heads to the kleptocracy of Qatar, with the abuse of migrant workers there already so well documented, the pattern has been well and truly set.

Some of the coverage of Russia's human rights record has nonetheless been over the top, at least when compared to how politicians had far fewer qualms about going to the Beijing games, when China is by any objective measure far more repressive than Putin's Russia.  This said, the pathetic criticism by the IOC's head, who decried the unofficial boycott of the opening ceremony by various world leaders as an "ostentatious gesture", completely sums up the organisation's approach to anyone who dares to criticise their decision making.  Gestures are all that left to those who want to stand in solidarity with the forgotten and abused in Russia, the very people who have paid for the games in the first place.  A boycott would be self-defeating, so what other way is there to express disapproval than in whichever way those taking part can?

One possible solution to the burden placed by major tournaments on host countries is perhaps to follow the example set by the 2020 European Championships, which will see 13 different cities in 13 countries host the games.  While it poses an obvious problem for fans travelling from one match to the next, it will spread the cost and mean just one nation won't become the sole focus for protests.  Whether it's an idea either FIFA or the IOC will look into remains to be seen; one suspects there's far too much for them personally to lose than for the taxpayers of future hosts to gain.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 

This is a post about sex.

Treacherous as it may be to comment on subjects I know little about (although that's hardly stopped me in the past), the position taken by Peter and Hazel Bull, the devout Christian couple who have been found to have acted unlawfully in denying a double room to Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy at their private hotel in Cornwall does seem to have more than a few flaws in it.

If Fawlty Towers taught us anything, it was that hoteliers seem to have incredibly arbitrary rules as well as more than a few quirks, something more than reflected here. The Bull's case was that, rather than discriminating on the grounds that Hall and Preddy were gay, their long-held stance was that only married couples were allowed to rent rooms with a double bed. As the ruling, which is worth reading in full makes clear, this was stated on their website on the booking form. Preddy found the Bull's hotel on the internet, but booked by phoned. Mrs Bull happened to be feeling ill on the day she took the booking and so didn't make clear the rule on double rooms as she would normally have. Believers in fate will doubtless reach the conclusion this was simply meant to happen.

What soon becomes clear is that the whole debacle is just as much about the apparent sacred nature of the marital bed, whether it's at home or on holiday as it is about pre-marital or homosexual intercourse. The Bull's beliefs, quoted by Judge Andrew Rutherford as

monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations between persons and that homosexual sexual relations (as opposed to homosexual orientation), and heterosexual sexual relations outside marriage, are sinful

are somewhat undermined by the fact that they have apparently never had any problem with unmarried or even gay couples renting a room with two single beds. It certainly isn't impossible to have sex in a single bed, or for instance, in the bath or in the shower, especially if the rooms are en-suite and so avoiding the chance of being caught in flagrante, or even on the floor, standing up in the room or perhaps, if a couple were feeling really adventurous, in the wardrobe. None of these may be as comfortable or as conducive to a extended session as a double bed with a sturdy structure, the mattress kitted out in clean linen, yet there's definitely far worse places where coitus has been interrupted.

This is of course if we believe the Bull's. The judge at the outset says that the case was in one sense a pleasure to try as he didn't think any of the five individuals directly involved were deliberately setting out to mislead the court. The only point of real doubt is the mentioning of a newspaper article back in 1996 which made clear the Bull's views on "
their refusal to allow unmarried couples to share the same room". They could have become less strict since then, or it could be an issue of semantics, as the whole use of "double room" to mean a room with a double bed rather than a room with two single beds is.

Then there's this to consider. Just how many couples actually do have sex while staying at a small private hotel for only one or two nights, especially one where it's clear that their hosts hold traditional views on the matter? The answer I would hazard, and I'm really engaging in uneducated guesswork here, is not all that many. While it's understandable that they don't want their guests to even have the opportunity to commit an act of "sin" in a hotel they run on Christian principles (although apparently they're willing to take the chance with those who rent twin singles), doesn't that say more about their preoccupations and neuroses than it does about the potential for their guests to start breaking out the dutch caps, KY jelly and love eggs? Traditional, orthodox and good decent people they certainly are, but there's still something self-defeating going on beneath the surface.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

Friday, September 17, 2010 

How the Press Complaints Commission works.

The Press Complaints Commission is nothing if not consistent. It upheld the complaint made by Clare Balding precisely because AA Gill referred to her as a "dyke", a "pejorative synonym relating to the complainant’s sexuality" as the adjudication described it, despite the Times making the case that in some instances "dyke" had been reclaimed as an empowering term. Arguably Gill's remarks were made in jest and without real malice, yet Balding more than understandably was within her rights to find them as insulting.

When however the homophobia is even more blatant, yet hidden behind weasel words, the PCC is powerless as its code only covers those "pejorative synonyms". Hence the complaints about Jan Moir's heartless piece of grief intrusion were rejected as she didn't make the mistake of referring to him as a "faggot" or "queer", while Iain Dale's objection to the Daily Mail's Ephraim Hardcastle column describing him as "overtly gay" as well as commenting that it was "charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause' was not upheld on the same grounds. The lesson is clear: don't be obvious when you want to reveal your distaste about homosexuals, just hide it behind a thin veil of obfuscatory language and they won't be able to touch you.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, September 02, 2010 

It began with a photograph.

It all began with a photo. They could be father and son, although whether a grown up son and father could look so comfortable and at ease with each other as William Hague and Christopher Myers do in the moment they were snapped walking together in August of last year is far more difficult to quantify. Equally, if it's possible to both look like a complete tit and also almost vaguely cool at the same time, then Hague, complete with baseball cap, an echo of his notorious previous attempts to get down with the kids whilst Conservative leader, manages it. To hazard a complete guess, it's possible they were in fact joking about how Hague is casually dressed up, and the full series of shots shows us Hague removing the cap and then the sunglasses.

How the photographs came to be taken in the first place is a currently unexplained conundrum. It's credited to Xposurephotos, a paparazzi agency which doesn't list the following of then shadow cabinet ministers as among its priorities, although it also accepts submissions from the public. Whether it was just a citizen photographer who sighted Hague and Myers, or an actual paparazzo, that still doesn't answer whether the Mail on Sunday came across the photo of the insouciant pair first and the story of Myers' hiring as Hague's special advisor second. Perhaps they knew about the photographs at the time and were waiting, almost exactly a year as it happened, for a suitable occasion to use them. It certainly wouldn't have been anywhere near as good a story without it; the old cliché that a picture paints a thousands words couldn't be much more applicable.

We also don't know whether at the time the papers knew for a fact that Hague had, during the election campaign, shared a twin-bedded hotel room with Myers and were routing around for enough suitable justification to go with it. In any event, as Sunder Katwala and Stephen Tall note, the papers and Guido either worked off or with each other, until the cryptic Telegraph article on Saturday about the cabinet minister threatening legal action over accusations concerning his personal life, which seemed to see them back off. Then Guido went with the sharing hotel room story on Tuesday, complete with utterly crass cartoon, which first the FCO and then Hague himself yesterday felt had to be responded to.

This isn't then, as some have been claiming, an especially bleak day for blogging. It rather shows how incestuous the "mainstream" and supposedly ardently against-MSM likes of Guido have instead become. The story went from the innocuous and the implied in the Mail on Sunday to the none too subtle reference to Peter Mandelson in Guido's first post. It's also an example of how the legitimate covers the supposedly off limits: the questions about how qualified Myers was for the role of special advisor to Hague were perfectly fair and in the public interest, yet even then Guido was clearly grasping at the gay angle, asking first and foremost whether Hague had been on any international trips with Myers involving overnight stays. The claims that it was never about sexuality, or rather now that the issue is Hague's judgement, not that Westminster's guttersnipes were whispering about him shagging a 25-year-old man while his wife wasn't around are absurd and specious in the extreme.

Guido in any event isn't showing even the slightest remorse for Hague making yesterday's humiliating and embarrassing statement, and why should he? He can instead shift all of the blame onto Hague himself for being silly enough to share a room with an attractive young man supposedly unqualified for the job he was doing, especially when fellow Tory stuffed shirts are saying much the same thing. You can understand why Hague felt he had to respond to the rumours, yet to do so in a way in which Laurie Penny rightly suggests was demeaning to his wife and indeed to their failure to have children was completely unnecessary. Everything about it sits painfully, written as it almost is in a Lord Gnome-type pronouncement style; it also has more than a whiff of the Piers Merchant protesting too much bouquet wafting from it. This is doubly unfortunate when absolutely everyone, except Guido it seems accepts that Hague just liked the kid and got on well with him. Hague should have just let Guido get on with what he does and let the story die down, as it would have; that would have been the best course of action. He was however fully within his rights to respond. The real judgement call should perhaps of been how far the response itself went.

We shouldn't, as Mr Eugenides wisely advises, get too sanctimonious about the whole thing, and I was also one of those who back in the day noted John Prescott's alleged affair with Rosie Winterton, never proved and also still never disproved, as it I can now say it rightly should have stayed. Worth concluding on however is Guido's tweeted tribute to a tabloid editor:

We solve all the blog's ethical dilemmas by asking ourselves "what would Kelvin MacKenzie have done?"

When it came to accusations made that Elton John had used rent boys, MacKenzie believed them. When John sued, MacKenzie went one step further and published a story claiming that John had had his guard dogs' vocal cords cut, something so eminently disprovable that John must have immediately started estimating how big the payout would be. The stories in their totality turned out to be worth £1,000,000. The difference is that Guido prides himself on being above such recourse to legal action, even if Hague wanted to consider all his options. MacKenzie at least believed in the concept of "publish and be damned".

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

Monday, April 05, 2010 

The freedom to be a horrible bigot.

Somewhat predictably, Chris Grayling's secretly recorded comments on how he felt that the owners of B&Bs should be allowed to freely discriminate against anyone they don't like the look of have caused, in that newspaper cliché, a pre-election storm.

As it goes, this is probably one of the less stupid of Grayling's gaffes, his past greatest hits involving describing parts of our septic isle as reminiscent of the Wire, manipulation of violent crime statistics in an effort to claim that it has sky-rocketed under Labour when the British Crime Survey says the opposite, and his policies on law and order in general (with the exception, for the most part, of the Tories' stance on civil liberties such as the DNA database, ID cards etc). Most embarrassing is that he's been found out to not be in tune with Cameron's "some of my best friends are gays" policy, trying to banish all those memories of far more insidious anti-gay legislation like Section 28, which Cameron himself voted in favour of keeping.

The coverage is also somewhat unfair because it is clearly only Grayling's personal view, having voted for the legislation in question when it came before parliament. That does make him a terrific hypocrite, but at least a honest one when questioned on it and he doesn't think the media's around. Doubly though, Grayling has something approaching a point: while he would doubtless not make the full libertarian argument for why the owners of a bed and breakfast should be allowed to refuse entry to a gay couple, there's one freedom that has been increasingly encroached upon in recent years, and that's the freedom to be a horrible bigot. Iain Dale and Claude both argue as to why you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on such grounds, Dale saying that you're providing a service and that your house ceases to be public once you invite paying guests into it, Claude comparing the ban to health and safety legislation. Devil's Kitchen however makes what I think to be the best comparison: the smoking ban. While it's difficult to argue that the smoking ban hasn't been a general success and that it's lovely to come back from either a pub or club and not have your clothes absolutely reek of tobacco fumes, I see absolutely no reason why certain establishments shouldn't be allowed to deign themselves as places where you are allowed to smoke, and that if you don't wish to breathe it in, then you can go elsewhere.

The same should be able to apply to small businesses like B&Bs. If you're such a horrendous bigot that your conscience won't allow you to permit entry to two gay men, presumably on the grounds that as they're gay men and all gay men are sex mad and can't possibly resist the temptation to indulge in anal intercourse in-between your clean white sheets, then you should be perfectly within your rights to do so. The general public however though will then be perfectly within their rights to be told about your petty little irrational prejudices at every possible opportunity, hopefully resulting in your business either failing or only similarly clean-minded Christians or members of other religions patronising you. Would this result in, as some have also mentioned, the return of the likes of "no blacks, no Irish, no dogs" signs? Possibly. Can we seriously though not handle that returning, and not actually further put it down to their ignorance and let them get on with it, with perhaps similar consequences to the above? In any case, we already have establishments where it's well known that certain people are either not welcome or conversely are welcome, and that few not belonging to those cliques therefore venture to them. At least with this option we have open discrimination rather than covering it with a veil; let the bigots be bigots and let everyone else mock them. Perhaps we can start with, err, Chris Grayling?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Friday, January 08, 2010 

Here's to you, Mrs Robinson.

Surely if there's one thing that shows the progress in Northern Ireland, it's that Iris Robinson's lover has been revealed not just to be 19-years-old (now 21) but also a Catholic. To go from not sitting down with that man to laying down with him in little more than 10 years must mean there's hope for all other unsolved conflicts around the world.

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

Wednesday, January 06, 2010 

Redeemed by the red wine of Christ.

Isn't it strange how so often the most sanctimonious and deeply "moral" individuals who condemn others for their "sins" are those that end up being caught out? Back in 2008, Iris Robinson MP, while condemning the attack on Stephen Scott told Radio Ulster that:

"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.

If this self-same "very lovely" psychiatrist tried to help Robinson after she started having an affair, then it seems he didn't do that great a job; Robinson attempted suicide after telling her husband of her transgressions on March the 1st last year. Another strange decision considering Robinson's fundamentalist, Pentecostal branch of Christianity, for which the usual punishment for suicide is a lengthy vacation in the bowels of Hell.

Not that Robinson's comments on Stephen Scott were the only homophobic remarks she made. During the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, she claimed that "[W]e are moving mountains to facilitate immorality ...". Whether she personally had to move mountains to facilitate her own bunk-up sessions with a man "who had suffered a bereavement" isn't clear, but one suspects that she didn't have to do anything so strenuous. Apart from the actual exertions involved, obviously.

Still, at least Robinson is confident that God has forgiven her, just like so many others before her are convinced through their very personal relationship with Our Dear Lord and Creator that their own inconsistencies with scripture are no big deal. Again though, it seems Robinson has different standards for herself and how God will treat her as compared to those abominable homosexuals. After complaints about her comments, the parliamentary ombudsman accounted for her remarks thus:

"Mrs Robinson made it clear in her first interview of June 6th that comments she had made in a previous discussion in which it appears she described homosexuality as an 'abomination' were, 'scriptural, and what I clarified it with was very very clear that my Christian belief teaches me that you love the sinner and hate the sin and that goes right across every type of sin'."

Or maybe that is how she's seen it all along: that she, the sinner, loves herself, while hating the "sin" she was committing. Not that the Old Testament wrathful, vengeful God saw it in the same way: there's not much nuance in Leviticus 20, for which the punishment for adultery is quite plainly death for both the adulterer and adulteress. Presumably Robinson has atoned for her sin in the same way in which she proposed Scott could be forgiven for his: redeemed by the blood of Christ. Or was that just the cheap red wine which made one thing lead to another?

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates