Thursday, October 05, 2006

My PC alarm is broken..

Due to a hectic day at college and afterward, I was not able to update the blog yesterday. My apologies. I was half-tempted to go straight to bed, but a story caught my eye today that just screamed at me. And hell, I bloody well screamed back.

Straw's veil comments spark anger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

Oh, come on. I suggest you read the entire article and you'll see what I mean by those three words.

It seems these days that when people mention a "shady" subject - ethnicity, religion, etc - people's PC alarms go off and they find something to complain about without even bothering to read what's actually being said. Let's look into this particular gem a little.

Asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

So what's wrong with this exactly? Straw isn't saying that the full veil is a bad or offensive thing, simply that it's easier to read a person's intentions when they speak when the full face can be shown. And this is true! It is much easier! You'll also notice..

The Blackburn MP says the veil is a "visible statement of separation and of difference" and he asks women visiting his surgery to consider removing it.

The man didn't hold them at gunpoint and ask them to remove the veils. Nor did he say they had to be removed. He simply asked them to consider it as a means for easier communication.

Now, the PC alarms begin to go off..

It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Oh, shut up, you idiot. Selectively discriminate? You've got to be kidding me. This sentence in particular I read with open mouth. Where is the discrimination here? Being politely asked to remove a veil, with no obligation, for better community relations with an MP? Ooh, call the discrimination police. Also..

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

Ridiculous. Negative symbols? The man is simply trying to provide better relations with him and his community. What's wrong with that? Remind yourself, the man is not demanding that the veils be removed.

But the Muslim Council of Britain said it should be up to women to decide.

So stop with this ridiculous PC nonsense and let's start reading the implications, not just the letter, of these requests before we all start blowing our tops.

Honestly.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The return of that dirty Socialist

Yes folks, I'm back. You can't get rid of me that easily. Truth be told, after a while I just couldn't be bothered with this blog anymore, and I had a lot going on in my life. Now that I'm studying Politics again, I'm back to being everyone's favourite Commie. And what better way to start off the return than..

Boris in storm over Jamie remarks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5404438.stm

Hooray! It's BORIS!

I just adore Boris, and just for you I picked out a few of my favourite quotes from the above BBC article. See if they set off your Boris alarm or not.

But BBC South political editor Peter Henley reported Mr Johnson had taken a swipe at Mr Oliver's school dinners campaign at a Monday evening fringe event, saying "if I was in charge I would get rid of Jamie Oliver and tell people to eat what they like".

Boris alarm.

Mr Johnson added: "I say let people eat what they like. Why shouldn't they push pies through the railings?".

Boris alarm.

"When I was growing up we all bounced around like peas in a rattle - did it do us any harm?"

BORIS ALARM BORIS ALARM BORIS ALARM

And now (to paraphrase a famous man), for something a little different.

Tories seek to focus on families
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5401648.stm

Hmm. I'm not sure where I stand on this. As a Socialist, obviously my natural tendancies are to agree with this, and I do. Working families are under a huge strain, and why should the State not provide provision for them? However, it worries me that it's the Conservatives rather than Labour emphasising this. On a Tory slant, would the emphasis not be on aiding working mothers, but instead on aiding working mothers and letting them do the time off back at a later date? I'm not overly convinced about this Socialist shopping spree of Mr Cameron and I never have been.

Still though, the BBC article did quote a very good point made by a senior Tory, Edward Leigh: "You can't just assume that your traditional voters will remain on your side," which is preceeded in the article by "... one senior backbencher warned that people would turn to UKIP and the BNP if the Tories did not say enough about Europe, immigration and tax cuts. "

I suppose all this opens the door for the debate of how far can a party swing from it's natural ground before it's core support crumbles? In my own personal opinion Labour have swung too far already. We'll see in the coming months and years how far the Tories can swing to the Left before their foundation of crusty old men begins to crumble.