James Medhurst's Blog

Born to Run?

2007-04-09T20:48:00.000+01:00

Apologies for not blogging for so long. I have exams coming up and I am also running the London Marathon on 22nd April. And now seems as good a time as any to offer my readers the opportunity to donate. If you would like to so then please click on the widget below. I would be very grateful. You can still read my views on the New Statesman website once a fortnight and I will be back blogging here once again regularly when my exams finish at some point in June. See you then.

Are we in Denial?

2007-01-28T16:25:00.000Z

Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK and the occasion has been commemorated by a number of events across the country today. Perhaps wisely, Google decided not to mark it with an adapted version of its logo. Such a national day of remembrance has been criticised controversially by the Muslim Council of Britain so I want to take the opportunity to comment on these arguments and ask more generally whether there is a problem with the way the Holocaust is 'packaged'.

The first thing to say is that there are definitely valid criticisms of the views of some Muslim commentators, many of whom are slow to condemn those on the fringes who deny the Holocaust or who give credence to the obviously fake 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Also, while they rightly call for more acknowledgement of other genocides, such as those in Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda, they are themselves unjusifiably selective in their examples by omitting, for instance, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey.

However, as a disabled person, I am often frustrated by the almost exclusive focus upon the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, which can sometimes seem to give the impression that the deaths of disabled people were of less significance. This issue has been discussed by my fellow blogger at the New Statesman, Victoria Brignell, and also by the Goldfish, and I have nothing more to add at present. Nevertheless, I hope these articles make it clear why I occasionally find myself having some sympathy for the perspective of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Of course, I must be careful not to denigrate the imporatance of the fact that six million Jews were killed, but there are certain oddities in this respect as well. Millions of Jews were also murdered in the Soviet Union at roughly the same time and yet there is not a special day for them. One reason for the discrepancy is undoubtedly the mechanised nature of the Holocaust and the fact that it presents a particularly scary dystopian future, while Stalin's men used more old-fashioned methods, but I cannot help wondering is there is more to it than that.

A more cynical albeit realistic possibility relates to the fact that the British fought against Germany during the Second World War while the Red Army were on our side, and therefore we are less comfortable about acknowledging the evils of the latter. This explanation supports a popular revisionist view of the war, that Britain entered in order to protect the Jews, which of course we did not. In fact, British officials ignored all evidence of the Holocaust until the war was over. Despite this, we still did more than we did in Armenia, Cambodia and Rwanda, and this could partly explain the special status of the Nazi atrocities.

A similar issue arises in the case of histories of the Holocaust which perplexingly seem to start with the foundation of Auschwitz in 1940 or even the first use of Zyklon B there in 1941. A BBC TV series based entirely on this premise was screened a couple of years ago. Prior to 1940, the context includes not only the majority of killings of disabled people but also the piecemeal increase of restrictions on the freedom and movement of Jews, which were not always greatly more severe than those in Western so-called democracies during the same period.

These similarities are hugely significant and their glossing over highly revealing. Little that the Nazis did prior the Holocaust itself received much in the way of vociferous condemnation from the Allies who later fought against them, and many of their actions had been influenced by eugenics movements emanating largely from the United States and Britain. Similarly, the 'Euthanasia' Programme, about which German authorities were quite open, had its own parallels in other countries. Forced sterilization of disabled people was concurrently taking place in various states of America and continued in Sweden until the 1970s.

Therefore, the popular approach to the Holocaust seems designed to achieve two key effects, firstly to remove from every country except Germany any culpability for what happened, and secondly, by stripping away the context, to present it as an inexplicable aberration which could never happen again. All very reassuring I'm sure, but I am not convinced that this story does full justice to the memory of those who died. I hope you do not feel I have been disrepectful in using this day to write this critique because I am confident the opposite is the case.

Ministerial Responsibility: An Obituary

2007-01-17T20:21:00.000Z

In an entry from last April, I discussed the decline of a consitutional tradition in which ministers were expected to resign for errors made in their departments. Such resignations are no longer considered to be necessary, as has been demonstrated by the ability of many of the current cabinet to weather an endless stream of self-induced crises.

However, the principle has a flip side which has proved more robust. When the Minister for Agriculture resigned in 1954, it was for some dodgy decisions which, at the time at least, appeared to have been made by civil servants without the knowledge of their boss. If this version of events is true, the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale was an honourable one from a mythical golden age of politics. Ministers would resign even when the mistake had been made by someone else while the Civil Service were protected from their own incompetence.

The tradition that senior civil servants can never be sacked nor made to resign has by and large continued until this day. Heads of quangos (quangoes?), such as Derek Lewis, and government-appointed spin doctors, like Jo "Bury Bad News" Moore, can be dismissed but, thus far, this fate has yet to befall a top-level mandarian. This made the story this week of the suspension of an official at the Home Office all the more intriguing. Are they about to lose their protected status?

My feelings about this development are mixed. I am a romantic soul at heart and Dugdale falling on his sword has a touching chivalry which appeals to me, and seems to be missing in politics today. However, a persuasive argument the other way is that, whether the government is Labour or Conservative, there's a cock-up at the Home Office every few months or so (it's been just nine months since the last one), and it would not be helpful to keep replacing the Home Secretary if there are structural problems in the department which need to be fixed.

A further consideration is that civil servants have been protected as a ruling elite for far too long. It is ironic that the people who have the responsibility for developing policy on, say, employment, and those who are charged with enforcing any new law in this area (i.e. judges) are among the professions with the most secure tenure, and the least need to rely on any such legislation themselves. Anything which can go some way to give them a dose of reality must surely be a good thing.

On the Feast of Stephen (+10)

2007-01-05T18:34:00.000Z

I hope you all had a great New Year. This blog has been fairly inactive again and so it is time to post my Prague photos before the Christmas feeling entirely disappears. I was there in mid-December and though it did not snow, sadly, there is nothing like Good King Wenceslas to create the festive spirit. Here he is in the square named after him.

Old Square was also looking the part with a large Christmas tree and a Christmas market. Below is the clock known for its famous mechanical performance to mark the hour. If like me, you are a fan of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, you will be interested to know he is buried in another church nearby, having been Court Astrologer to Rudolph II.

Prague's other great landmark is its castle from which two men were thrown through a window during the Defenestration of 1618, marking the start of the Thirty Years War. Isn't it a relief to have moved on from those times of religious tolerance? Hmm. This picture is not the most striking but I like it because of the Czech flag in the foreground.

Most people who go to the Czech Republic never leave Prague, which is a shame because there are plenty of other amazing places to visit.

I particularly recommend the World Heriatage city of Kutna Hora, an hour away by train. It has a comically creepy church decorated with human bones (very Christmassy) and this rather stunning cathedral.

Blog Update

2006-12-17T15:52:00.000Z

Everything is changing with my blogs. I have excitingly been asked by the New Statesman website to write a fortnightly blog about disability issues called 'A Different Way of Thinking'. It is aimed at a general audience but there is also a lot in there for people who are already knowledgable about the area so I would ask you all to check it out.

You may also have noticed that I have not updated my other blog 'Help! I'm Turning Normal' for some time. For the record, I feel that many areas of my life are still improving at a steady rate, but there is not really enough to say to justify blogging about them frequently. The New Statesman gig will also impact upon the time which I can dedicate to that blog and therefore I have decided to discontinue it. Nevertheless, I will update you about any major developments here.

By the way, this positive step by the New Statesman will not stop me from complaining about the coverage of disability issues in the press. I will not be content and I will not rest until all other sections of the media show a similar level of commitment. Have a Merry Christmas!

Law - What is it Good For? Part 3

2006-12-07T23:36:00.000Z

I have saved the biggest topic in this discussion for last so I will be as brief as possible. It is often assumed that having few laws increases freedom of choice but, in fact, the competive nature of human beings often means that the opposite is the case. For example, a libertarian hobbyhorse is that drugs in sport should be legalised. The argument is that if athletes choose to take risks with their health they are free to do so. The problem is with what happens to the athletes who do not wish to abuse their bodies this way. As their rivals begin to consume more and more steroids, they are forced to either join them or simply to drop out of the sport altogether, which is no choice at all. As the drug-taking increases exponentially, the women's events may as well be abolished because the competitiors will be men within six months.

A similar, although rather more complex, case arises with regard to the capitalist free market. Without the minimum wage, an employer could still choose to pay his employees a reasonable amount of money but he would be at a competitive disadvantage which may eventually drive him out of business. I believe that this is why many good people become corrupt. They do not feel that their actions are morally right but they know that they have little alternative if they want to survive.

A solution commonly proposed to tackle disability discrimination is to educate employers about it. The above analysis shows that this will not be successful if businesses feel that they get an competitive edge from their disciminatory practices, for example, if they believe that customers of a supermarket would be put off by seeing disabled staff. The knowledge obtained by educating them will simply be used to find out how to avoid their responsibilities. Similarly, the proposed laws on corporate manslaughter can be criticised because the likely fines will be much less than the cost of missing a deadline in a construction contract, rendering it a poor deterrent from a commercial point of view. Only if punishments are sufficient to influence cold financial reasoning will employers be truly free to listen to their consciences.

However, I want to end on a slightly more pro-active note. The main problem with concluding that the law must be strengthened is that it sometimes discourages people from looking for other solutions. If it is not worth educating employers then what is worth doing? The missing link are the customers because, unlike businessmen, their antipathy towards disabled supermarket staff is based on ignorance rather than economic considerations. Ironically, although many of them probably do experience an unconscious discomfort in the presence of disabled people, they would be equally horrified to discover that there is active discrimination taking place. Therefore, the key is to educate these people, the general public, whose consumer behaviour can change the calculation which businesses are forced by the market to make. It may also eventually encourage them to vote for new more effective laws.

A Humorous Interlude

2006-11-26T23:09:00.000Z

I interrupt this serious discussion for something more light-hearted. However, it is not entirely unconnected with the theme of my recent posts. Critics of the criminal law, especially pro-defendant lawyers, often have a tension between their discomfort with anything which seems to give more power to the state and a reluctance to be seen to be sympathising with murderers and rapists. This is often resolved by obsessive over-analysis of the legislation in an attempt to find some flaw, no matter how ludicrously implausible. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of sex crimes so here is my top three most ridiculous hypothetical questions posed regarding the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Firstly, the 'Textbook on Criminal Law' by Michael Allen, asks,

'A and B agree to have vaginal intercourse with A entering B from behind. A is inexperienced and in the dark by mistake slightly penetrates B's anus... Must the prosecution prove intentional penentration of B's anus or simply intentional penetration of B?'

I suspect that this example from Smith & Hogan can only be properly understood by visualising it and thinking about it for a long time.

'Would soaking B's flimsy T-shirt be a sexual touching? Does A have to be holding the implement that touches B?'

But the winner has to be this gem from the BPP Criminal Law Manual, which threatens to undermine the whole institution of marriage.

'Do you that a defendant who has sexual intercourse with a man who is indifferent as to whether or not sexual intercourse takes place is guilty of rape?'

However, lest it be thought that I am rampant Daily Mail reader with a 'lock them up and throw away the key' attitude, there is one place in which I think that the drafting of the legislation is unnecessarily wide. This is found in section 69 (good number), which concerns intercourse with an animal. To be guilty of this offence you must have sex with an animal and intend that what you are having sex with is an animal or, rather bizarrely, be reckless as to whether what you are having sex with is an animal. How the latter is possible is beyond me. They seem to be worried about the 'I thought it was just a woolly person' defence.

Law - What is it Good For? Part 2

2006-11-17T22:48:00.000Z

Another myth about the purpose of law is that it only exists to restrict the actions of other people. As citizens, we also use it to regulate our own behaviour. This may sound bizarre but some reflection shows this to indeed be the case. Consider, for example, taxation. Those of us who support income tax do so because we believe that wealth should be distributed in order to benefit people who are less well off than ourselves. However, if tax were abolished, do any of us really think that we would voluntarily give up to 40% of our wealth to poor people, as nineteenth century anti-tax libertarians argued that we could? Of course we would not. We know that we need state regulation and the fear of imprisonment to make us do what we already believe is right.

A useful analogy is Alcoholics Anonymous. People who seek support from the AA do so precisely with the intention of having their choices challenged by other people. Superficially, they are agreeing to have their liberty restricted but, at a deeper level, the main threat to their genuine freedom is the drinking itself and hence they are actually increasing their options. People cannot be reduced to straightforward desires but rather are subject to contradictory wants competing for attention. Sometimes it is necessary for the higher rational part of the brain to get help from others to conquer more selfish tendencies.

This example may seem an extreme one that affects a minority of people but we all look for such support from our circle of friends in various ways. Among a crowd of ethical consumers, it is common for them to share information about the pratices of various corporations and about which brands are owned by whom, but also to remind and fortify one another to stick with the often difficult time-consuming path of hunting for alternative sources of goods. It is only a small step to asking the state to play a role in making the tainted brands less widely available and the friendlier ones more so. Just as we delegate our education and wealth distribution to the state to allow it to be more effective, we can also do the same with our economic priorities.

I recently booked an absurdly cheap weekend break to Prague, with a budget airline, after which I will have taken seven flights this year. I feel a bit guilty about this and someone with more environmental willpower would clearly not have made this decision. Perhaps that is why I support the higher taxes on aeroplane fuel recommended by the recent Stern Report. Undoubtedly, this is a massive abdication of responsibility on my part, and I acknowledge that fact. Nevertheless, I am confident that my view is the one with a more realistic approach to human behaviour. In the end, even Foucault acknowledged that the freedom to submit to one's own baser instincts is no freedom at all.

Law - What is it Good For? Part 1

2006-11-05T23:07:00.000Z

Before you ask, I do not think that the answer is 'absolutely nothing'. For many libertarians, the law should have a very limited role to play in society. The argument runs that any regulation of the behaviour of citizens should have widespread support before being introduced. This is a crucial democratic principle and is entirely sound. However, the reasoning then concludes that any law which does have such support will not require enforcement and so need not be introduced. This is where I part company. A curious example is the recent decision by the government to abandon the reform of faith schools, to ensure that 25% of pupils will be drawn from non-members of the religion. It was suggested that the voluntary agreement of the schools was sufficient to bring about the change. There are a number of problems with this approach, the first of which concerns the issue of enforcement itself.

It is a complete myth that laws are only worthwhile if they need to be enforced. A key purpose of the law is certainly to impose penalties to discourage undesirable activities but this is not the only purpose or even necessarily the primary one. Another function is to express the values shared by a particular culture. If we regard the change in the composition of faith schools to be a statement of our commitment to religious diversity, then it will be a beneficial law, even if it makes no material difference to the way in which our education system is run.

Another role for the legal system is to provide guidance to people as to how to live their lives. This may seem patronising but there are, in fact, many ethical ideas inherent in the law that are not widely known or publicised, disability rights being a good example. For employers who strive for best practice (possibly a minority), the requirements set out in statute are surely invaluable. The importance of guiding citizens can sometimes make it useful to have a law which is widely broken, and which it would not actually be desirable to enforce. A nice example is the age of consent. We do not want fourteen-year-olds to be arrested for consensual sexual activity but it is also clear that to lower the age of consent would send completely the wrong message.

Many defenders of the bill to criminalise the incitement of religious hatred pointed out that, like its cousin regarding racial hatred, it is likely that it would have been seldom used. Its opponents, including Polly Toynbee, countered with the argument that there would then be no point in introducing it at all. I strongly disagreed and I continue to do so. Ironically, Toynbee supported the new law on religious schools - she is a secularist rather than a libertarian - but, for me, they raise essentially the same issues. It is increasingly urgent that we define ourselves as a country which does not use religion, or the lack of it, as a barrier to co-operation and understanding. It is equally vital that we send this message to those who would seek to inflame tensions.

Tripping to Mars

2006-10-26T23:18:00.000+01:00

I have recently started doing some voluntary work representing people at Employment Tribunals because they are unable to afford to hire a solicitor (legal aid - what a joke). It is incredibly rewarding for a few different reasons because it is combative in a delightfully intellectual way. However, the biggest buzz is when I feel that I have managed to improve someone's situation and I have helped to put both a morally dubious employer and an ethically-challenged lawyer in their place.

The power of this feeling was spectacularly demonstrated on Tuesday when I went for lunch. I had a choice between a Mars bar and a Kitkat to accompany my sandwich and I chose the Mars because Kitkats are made by Nestle. This is worth mentioning because I have long since given up trying to change the world through my consumer behaviour. My mood allowed me to believe that I can really make a difference.

This is not good news on the job front where most of the vacancies are for solicitors to represent employers (the lack of legal aid again).
I recently saw an advert online where part of the job description was ‘attempting to find errors or technicalities in the claim that could lead to its early disposal’. Forgive me if I am not thrilled. A job like that would soon have me eating Kitkats like there is no tomorrow.

Ban the Veil to Protect Freedom

2006-10-19T10:00:00.000+01:00

Last weekend, David Davis warned that free speech was under threat, as a result of what he called the "voluntary apartheid" of the Muslim community. On Tuesday, the Daily Express published the results of a poll in which 98% of its readers supported a ban of the veil. Somehow, the UK moved from a concern for protecting freedom of expression to advocating its complete destruction within the space of a few days.

OK, so I didn't really believe that the Daily Express was ever a genuine supporter of liberty and nor do I trust the results of its much less than scientific survey. Nevertheless, they are far from being the only ones guilty of hypocrisy. Following the cartoon row in March, Peter Tatchell was seen at a rally, claiming that free speech protects minorities. This is despite the fact that he has rightly campaigned against the homophobic lyrics of several West Indian musicians. It seems that, for Tatchell, it is more acceptable for people with Western values to express hatred against members of other cultures than vice versa.

The only truly libertarian philosopher in history has been the Marquis de Sade. Anyone who supports taxation, the minimum wage, or laws against racism and date rape, understands that there are necessary limits which must be placed upon liberty. However, what few people appreciate is that, having acknowledged this, considerable thought must be given to maintaining the right balance between the values of different cultural groups. It is not good enough to say it is justified to ban things that have always been illegal but never anything for which freedom has been tolerated in the past. These laws were devised at a time in which Britain was a monocultural society and protect the Little Englander mentality at the expense of other ways of thinking.

When I was a self-proclaimed libertarian, I argued that female genital mutilation should be legalised. I could not see how either the problem of consent or the possibility of abuse were any different from those which arise in the cases of euthanasia and strangulation sex. Now I believe that all three should remain illegal but I still find it hard to accept that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between them. It is doubtless the case that female genital mutilation is a part of religious practices of which we are very uncomfortable while strangulation sex is a glorious British tradition (doesn't it make you proud?) but this is a reason to question our priorities not to accept them unthinkingly.

British people should be proud of our historical commitment to liberty but we also need be able to define its boundaries in a sensible and objective way. Most of all, we should understand that British liberty does not only apply to activities which are stereotypically British.

Time for a Korea Break

2006-10-14T23:58:00.000+01:00

Having already posted my photos from Dubai, I have been looking for an excuse to show the ones from Korea, the final destination of my holiday last month. I was hoping that a major story would arise in that part of the world which would provide me with such a pretext. Oops.

It just so happens that I did visit North Korea during my trip to the South. If you don't believe me, here is a picture of the border taken from the north. It is only possible to step over this line in a special building in which diplomatic negotiations are conducted between the two sides. I hope that they get people around the table pretty soon.

Over the border is the world's tallest flagpole, at 100m, the result of a Freudian contest between the two Koreas. The South Koreans gave up at 70m realising, I hope, that the whole thing was rather silly. If you look closely, there is a mushroom cloud in the distance (not really).

On an optimistic note, I was excited by Dorasan Railway Station. Everything is in place for it to become the connection point between South Korea and China, and beyond. However, in the current climate, I wouldn't expect trains to be leaving from this platform in a hurry.

But South Korea's history goes back much further than the twentieth century and, although it is rather less topical, I feel it would be unfair not to mention some other sights. Seoul has several palaces from the Joseon dynasty, which lasted for five hunded years. Nearby is the folk village of Suwon where it is possible to watch the traditional art of see-saw jumping, surely soon to become an Olympic sport. The sign says that women took part in this activity purely because they were trapped at home and it allowed them to look over the fence.

Another favourite place for me was Gyeongju, in the south east of the country. It has some amazing temples and a fabulous Buddha (which I was not allowed to photograph). I was most fascinated by these burial mounds, which were used as a final resting place for the kings of the ancient Silla civilisation. This is remarkably similar to practices that were also followed in Western Europe, despite there being such a vast distance between them. Unlike China and Japan, South Korea does not get many Western tourists, especially outside Seoul, and in Gyeongju I was mobbed by a group of schoolchildren asking for my autograph.

Gamekeeper Turns Poacher

2006-10-10T16:08:00.001+01:00

The story of the week has to be the senior judge in England and Wales going under cover as a convicted criminal in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of community service. He gave an exclusive interview to the Observer to describe his experiences. A reality television series based on the concept (possibly featuring Boy George) is surely only a few weeks away. Or has this already been done by Channel Five?

Not unusually, however, the press coverage ended up revealing more about the media itself than about the criminal justice system. For instance, it is remarkable that what is supposedly the most left-wing newspaper in the country can describe the viewpoint that torture is always wrong as 'controversial'. More amusing but no less disturbing is the fact that his colleagues in punishment read the Sun, a newspaper that would probably refer to them as 'scum' and demand that they be locked up for a very long time. The European Court of Human Rights recently gave British prisoners the vote, hoping that it would give them a part in the democratic process, and ensure that they have a say about the way that they are treated by the state. However, there is little point in giving turkeys the vote if they are just going to vote for Christmas. Let's hope that they just read the Sun for the pictures.

Always a Frown with Gordon Brown

2006-10-03T12:22:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown took umbrage this week at being described by a Tory as 'autistic', and not for the first time. However, while the statement of Peter Viggers, in December last year, clearly did seem to be a slur on autistic people as well as the Chancellor, this does not apply to the comments of George Osborne, which were rather light-hearted. The word 'autistic' is not offensive in itself and it is demeaning to suggest otherwise. It is a shame, therefore, that the issue has generated so much heat and that the National Autistic Society have jumped onto the bandwagon. It would have been sensible to have at least asked a few autistic people what we think before deciding, on our behalf, that we have been offended. Perhaps our next Prime Minister is saying that it is an insult to autistic people for us to be compared with him.

Post-Modern Photos

2006-09-26T12:09:00.000+01:00

I am going to print some snaps from my recent holiday. The ultimate destination was South Korea but I had a stopover in Dubai which, as well as being fascinating in its own right, provided a few examples of the interaction between capitalism and Islam in the wealthier parts of the Middle East. It is interesting to see how local people manage to reconcile the contridictory demands of the gods of Allah and Mammon.

The first is a simple but rather lovely picture of Dubai Creek - with skyscrapers on the left and minarets on the right:

The next one is a bit of a cliche but the British red telephone box adds a nice non-American touch (there is also a Wimpey in Dubai):

This one caused me rather more confusion. Firstly, what does G for God have to do with anything and, secondly, what are the theological consequences of it being Friday every day? Is everyone who eats there required to continuously take part in Friday prayers?

However, these two billboards are my favourites. It seems that, in the United Arab Emirates, lack of sex sells. I have to wonder what the perfume is like though. Presumably, it must smell really horrible in order to have the best chance of putting women off.

Free Speech?

2006-09-09T21:51:00.000+01:00

Three weeks after Big Brother has ended, there remains a question on my mind. Will Pete be given the chance to follow his fellow winners Craig, Brian, Kate, Cameron and Chantelle in being a TV presenter? Even losers such as Jade, Jon Tickle and, of course, Nikki have been given their own shows, while Glyn and Imogen are reported to be currently in negotiations with the Welsh-language channel S4C.

I haven't written anything so far about the presence of a disabled contestant on the show. Frankly, it was about time and there was not much more to be said than that. However, the way the producers went about rectifying their previous omission speaks volumes about the problems that Pete may have in obtaining work on television in the future. The rumour is that only wheelchair users and people with Tourette's syndrome were interviewed for this token role, with no effort made to make the house accessible for anyone with another impairment. As usual, the production team must always remain in control, even on a programme as seemingly anarchic as Big Brother.

I suspect that this control-freakery will make it near impossible for Pete or any person with Tourette's syndrome, a stutter, cerebral palsy, or any sort of impaired speech, to have a career in front of the camera. Don't get me wrong, the problem is not that he intermittently says the word 'wankers' but that he does not do so on cue. I can easily imagine a script editor liberally scattering his lines with the expletive only to be disappointed that he can neither produce the tic voluntarily nor suppress it at other times. There is a strange irony in the fact that reality shows are emerging at a time in which almost everything else on television is becoming more and more scripted and less spontaneous, a situation highly unfavourable for someone like Pete.

There is a lot of talk about the need for more disabled people on television, but this demand is usually interpreted to mean wheelchair users, and the odd person who is blind or deaf. The war by the media against regional accents has been lost following the triumphal rise of Ant and Dec and Adrian Chiles. We need to hope that the war against impaired speech will soon be lost as well. I fear not.

Something I Should have Anticipated

2006-09-04T12:16:00.000+01:00

There is an amusing / disturbing twist to my last entry. It seems that other people are less concerned than me about typing things like "violent pornography" into their search engines. And at least one person who has done so has been directed to my blog. Oh dear.

A Spanner in the Works

2006-08-31T22:52:00.000+01:00

I couldn't possibly fail to comment on yesterday's announcement that possession of violent pornography is to be made a criminal offence. It raises so many interesting issues about the relationship between freedom on the one hand, and protecting people on the other. Plus, everyone is blogging about porn these days and it is time I joined in.

The issue is such an emotive one that even libertarians have been remarkably quiet but there have still been a few murmurings and the usual complaint about it being a "grey area". In fact, it is pretty clear what is covered. Depictions of sexual violence in TV drama will not be affected and neither will poorly-acted porn (which is, lets face it, virtually all of it). Only when people are obviously cut or bruised deliberately or subjected to life-threatening risks will the images become illegal. This seems reasonable enough if you ask me.

One way in which this policy is controversial is that it will also apply to convincingly fake pictures of the acts in question. However, this is an abslolute necessity if the law is to be enforceable. The principle of 'reasonable doubt' is rightly central to our criminal justice system but it can cause problems in cases where evidence is difficult to obtain. In this situation, anyone could argue that their pictures were acted and would be certain to walk free. The minor dent made to freedom of expression is a small price to pay for bringing the abusers to justice.

Another problem is the one of consent. (I can't believe that I am talking about consent and genitals again for the second post in a row - It's a coincidence, I swear.) Anyway, there are apparently men who like to inflict violence upon one another for their own tittilation and they are concerned about the restriction to their own freedom. One organisation, called the Spanner Trust, is named after Operation Spanner, a police investigation which led to the arrest of several men for consensual violence. I don't know why it was called Operation Spanner and, quite frankly, I don't want to know. The European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn the convictions.

This seems very unfair and I do have sympathy for the men but again the problem is one of making the law work. Claiming that someone consented (or that it was believed that they consented) is a very effective way of creating reasonable doubt as is shown by the gross injustice of the many rape cases which collapse every day in this country. This problem cannot be solved in the case of rape without banning sex but it can be solved in the case of violent pornography by not allowing people to consent to these practices. And if it means that a small number of people will have to find a new hobby then they should be willing to do so for the sake of the women (and it is mainly women) who will be protected by the new legislation.

However, there is one civil liberties issue which has been barely mentioned and concerns me much more. Law enforcement agencies have begun to ask for people's search records on Google. This could lead to all sorts of dangerous confusion and frankly sometimes makes me scared to use the search engine at all. While I was researching this blog entry, I came a gnat's wing away from typing "violent porn" into its news server but I stopped myself just in time.

Fight for your Right to Self-Circumcise!

2006-08-28T19:40:00.000+01:00

I am required as part of my law course to write about voluntary euthanasia in the human rights context, particularly focusing on the challenge by Diane Pretty at the European Court a few years ago. I've only just started looking into it but have discovered a couple of gems.

The barrister for Ms Pretty was Philip Havers QC who advanced the argument that the issue was one about choice, and so was consistent with Article 2, the right to life. He later took part in the case in which Leslie Burke tried to enforce his living will not to be denied food and water. Havers showed the true level of his commitment to patient autonomy by representing the General Medical Council against Burke.

But the classic, and unsuccessful, argument was the one claiming discrimination, which runs like this. It is not illegal to commit suicide and so, by the ruthless logic of negative rights, we all have the right to kill ourselves. However, Ms. Pretty was denied this right because she was not physically able to do so, and it is illegal to assist suicide.

It strikes me that this chain of reasoning is rather odd. There are an infinite number of things that are not illegal and there surely cannot be a positive duty to ensure that disabled people have access to all of these negative rights, however tenuous. I almost wonder if a negative approach to rights can be compatible with disability equality at all.

Finally, here is a rather bizarre example. According to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, it is sensibly illegal to mutilate a woman's genitals, even if she gives her consent. However, the law remains silent on the issue of whether you are allowed to mutilate your own genitals, and so this is presumably perfectly legal and, therefore, a negatively-defined right. Does the Act therefore discriminate against disabled people who are incapable of such acts of self-mutilation, and should we fight for new legislation to plug this gap? I rather think not.

Comicocracy

2006-08-20T23:12:00.000+01:00

At the BBC this week:

Russell Brand made a brave stand for disability rights. He refused to endorse a podcast of his radio show which excluded an interview with his wheelchair-using friend Ade Adepitan, who reported being abused and refused entry to a nightclub. In a piece in the Guardian, who have been less cowardly than the Beeb over this issue, he explained that he had an obligation as a celebrity to listen to his conscience.

There was also a welcome repeat for the episode of 'Extras' featuring Kate Winslet and Francesca Martinez, an actress with cerebral palsy. The appearance of the latter is remarkable, given the frequency with which disabled roles continue to be filled by non-disabled actors. Julie Fernandez, who played Brenda in 'The Office', is also notable for being a real wheelchair-user. This is no coincidence. Unlike Jim Davidson, Ricky Gervais has always been keen that his disability-related humour should always be directed at actual disabled people and Martinez has acknowledged the extent to which he has supported her career, and persuaded the powers that be in television to do the same.

Contrary to the claims of people such as Rik Mayall, the pressure to produce more a diverse output does not come from the BBC, at least as far as disability is concerned. Rather, it is the talent themselves who are forced to take the initiative if they want things to move in the right direction. Big stars such as Brand and Gervais have the influence not only to ask for blue M&Ms but also to prevent their employer from abdicating its responsbility as a public broadcaster.

And they are not fringe figures. Russell Brand's podcast is second only to Ricky Gervais in terms of the number of downloads so it seems that it is they who are in touch with the public mood rather than the men in suits. In a modern democracy, it is not usually considered to be constitutionally desirable for stand-up comedians to wield so much power, but who knows? It might just happen to work out OK.

Summer of Libel

2006-08-07T22:18:00.000+01:00

The summer is usually pitifully short of news and this year is no exception. Yes, there is war in the Middle East, but that isn't really news in the same sense that 'Dog Bites Man' is not news. Peace in the Middle East, on the other hand, would be very big news indeed.

With not much going on and the football season only just creeping into view, I often fall back onto libel trials for my entertainment, and they are very entertaining indeed. I don't know whether comic libel trials are more common at this time of year, or whether they simply get more attention, but there always seem to be plenty around.

The first case didn't quite make it to the courtroom after the Sun and the News of the World apologised to Ashley Cole and paid damages for aspersions of homosexuality. Cole wasn't offended to be called gay, of course - he simply disliked the suggestion of dishonesty (hmm). The case turned on what is known in legal circles as an 'innuendo', a word whose technical definition, in this instance, turned out to be uncannily close to the popular meaning. The Sun printed a photo of Cole buying an engagement ring for Cheryl Tweedy with the caption 'Ashley's got a good taste in rings'. Along with several stories in the News of the World, linking an anonymous Premiership footballer with 'gay romps', this was enough to persuade the defendants to settle. Personally, I think it's a shame that the case never came to trial because Cole's lawyer was denied the chance to explain the innuendo to a judge.

Another classic was the successful suit by the hypnotist Paul McKenna against the Daily Mirror, whose TV critic Victor Lewis-Smith had accused him of deceiving the public, with a Mickey Mouse degree obtained on the internet. The judge summarised the case by saying that the degree was indeed of dubious origin but that McKenna had not deceived anyone because he genuinely believed it was meaningful!

And finally, the best of all came last Friday when Tommy Sheridan, a Scottish politician virtually unknown in England until last week, won a claim against the News of the World over reports of adultery, orgies, and drug taking. In a particularly salacious trial, which probably did more to damage his reputation than the original allegations, there were descriptions of three, four and five-in-a-bed, and Sheridan even offered to strip to show that certain statements about his physical appearance were untrue. One of the leading defence witnesses turned out to have worked for the News of the World while Sheridan sacked his legal team to conduct his own case, only to constantly refer to himself in the third person. It is probably fair to say that he won despite, and not because, of this generally unwise decision. There were wildly contradictory claims made by the two sets of witnesses and police are considering the possibility of prosecutions for perjury.

These cases, and others like them, are often used to argue that the libel laws in England and Scotland are unfair. I agree that the burden of proof is probably too strictly weighted against the media, but it is my view that intruding upon the personal lives of individuals, rather than investigating the more serious business of government activity, is something of an abuse of free speech. Newspapers are sadly under no obligation to report the truth about anything of importance and so there is some small comfort from the fact that they at least have an incentive to do so when it comes to ridiculous celebrity gossip.

How to make $10,000,000 in Two Weeks

2006-07-29T21:21:00.000+01:00

At the moment, I am getting rather excited by something called the World Series of Poker, which is currently taking place in Las Vegas. (Where else?) It is a bit like the Olympics or the Wimbledon of the poker world but, unlike those events, anyone can take part. All you have to do is put in $10,000 of your own money (hmm) or win a place through one of an increasingly huge number of qualifying events. In 2003, a guy with the appropriate name of Chris Moneymaker qualified by this route and then ended up winning the whole thing.

This year there are more than 8,000 competitors and a quick bit of maths reveals that this results in a prize pool of $80 million, of which the winner will get about $10 million - very nice work if you can get it. However, this is not like the lottery - poker is largely a game of skill and so an incredible amount of talent as well as, admittedly, some luck is required in order to be successful. Nevertheless, there are a lot of amateur players, including myself, who have a burning ambition to one day play in the tournament, just for the sheer thrill of it.

This is the first WSOP since I started becoming interested in poker about a year ago, and I am already finding myself obsessively reading live updates. As well as the one on Cardplayer.com, there is a more entertaining but less thorough service provided by the Gutshot Club, who also run a card room in London. They have some extremely good players, one of whom came 14th in last year's event. I visited the Gutshot once to play a few hands but my money did not last long.

Naturally, the updates begin by focusing largely on the big names of poker and the celebrities who take part (and usually get eliminated within a few hours). However, as the tournament progresses over the fortnight, there is a strong chance that some new names will emerge. If I happen not to blog very much over this time then you'll know why.

Dial 1 for Democracy

2006-07-16T22:33:00.000+01:00

Regular readers of my blog will know that I occasionally like to discuss important constitutional issues. Therefore, today I am going to write about Nikki's eviction from Big Brother on Friday night.

Many people were surprised that Nikki lost the vote. She had survived a couple of previous public votes and it seemed as though she was going to last until the final week. They have begun to wonder what she had done wrong in her last few days, in order to turn the nation against her. However, I think that this is not the right question to ask. In my opinion, the key to her eviction was the change of voting system. Instead of being up against a single fellow housemate, they had all been put up for eviction, except Jayne, as a punishment for her breaching the Big Brother rules, by discussing the outside world.

To understand why, it is necessary to think about how the housemates are likely to be perceived by the viewing public. Nikki seems to be regarded as irredeemably annoying by a minority, perhaps 20%, but as entertainingly endearing by the rest, say 80%. Now consider Imogen. Of those who have noticed her at all, perhaps 5% think that she at least provides some cute Welsh eye candy while 5% may be frustrated that she is incredibly boring and does nothing at all. The other 90% probably find her so uninteresting that they are completely indifferent to her fate. Indeed, apart from Nikki, and maybe also Pete, I would suggest that this is the profile of most of the housemates, neither loved nor loathed, but in some tedious place in between.

Now, let us put Nikki in a head-to-head eviction battle with any of her rivals. It is plain to see that Nikki would win easily as her fans would flock to vote for her opponent. But put her up against all of them and something odd happens. Now, the minority who dislike her vote her out while the vote of everyone else is split between the eleven others. It is possible that an election candidate who is preferred to every individual rival can be defeated when up against them all. Similarly, if viewers had been asked to vote for their most liked housemate, then I am also highly doubtful that she would have been evicted this week.

Mathematicians have used examples like this to argue that a pure form of democracy is impossible, because the person chosen depends, often quite heavily, upon the electoral system used, and arbitrary factors, such as the number of candidates also affect the outcome. I agree up to a point but I also think that some of the results produced by their models are preferable to others. For example, if you are a television producer, you surely do not want Nikki to be evicted if she is the most watchable person in the house. From Endemol's point of view, the voting system that they introduced was a big mistake.

In real elections, of course, the electorate vote for their favourite rather than their least favourite candidate. Therefore, if a 'first past the post' system is used, with multiple candidates, the result is the opposite of the Big Brother example. In other words, a person who is strongly disliked by a majority, but supported by even quite a small minority, can be elected. Many political theorists have commented on the 'tyranny of the majority' as a possible negative consequence of democracy. However, with a 'first past the post' system in place, a 'tyranny of the minority' becomes perfectly possible.

I find it difficult to regard any system in which a minority can come to power, with a desire to control and oppress the majority, by whom they are hated and feared, as democratic, and this, for me, is the fundamental flaw of the 'first past the post' system. Nor do I regard proportional representation to be the solution. PR can allow often quite unpleasant fringe parties to hold the balance of power, and hence wield disproportionate influence, a fact used by the Nazis to their benefit, and to the world's great cost, in 1930s Germany.

My preferred alternative is some sort of transferable vote system, of which the simplest is the Single Transferable Vote, in which voters are asked to indicate a second choice on their ballot papers. If their preferred candidate is eliminated, their vote passes to this reserve option, with the consequence that the victor must at least not be despised by the majority of the population. A similar system is used in the French presidential election, except that, rather than chooing a second choice, electors vote again in a run-off contest, between the two candidates who poll the most votes in the first election. The advantage of this method was strikingly demonstrated in 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen caused a shock by coming second in the initial vote and was then soundly thrashed by Chirac in the deciding contest.

So there you go. From reality television to mathematics to political theory. I can only hope that, in future parliamentary debates about electoral reform, the benefits of STV will receive more appreciation. Then Nikki will not have been lost to Big Brother in vain.

Some Tennis Players are More Equal than Others

2006-07-13T18:13:00.000+01:00

I know this is a few days late but I want to talk about Wimbledon. Congratulations to Amelie Mauresmo who was awarded £625,000 for winning the women's singles, and to Roger Federer who won £655,000 for his fourth consecutive victory in the men's event. But the disparity between the levels of prize money is rather curious. It may seem quite small but, in many ways, that makes it even more difficult to explain. It is as though the All England Club is trying to make a point, to administer a slap in the face to women's tennis. I therefore find myself in support of Tony Blair's recent statement, calling for equality.

One of the arguments used to justify the difference is the supposed commercial superiority of men's tennis - that it is easier to sell. This is misleading because it is events in which both men and women take part that sell best of all. Indeed, the ATP, which runs men's tennis, is trying to introduce more events involving women for precisely this reason. In any case, the argument is ultimately a morally abhorrent one. For a shopkeeper in a racist neighbourhood, it may indeed be more commercially sound not to employ any black or Asian staff, but no-one would consider this to be acceptable behaviour.

The second reason given is something of an old chestnut, the fact that women play three set matches at Wimbledon, compared to five sets for the men. This is true but somewhat bogus. For one thing, many of the top female players, such as Venus Williams, have said that they are prepared to play five set matches if asked to do so. In addition, the fact that they play shorter matches does not mean that women have to spend less time training so, overall, they put in just as many hours as the men. Also, to qualify for Wimbledon, players have to acquire ranking points by competing in many less well-known tournaments, in which both men and women play over three sets.

For the clinching argument, however, I want to draw an analogy with disability rights. Just as employers and service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, the All England Club should be willing to make adjustments for female players, to allow for physical difference between the sexes. I hope that, one day, this principle will become 'obvious' and it will become second-nature for people to think in this way and Wimbledon can, and should, do a lot to make a contribution towards this cultural shift.

Historically, the tournament has forever been associated with strawberries-and-cream-eating toffs and so is continually looking for ways to present a more modern image. A roof will be installed on Centre Court over the next few years and, this year, the outfits worn by umpires and ball boys and girls were redesigned by Ralph Lauren, to much publicity. Unfortunately, however, on the equal pay issue, Wimbledon remains firmly rooted in the nineteenth century.

Two for the Price of One

2006-07-08T20:16:00.000+01:00

Sorry I haven't posted here for a little while. I have decided to split my blog into two. This one will continue with my political commentary on current events and general ramblings about the world, while the other one is called 'Help! Im Turning Normal' and deals with more personal matters. I won't say any more about it. Instead, go and read it!