Hate-Builder

This is Stephen Green. He used ot be a builder. Now, he works for Christian Voice. Here is their website: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/

Yes, once consigned to the USA, they are here, fortunately in smaller numbres, but they are here all the same. Being a Christian Fundamentalist, he didn't like the Jerry Springer Opera. Fair enough, he's entitled to that.

However, back in 2005, while the show was on tour, it promised to donate a large sum of money (somewhere in the thousands) to Maggie's Centres for cancer sufferers. The actors had agreed to waive their wages for a night, with all the money goign to the charity.

Enter Green and Christian Voice. Using what can only be described as mob-tactics, they threatened the charity with a protest outside their offices. The charity caved.

Now, I recognise that he has a right to freedom of protest and, while I do not agree with him, I will fight for that right. However, his conduct here is dispicable. The cast of the show were doing a good deed. It was an act of kindness towards sufferers from one of the world's most terrible and widespread diseases. But Mr. Green and Christian Voice didn't think about that, did they? They didn't think about the people that the money would have helped, did they? It is a disgrace.

Mr. Green should stop building hatred and suffering, and get back to building houses.

Criminals?

I quote from The Independent newspaper:

"It's nearing the end of a science lesson at Dr Challoner's Grammar School in Amersham when the assistant headmaster enters, marches to the front of the classroom and raises her hands to speak. "We have made it clear to you that we do not want drugs in this school. And that from time to time we may bring in some dogs. Well," Mrs Horrocks tells the class of boys aged 13 and 14, "they are here. If anyone is frightened of dogs put up your hand." One boy's arm hovers upwards but quickly comes down again as excitement reaches a crescendo among his classmates.
The children are told to leave their bags and queue up outside while the dogs, trained to sniff out illegal drugs - from cannabis to crack cocaine - get down to business. A spaniel leashed to its handler darts around the empty classroom, sniffing the children's pencil cases, blazers and bags. As the boys file back in grinning, some of them a little nervously, each is smelled by the second dog, a black labrador. None of the bags or pupils has been "indicated" by the dogs, whose powerful sense of smell can detect traces of cannabis or cannabis smoke up to a month old."

I have a serious problem with this. Now, many of you might think randomly testing children for drugs is a good thing, but I don't think it is. You see, it is a symptom of a wider disease.

The criminalising and demonising of children.

Indeed, children are no longer the cute, cuddly, innocent people you once knew. No, they are violent, rebellious, illiterate, drug taking, criminal, sex-mad, binge-drinking swine. They must be feared and dealt with.

You see, the current assumption about children would seem to be that they are all guilty, until someone proves otherwise. The above example shows this. Is there any evidence to suggest that one of these children might be taking drugs? No, the fact that they are children is enough to have them lined up, have their bags and persons searched and force them to prove that they are innocent.

This, quite clearly, is wrong. Why should children be treated any differently from adults in this respect? I quote the words of a teenager known only as "W":

"They shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16"

"W" was involved in a very interesting case quite recently. The Government created these things called "Curfew zones", anyone under 16, if unaccompanied by an adult after 9pm, could be held and escorted home. "W" was a model student, however, this was not enough when he was caught unaccompanied in a curfew zone. All these facts coudl not outweigh the seemingly damning one: the fact that he was a child and therefore, in the eyes of the Government (and the police officers who apprehended him), he had to be a criminal.

Fortunately, as a result of an appeal by "W", the curfew zones no longer exist. However, the problem remains. Are children to be continuously demonised by the Establishment? I woudl hope not, because if you demonise an entire generation on the basis of the behaviour of a small group of them, you are bound to breed resentment. We need to make peopel feel included, but the criminalisation of children doesn't do this. If you treat people like scum, they will feel like scum.

It is time to end this injustice, this denial of human rights. Children are citizens of this country as well, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law. Otherwise, we may reap the consequences in the years to come.

Not the Apocalypse again

There is a popular belief currently circulating in the more extremist Christian groups that the end of the world is, indeed, nigh. They call it "The End Times", and they genuinely believe that Jesus Christ himself will return to earth and the world will end (according to the book of Revelations).

They believe it's going to happen because they see the creation of Israel and violence in the Middle East as fulfilling prophecies set down in the Bible. Some even believed that the world would end this year.

Let me first say this: People have thought the world was going to end many, many times before. I remember the last time the world was supposed to end, needless to say, it didn't happen. Peopel thought the world was going to end back in the 70s, they thought it was going to end in 1844, 1590, 1635, 1700, 1378, 1533 and many other dates. Just in case you had forgotten, it's 2006 and none of the predicitons made in the past have actually been fulfilled.

Now, normally I wouldn't write about this, it's a couple of Christian extremists who parted company with reality a long time ago saying the world is going to end. It didn't happen the last hundred or so times they said it would, so why comment? Because it is effecting the policy of certain Governments, and is directly related to Israel.

You see, part of the End Times is supposed to be the nation of Israel being formed. Many of the "End Timers" (as the proponents of this theory are known) believe that the illegal settlements in the occupied territories in Palestine (such as those in the West Bank, and the ones that were, until recently, in Gaza) are parts of Israel and if Israel does not own them, the end of the world is beign delayed. Now, to the vast majority of sane people, the apocalypse being delayed is a good thing, "End Timers" are convinced that they are going to be saved and therefore want the Second Coming to happen ASAP.

What this means is that they support Israel when it says that it will retain the occupied territories and that they support the repression of the Palestinian people and the theft of their lands. As if this wasn't bad enough, it actually has an effect on World Leaders. A few years back, George W. Bush wanted Israel (then under Sharon) to work towards a two-state solution with Palestine. Now he doesn't.

So, what does this mean? It means that as long as these people continue to believe that the end of the world is upon us, the USA (where the bulk of these people are concentrated) will continue to support Israel, the Palestinians will continue to be oppressed and we'll still be faced with the same problems many years from now.

The sooner "End Timers" realise that they are not the first people to predict the end of the world, that everyone before them has been wrong and the world is not going to end this time either, the better for everyone, not least the starving Palestinians in the prison that is the Gaza Strip.

Could you be pre-pregnant?

I was reading the Guardian on Monday, and came across a most disturbing article. Within it was this story:

"When Regina McKnight, of South Carolina, went to her local hospital to give birth in May 1999, she prayed that the baby would be healthy. She had good reason to worry. Since her mother had been killed by a hit-and-run driver the previous year McKnight had begun smoking crack. She was naturally devastated when the baby was stillborn - and shocked, five months later, to be charged with homicide. Prosecutors argued that smoking crack had caused the stillbirth and that McKnight should therefore be classed as a murderer.

Despite medically disputed evidence about the role cocaine had played in the tragedy, McKnight went on to become the first woman in US history to be convicted of foetal homicide by child abuse. An appeal to the US Supreme Court failed and she is serving a 12-year jail term."

This, and other foetal protection laws, is a symptom of yet another bizarre thign to emerge from the minds of the US right-wing. That all women should think of themselves as "pre-pregnant" all the time between their first period and their menopause. Last time I checked, that was quite a while. They are to do the following things:

take folic acid supplements,

stop smoking,

stop drinking regularly,

maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

This is not for their own health, you understand, but for the health of their unborn, sorry, as yet non-existant, baby. Now, this is all a good idea if you are pregnant. In fact, it's a great idea if you're not pregnant, even if you're a man it's a great idea, it'll improve your health and make you live longer. Indeed, this would not be a problem, but for the motivation and the hypocrisy of it.

The motivation, it would seem, is to protect a child that does not exist and may never exist. Now, I can appreciate poeple being advised, even forced, to follow the above guidelines if they actually are pregnant, but what about people who don't want to get pregnant. America may end up with a situation where women are punished for indulgant behaviour (drinking or smoking, both perfectly legal, if unhealthy, last time I checked) earlier in life, before even thinking about having a child.

The USA is, in fact, in danger of creating a system where women are incubators first and people second. They are in danger of creating a culture where people think that the sole purpose of women is to have children.

Now, the hypocrisy.

This only applies to women. Despite evidence that male alcoholism can lead to them becoming impotent, there are no guidelines for men to follow. No, men are free to drink, smoke and do whatever, while women have to be always prepared for pregnancy from the moment of their first period. I'm sure there's a word for this... ah yes, sexism.

Also, while it is a bad thing to be on drugs, and particularly so to do so while pregnant, women in America, in fact, all drug users in America, are just locked up. They don't recieve treatment for their addiction (which, by the way, is a medical condition, and should be treated as such). Even a Labour MSP has suggested female drug-users (not male, note) be paid to use long-term contraception. It would appear that the Governments of the world are more keen on demonising these people and locking them up than actually helping them. But that would be vastly out of character for Governemnts, or the right-wing in general.

In fact, the current climate in the uSa makes it lessl ikely for these women to seek the treatment they so desperately need. Who would, given the options? A long prison sentence and having your child removed from your care? I wouldn't take those odds. If these people are going ot helped, the US needs to drop its punitive attitude towards drug users and actually do somethign good for a change.

Oh, and by the way, it's interesting to note the American right-wing's obsession with the unborn (or, in this case, non-existant) child. It seems that the Republicans et al., while spending a lot of time shouting about this subject, forget the children that actually, you know, exist. Social Security? Education? Housing? Free (or even cheap) healthcare? A faimly that loves them, as opposed to a foster family(who have been shown to be nowhere near as beneficial for a child as their real family, in most cases)? No, it would seem that the American right-wing stops caring for children at about the moment they're born.