Civil Liberties

With the Porn Bill outlined yesterday we see yet another restriction on what we can do. The aim of the bill has been advertised to help reduce the spread of child porn, which is good, we all want to stop the spread of child porn. The problem is that as well as measures to stop people from accessing and distributing child porn, the government has added onto this bill many measures that have nothing to do with stopping child porn and only mean to restrict what we can do.

So, the details: There is actually very little proposed to be done that would actually reduce the spread of child porn - there would be an agreement with internet providers to stop results coming up when you search for specific words related to indecent images of children. This has been criticised already by internet companies who rightly, in my opinion, think this would do little to stop the spread, if people want to get their hands on this sort of thing, I should imagine they could.

The rest of this porn bill will mean that there are "family filters" set up on EVERY internet source that would block out porn and what the government deems to be "indecent images". To access porn the household would have to contact the internet supplier and explicitly ask for porn. Can you image something more degrading? It totally feels like crawling on your hands and knees begging to the companies for your porn.

I have three MAJOR issues with this part of the bill that would do NOTHING to stop the spread of child pornography; again, this bill is a restriction on our civil liberties, under the guise of stopping child porn. This is EXACTLY how fascist systems start. I'm a STAR WARS fan, and this is literally the technique that the Emperor used to get supreme power over the galaxy, passing bills under the disguise of something that everyone can agree on, like stopping child porn, but really the hidden part takes away our freedoms - this has got to be stopped.

The first major issue I have is that from the Edward Snowden leaks of the NSA and the prism programs, we no know that the government has accesses to LITERALLY EVERYTHING you have online - they can find out the content of the emails you send, the websites you go on, how long and often you go on them, this issue deserves a blogpost in its own right. The issue arises that why does there need to be any measures in place to restrict child porn in the first place? (Don't get me wrong, there should be, but hear this point out) They already have the ability to find out the ISPs of those searching for child porn online, so why don't they actually use the personal data they stole from us to actually some good use?

The second and biggest, in my opinion major issue is that whenever the government gets involved in your private lives to this extent it's, in my opinion a bad thing. As I mentioned above the filter would act to "stop anything the government considers indecent images". This is FAR too much power for the government to have to decide what is 'indecent', next year they could decide that viewing any communist material is indecent, or that viewing any Islamic media is indecent and they could easily do it with this state-controlled filter. This bill could be the start of something dangerous, a true propaganda state.

Another point; there is already the option on most browsers I know of to start family filters on websites, so why does the government need to step in a have an overarching one? Are you THAT lazy a parent that you need the government to stop your 8 year from accidentally stumbling onto indecent images that you can't set up the block yourself? That's all it comes down to.
Now, it can be argued, and I could possibly be convinced into think that an Opt-In system, where you ask the government to block indecent images on your computer, rather than an Opt-Out where you have to ask the government to view porn, would be better. It would partially avoid everyone being guilt tripped and shamed about viewing porn and also the chance for the government to collect even more information about your personal lives. I still think that you can put blocks up to avoid porn if that's what you want to do - the government can stay out of the whole thing! Asking to receive porn would only 'flag yourself' up to the government and make them more likely to spy on what you're doing.

Third major point is that if you're not the one who pays the bill for the internet you have no say in whether you can get porn. The issue is I still think it's always been weird that age of consent (that you can legally have sex) is 16, yet the age you need to be is 18! If anything this should be lowered. This system of Opt-out would mean that even as an adult living with someone else, ie living under a landlord who administrates your internet subscribtion, or living with your parents; they would have to put themselves out there so that you can get access to porn. How embarrassing, degrading and generally perverse is that. I want to do what I want to do, not have to grovel to my mom to ask her to opt out of these "family filters". So ridiculous.


You can protect society adequately by sensible social programs to reduce poverty, regulate organisations where appropriate and provide adequate policing. You do not need to restrict civil liberties to do this! It is the easy, lazy governments way of doing things. Tapping everyone's phones is I'm sure a more less intellectually strenuous way to reduce crime or preemptive crime, but at what cost to society? If thought was put into bringing people out of poverty, tackling race relations how much more would crime go down? Lazy, lazy governments.

Some coverage on the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACrrGTiV1VI&noredirect=1

E-petitions are an initative to help the British public get what they want to be debated in the house of commons. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures (and follows certain criteria) it HAS to be debated in the commons. It is often one of the most effective ways of getting a point of view expressed and debated by those who can make the decisions, and shows that there is enough clout that people want something done on a topic. I've already signed the petition and I think it would help, if you agree with it, if you did too - upon writing this the petition has about 15,000 signatures and has only been out 2 days! Link to the government petition: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746


Until next time guys :) cx

THE debate; an hallway chat review.

So I was in my first proper debate late last week. The proposition was "This house supports the motion that euthanasia should be available on the NHS"
If you can't immediately guess that I was on the 'for' side of this argument, then it's a good job I just told you.
So a lot of the time in debates people don't actually believe a lot of the arguments they are putting forward, but in this case I did wholeheartedly. It was weird in that because I got into this subject so much with background research I convinced myself on a few separate times that this wasn't the way to go and my position changed. But once I considered it all through and gone down all paths of reasoning I did conclude that, in my opinion it is completely the logical and legitimate position to take.

We were promised that the dean was coming to this debate. This, the dean of the whole college, the guy you want to know your name. We were all pretty heads in books preparing to make this the best thing we could muster; sidelining actual medicine for a whole week to focus. In the end the dean didn't show up. Damn. But not all was lost as most of my tutors, biochem lecturers and public health professors turned up.
The event turned into a networking exercise and I'm pleased to say I think I really pulled it off. I've had two professors who literally before this would not differentiate my face from the rest of my year come up to me and say that I was really good (one commenting I was the best debater there). It felt good, omg =3.

There seems to be quite a lot of hype around the medics debating society now, which until this inaugural  debate had like 6 members, and we will see tomorrow just how many people turn up for it. I reckon, 20 maybe? It would be nice.
Otherwise, yeah everything's good, thanks for asking. Feeling rather tired though, felt myself slacking a bit as of late; can't wait till easter breaak.

Until next time cx

Marriage; for you and you and you! Marriage for all!

So Britain (by which I mean England and Wales) today legalized same sex marriage, thus finally joining the western world.
We became part of that special group including; Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and several states in Brazil, Mexico and the US.

(I must also mentioned at this point in my usual cynical way that this is not yet into law, but has at least passed through one house; the commons - to go through completely the Lords must first debate it and then the Queen sign it off - commentators do not see this as a problem however.)

I feel that generally this has never been an issue for most people in the country, despite the 175 'no's to the left'. The arguments against this have literally ALL been religious ones that can a) be dismissed in a biblical scholastic sense as well as b) floored completely from a human rights point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcz6kcMIJA - is a cool show that offers some straight forward views on the subject.

The main one is that by equating marriage it will undermine the whole institution. In my opinion marriage is a complete farce, not necessarily the best way to structure society and is failing anyway. I'll explain my points about this specifically in a later blog I'm sure. So in some respects I do think that this bill today will help undermine marriage - by taking away its exclusivity from those Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditionalists who want Gays as far away from their culture as possible. This breaking down of religious 'purity' is important in helping to quash it in the long run.

I'm also glad for once, of the connected church and state, so that these points can be talked about properly - it is COMPLETELY the issue of the state to talk about these things as they are so closely linked. Republics (usually intended secular states) I fear can sometimes hide behind the "it's none of our business" card when it suits them.
Religious freedom however means that only those who want to perform these ceremonies, would do, which is EXACTLY how it should be. I hear often that those opposed feel that the slippery slope will lead them to a point where they are forced to conduct these ceremonies but this is simply not going to happen:

 - Religious freedom trumps church-state - much like today where another human right has trumped the church-state.

The argument that I see is this: Marriage is a religious ceremony where followers unite under the rules and watch of god. It is a religious ceremony and so shouldn't it simply follow its religious customs? The answer; no. For a start marriage now a days is so dilute, so entirely different from the ceremonies that have taken place in the past; for a start you can now marry between races, the woman isn't automatically the subservient locked up housewife, divorce is as common as anything else now a days and dowries are long gone in most places. The fact that it has been changing so quickly is just a natural societal progression, of which equal marriage is the next step.

The final point is the question "Why are civil partnerships not good enough?". They convey exactly the same rights as a marriage and are no different other than by name and genders of those involved. The reasons in my opinion come like this. For one, when someone puts on a form that they are in a civil partnership it immediately signals their sexuality out. It's sad to say that some people are still discriminated against because of this in job applications or work visas etc and this points them straight out. Civil partnerships are a way therefore of segregation - 'you're different so have to go into this group'. They are collected together because of a specific feature and in direct comparison if there was a policy where only black people could undergo this civil action purely because they are different, there would be utter uproar (which is what there has rightfully been from the Gay community).
Second to this is that there are in fact many religious gay people, gay Anglican ministers, bishops (and of course gay paedophilic catholic priests) are not uncommon. To them the religious aspect is important and in this case their religious freedom is violated and therefore entirely unjust. If it wasn't for the religious connotations in this debate I would imagine the European Court of Human rights would have stepped in a long time ago.

'And I leave you with this thought' - which undermines the institution of marriage more, Brittany Spears' 30 minute marriage which announces violently clearly that it simply means NOTHING, absolutely nothing, or same sex loving commitment?

Until next time xx

Comment from a Jigsaw puzzle

So, as part of my course we have what's called 'Jigsaw'. (I can only assume it comes from 'filling in the pieces of what it is to be a Dr'; as Jigsaw covers a lot of emotional intelligence, ethics, morality, personal development etc that can't be formally taught in a hospital setting)

As part of these we're asked to debate certain areas and one of these that took our tutor's particular interest was whether children should be told about Santa or the tooth fairy or gods or so on.
My reply to the argument strain on the private forum we have as a group is below: Just thought it provoke some opinion in many other people too, so why not share:
___________________________________________


So the question is; Is it fair on children to tell them something that is untrue for example Santa, the tooth fair or a god?
It may well be the thing to do culturally or because it's an easily accessible medium through which to tell children right from wrong, but I feel that children will make up their own imaginary friends; mystique and wonder, and find it in books and movies without the need to tell them that these myths are the (gospel) truth.
I feel even Santa, the omnipresent coal giver is as bad as a god in sense that he can see everything you ever do (which I always found rather perverse). It takes the stance that fear of even thinking badly will result in consequences and I think that this shouldn't be the way to raise a child.
Not only that but it primes children to a world of the other supernaturals, ghosts and ghouls, which with parental endorsement may act to create a sense of fear and powerlessness in the child, imagine if a parent told their child Harry Potter was completely true and they became fearful of dementors, basilisks and nargles... I know I was scared of ghosts after my mom told me she thought they existed then proceeded, a few months later, to tell me the previous owner of our house hung himself in our garage; bitch). With children's imaginations running amuck as they do anyway, I see no need to add to it with parental confirmation of omniscient, omnipresent judges of character (especially when these sprites involve themselves with sexual matters and other areas where the person may have a hard time figuring it out for themselves).

___________________________________________

When the debate gets fully underway I might compile some of the best arguments and re-buttes into another blog post so we see a following argument.

What'd'you think?

Until next time xx