The Westminster Skeptics in the Pub gathered last night in a different pub, the Old Monk, for a different type of event- a discussion on ‘what difference does political blogging really make?’

The evening focussed around a couple of questions; what is the relationship between traditional journalism and blogging, and is it sustainable; and what influence do blogs actually have? The event certainly attracted a diverse crowd, many of whom were new to Skeptics in the Pub, which is to be welcomed, and BBC Parliament were there to record proceedings for posterity.

A writeup follows below, but I will start with some general comments.

Although I enjoyed listening to Nick Cohen, Mick Fealty and Sunny Hundall, I’m afraid that I found Jonathan Isaby to be unremarkable; he seems to be a better writer than he is a speaker, although I suspect that he was restricted, for one reason or another, in what he could say.

As for Paul Staines, I cannot do better than David Colquhoun’s tweet

On way home from #sitp polital blogging. Learned that Guido serious about nothing but Guido. Narcisist not journailist.

Being something of a political nerd, it’s no surprise that I blog a bit, and I’ve heard all the points that were made at the event before. It comes down to the funding model for blogging vs volunteerism and whether blogging complements or replaces traditional journalism. Different people have different views. This is not a simple case of the jury still being out, but something more fundamental.

There is no such thing as blogging.

There isn’t even any such thing as political blogging. As we know, there are blogs that concern themselves with everything under the Sun and a little bit more mixing of sometimes siloed conversations would be good. Political blogging could certainly benefit from a healthy dose of skepticism.

However, to group even all political blogs together makes as much sense as saying that the Financial Times, the Daily Sport, the New Statesman and the Downing Street Years should be grouped together because they’re all printed on paper.

There are, within the political realm, blogs that range from the single issue to the generalist, from the ultra-local to the global. They aim to inform, provoke and proselytise. If we look at the question – what difference does political blogging really make – we can’t just look at the Westminster bubble or even just national politics. We have to look with much more detail and much finer granularity to gauge the differences between UK-wide, London, Northern Irish and so on blogging. I am convinced that the distinctive blogospheres in London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are to do with the devolution of powers to those regions and that further regional blogging will only take off in concert with devolution of powers from Westminster regarding England.

Equally, a blog like the excellent Jack of Kent, focussing on legal matters, is only tangentially part of the main political blogosphere when it should, IMHO, be required reading. Ditto Ben Goldacre and various others.

Moreover, other social media, particularly Twitter, act as a force multiplier so that a given story or action can be replicated by many people with ease and speed.

Anyway, vesti la giubba; a writeup follows beneath the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »

Some random photos taken with my mobile phone.

I’ve just come back from Oslo where it was bitterly cold. I don’t think this moped is moving until the spring.

On the floor of St Pancras, there are lots of quotes; I particularly like this one: “imprisoned in a cage of sound, even the trivial seems profound”.

Arriving at King’s Cross, I heard an announcement for a ’special train’ – not something I’d heard there before. I arrived just in time to see Tornado, the first steam train built in the UK since the sixties, pulling out of the station.

I thoroughly recommend the Decemberists’s album, The Hazards of Love. The live show was terrific.

For some reason, Bar London, complete with red phone box, in Skopje, Macedonia, really tickled me.

I go past this almost every day, but never noticed it until I saw some tourists apparently taking pictures of the wall.

Jesus may well be coming soon, but I’m not sure that a fly-posted sticker is going to convince me of the fact.

In Stilton. Nom.

Representing ACUK at the ATA General Assembly.

At the time, there was a lot of talk in the papers about the English Defence League. This photo, of Muslim crescents and Jewish stars amongst the Christian crosses, spoke volumes.

This was a weird ad I saw at King’s Cross, inviting you to turn on your Bluetooth phone so that you could be sent more advertising. I don’t think it’ll catch on.

xD.

I have recently written two posts on religion; one dealing with Islam, the other with the Roman Catholic flavour of Christianity.

I wonder if there is a contradiction between the positions I advance. In the former case, I argue for an individualistic freedom, saying that people should be able to wear what they want. In the latter case, I argue, effectively, against it, saying that people shouldn’t be able to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexuality.

On the homosexuality issue, I dislike the argument that it is natural because I really couldn’t care less if it’s natural or not. I’m typing on a computer that I am fairly sure does not normally occur in nature. Similarly, I see how religion spreads and replicates but I don’t think that removes or reduces people’s agency.

Is there, then, a contradiction between not thinking the state should ban the burka but saying that the state should regulate employment? Admittedly, part of my argument on the former question is fairly utilitarian as I think the negative consequences of a crude ban outweigh the benefits of any positive effects.

I’d like to know what you think?

xD.

His holiness the Pope has condemned Britain’s gay rights legislation. In spite of protestations that they hate the sin but love the sinner, the Catholic church would like to continue discriminating against homosexuals.

He criticises “limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”. I wonder exactly how widely he would draw the definition of ‘religious community’. I wonder how he would feel about the Exclusive Brethren, for starters.

What is particularly brilliant is his statement that “the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

A copy of this natural law would be useful, but if it says that we’re all equal apart from the gays, I want no part of it. This is the same kind of antediluvian discussion we’ve had about whether American aborigines and Africans have souls. Equality so long as you conform to the majority is not equality, but a social tyranny of the majority. The freedom to practice your religion stops, surely, when it impinges on the ability of others to enjoy their rights.

If this were any other organisation – say, the RSPB – then they would be laughed out of court if they tried to ask for an exemption to anti-discrimination legislation. Religion retains its privileged position in our society.

It’s not often you’ll find me quoting from the Thirty-Nine Articles that define Anglican doctrine, but in light of the Pope’s comments on gay marriage, number thirty-eight seems appropriate.

Article xxxviii.—”The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

Quite.

xD.

But I think it’s justified.

A couple of days ago, I saw this tweet from John Prescott:

Good idea. Anyone? RT @Johnny_Seven not sure if its been done yet but a Go Fourth twibbon for followers would be a fantastic addition

So I made one. You can add it to your Twitter profile by visiting twibbon.com/join/Go-Fourth.

And JP has retweeted it:

Thanks to @davecoledotorg for sorting out our Go Fourth twibbon! http://bit.ly/80UeAx Very kind of you

It made me happy.

xD.

How do you feel about the burka?

France is more than a little negative.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. I see the argument that some women are being forced to wear the burka, directly or indirectly, and that this is an affront to our sense of liberty and justice. I also see the argument that says this is an argument best won by the moderating influence of time. Moreover, I see the argument that says this is not the proper role of the government.

Part of me wants to say that the Fifth Republic is acting to prevent the repression of women by being forced to wear the burka. The rest of me, though, doesn’t. The rest of me says this isn’t about laicite or secularism, but about Islamophobia and nativism.

Even if I were to accept the premise on which this restriction of liberty is proposed, I would have to reject the proposal. Firstly, it strikes me that the risks involved in prohibiting the wearing of a garment are great. The potential to then say that all religious symbols are forbidden, and then symbols of political organisations that threaten the state, seems to me to be non-trivial given the effects. Secondly, it is monstrously illiberal. Thirdly, and most importantly if the aim is to foster integration, it simply cannot work. Promoting tolerance by stigmatising a group seems to be up on the list of oxymorons between ‘political agreement’ and ‘military intelligence’.

The premise simply does not hold up to even the briefest examination. Then there is the language used in the debate. Despite his recent, half-hearted backpedalling, President Sarkozy did much to foment this action by starting a debate about what it is to be French. This proposal was not done in concert with the Muslims communities of France; it was raised in a parliamentary committee, far from the banlieues. No account was made of individual choice, or whether there were ways to coax people out from behind the burka.

Let us recall Article X of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen – available on the French Justice Ministry’s website:

Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’order public établi par la loi
no-one should be troubled for their opinions, including religious opinions, so long as their promulgation does not cause a breach of the peace (my translation)

Certainly, some will have been honestly concerned about the oppression of women, although they seem not to have considered the possibility that one of the 1900 or so women who apparently where the burka might freely choose to do so. However, the hamfistedness of the proposal renders that moot. Moreover, its promulgation has been a means, albeit with the help, unsought or not, of Len Pen et al, of tarring all French Muslims as unFrench.

This is not about liberty. This is not about secularism. This is not about laicité.

This is about raising awareness of the other. This is about making life harder for the other. This is about stigmatising the other.

The findings of the British Social Attitudes Survey make interesting reading, particularly in light of the off-again, on-again proposal from the Conservatives to privilege marriage in the tax code. Needless to say, I think it’s a bad idea, but I wonder how much traction it would actually have with people.

Britain is becoming more liberal in its views about how people live their lives
For example, cohabitation is becoming increasingly acceptable. 45% in 2006 agreed that it ‘makes no difference to children whether their parents are married to each other or just living together’, up from 38% in 1998. This is because younger generations, who have more tolerant views, are replacing older, less tolerant, ones. It is also because people’s views are shaped by their own experiences. Even the most traditional generations are becoming more liberal, reflecting their own experiences, or those of their children and grandchildren.

Essentially, an increasingly large population really couldn’t care that much about whether people are married or not. Assuming the survey is accurate and 45% think that ‘makes no difference to children whether their parents are married to each other or just living together’, I assume another chunk of people will fall into the ‘doesn’t make much difference’ and ‘makes a difference but not enough to justify tax breaks’ categories. I wonder, therefore, how many people will be that impressed by the marriage allowance. Of course, the survey doesn’t show how many people would be actively annoyed – like myself – by the proposal.

The other takeaway, for me, is that this looks like an continuing trend. People are going to approve, or at least not disapprove, of what they see their own kith and kin doing; as more people cohabit and don’t marry, it becomes harder to be vocally opposed to the concept. Equally, a lot – if I read the survey correctly – of those who might have (what could be termed) traditional values are, quite literally, a dying breed.

Without wanting to get all mushy, a small bribe would have made precisely no difference to my having married my wife. Indeed, I would be slightly concerned for the longevity of a relationship that could be bought for such a low figure. Of course, no-one argues that; rather, the argument goes that marriage is good and so we should give it an acknowledgement, albeit a token one. I find that idea plain daft. Marriage is already legally privileged – it’s a contract approved by the state – and socially privileged. Moreover, I see no reason why different-sex marriage is different in any meaningful way to same-sex marriage. I might even go so far as to say that the state has no business getting involved in what is, legally, a contract between two people. If we wish to support families, I’d rather the money followed the children that became attached to the existence of a marriage contract.

xD.

Well, I had haggis (didn’t like it much) and whisky (please, sir, can I have some more) for Burns supper last night. It only seems appropriate:

Address to a Haggis:

Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o’ the puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o’ a grace
As lang’s my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’ need,
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see rustic Labour dight,
An’ cut you up wi’ ready sleight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
Like ony ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reekin, rich!

Then, horn for horn,
they stretch an’ strive:
Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve,
Are bent lyke drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
“Bethankit!” ‘hums.

Is there that owre his French ragout
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him ower his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash,
His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bloody flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!

But mark the Rustic, haggis fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread.
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll mak it whissle;
An’ legs an’ arms, an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle.

Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
Gie her a haggis!

The main link to which I refer is censortube.eu; Thunderf00t is on YouTube at youtube.com/thunderf00t; the Electronic Frontier Foundation is at eff.org; the Google spring clean is at productideas.appspot.com.

xD.