tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20088179076745711602024-03-10T20:23:49.286-07:00Flaylandwhere I sometimes write about stuff and what-notFlayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-26744891636647669082014-11-12T11:51:00.000-08:002014-11-12T11:57:40.206-08:00Rape culture and The 40 Year Old VirginThe decision to allow disgraced footballer and convicted rapist Ched Evans to train with the League One club Sheffield United has given way to understandable controversy. The player was released last month after serving half of a five year prison sentence, having failed to secure an appeal. The rape conviction, which is not spent until 2017, concerns a 19 year old woman who was deemed to have been too intoxicated to give consent. Evans and his supporters have all along refused to give credence to the rape charge and conviction. Now that he is released, his supporters claim that he deserves the chance to return to professional football. After all, the alleged rape was "non-violent", and he reasonably believed that consent was granted.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are many problems with this of course. First, the offence of rape is always a violent crime. This does not require physical force. Second, the crime is against personal autonomy. If a man (under UK law, only someone with male anatomy can commit rape) engages in sexual intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, then consent is absent. This is true even where the person regains the faculty to consent and decides that they would have given consent at the time. It is that simple. Sexual intercourse absent consent is the crime of rape. Third, and for our purposes last, Evans has not atoned for his crime. He continues to deny it. He can therefore not be considered rehabilitated, especially while the conviction is active.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ched Evans will likely never admit guilt and will instead continue to try to clear his name. Following his release from prison, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that they would fast-track a review into his conviction. It is therefore at least possible that Evans' conviction will be overturned. In the meantime, it would be foolish for anyone to employ him, let alone reinstate him as a role model for young men and boys. His victim has several times been named, in contravention of the Sexual Offences Act, and has had to relocate twice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some, I daresay many, men seem to have a real problem accepting that it is possible to think you have consent for sex, but consent could not be given, and that this is in fact rape. This is despite that the law is quite clear on the matter. Why is this so? I suppose there is a cultural tendency to excuse this form of rape as normal, socially acceptable behaviour. I recently watched the film The 40 Year Old Virgin again with my wife. We both love that film. It's one of our favourite comedies. I have to say though that I was really struck this time by its apparent apologism for rape culture.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is a scene where the protagonist Andy, played by Steve Carrell, is out in a night club with his male friends, who are attempting to instruct him in picking up women. The goal is to get him laid for the first time in his life. He is advised to go after "easy" drunk women, and indeed he does leave with one. She turns out to be so habitually drunk that she has a court imposed breathalyser integrated into the ignition of her car. Hilarious! Andy is turned off when she spews a half digested daiquiri all over him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In another scene, we see Andy in the home of Beth from the book store, played by Elizabeth Banks, who is also recklessly drunk. Andy decides he can't go through with it, but his pal Cal, played by Seth Rogan, is there to step in. We do not see the rape occur, but are left to assume it did. That's right. This is rape (or at least sexual assault), and quite clearly so. Andy might have reasonably imagined he had consent, but Cal couldn't claim that. He took advantage of Beth's compromised state.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What am I trying to say? Is The 40 Year Old Virgin a horrible misogynistic film that should be shunned and condemned? Are the cast and writer/director Judd Apatow terrible people? No. I still think The 40 Year Old Virgin is a great comedy. Andy never takes a wrong step. His friends are mostly portrayed as character foil grotesques. One is an obsessed stalker who cannot let go after being dumped by his girlfriend years earlier. It is not trying to teach morals, but even if it were, we come away thinking it's better to be kind and gentle.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But maybe we should cast a more critical eye over the portrayals of drunken pickups in mainstream culture. Does this type of story normalise date rape? Perhaps it does feed into the notion that many men seem to have about it. I saw a tweet today from Greater Manchester Police, which I have to say is refreshingly enlightened:</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Drinking is not a crime, rape is.
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoConsentNoSex?src=hash">#NoConsentNoSex</a> <a href="http://t.co/wPQRWZW6dB">pic.twitter.com/wPQRWZW6dB</a><br />
— G M Police (@gmpolice) <a href="https://twitter.com/gmpolice/status/532463583658270720">November 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I was dismayed though when I read the first reply, which states...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>but what about them girls who consent. Then "cry" rape.</i></blockquote>
This is the trouble, you see. "Them girls who cry rape" afterwards did not consent. That is to say, if the woman was incapacitated at the time, you can assume you did not have her consent. This can be hard for a guy to deal with after he's paid for a nice dinner and a movie or pulled a really hot bird in a club. But if guys can get their heads around the fact that sex is not their God given right and that there is a real risk, yes risk, that they might actually rape someone tonight if they are not careful, then perhaps we can make some progress dispelling these rape myths.<br />
<br />
We (mostly) all understand that "no" means "no". But those of us who may find ourselves in the position of risking rape would do well to be reminded that we also have the power to say no (to ourselves as much as anyone). Sleep on the couch. Who knows? Perhaps you'll get lucky in the morning.<br />
<br />
Some people may take offence at my suggestion that guys are risking rape when they go out on the pull. Please don't get me wrong. This is not some oblique attempt at victim blaming. But I do think guys really need to be aware of how easy it is to become a rapist, though they might never think themselves capable of it.<br />
<br />
Drink and drugs impair judgement, but this is no more an excuse for rape than it is for domestic violence or drink driving. You may not think you're too drunk to drive, but if you do it you're still a DUI. And if you kill an entire family as a consequence of it, you deserve all you get and more. If you had too much to drink or took drugs and did not possess the clarity of judgement to realise that a woman was not in a position to give consent, then you might as well have got out your car keys instead of your room key.</div>
Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-25270310620470592172014-11-06T13:11:00.001-08:002014-11-07T02:25:52.356-08:00Samaritans Radar - good or bad?<i>TL;DR: Bad. A nice idea, but horribly implemented, causing more problems than it aims to solve and probably illegal.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The time has come for me to write my Samaritans Radar blog post. Others have already said much about it and I don't think I need to repeat that here. The moment I heard about this new offering from suicide prevention charity Samaritans, I knew it was a terrible idea. Samaritans Radar is an app that Twitter users can download and install, which allows them to become "good Samaritans" by monitoring the tweets available in their timeline provided by the accounts they follow, looking for key words and phrases suggesting the tweeter may be suicidal, and then sending email alerts to the subscriber about flagged tweets.<br />
<br />
This is done without any of those tweeters' knowledge or consent. In fact Samaritans make it clear that they protect the privacy of the app's subscribers and will not reveal to their friends that they are being monitored.<br />
<br />
The decision to deploy an app like this, which focuses on the rights and choices of the bystander rather than the potential person in need, is a baffling one. The Samaritans service typically involves a distressed person phoning their hotline to speak confidentially to a trained volunteer who tries to talk them down from the ledge, so to speak. The Samaritans have built up a cache of trust as experts in suicide prevention, and it is well deserved.<br />
<br />
But with their latest offering, they have sadly lost sight of their mission and jeopardized their hard earned status. The problem is that this amounts to surveillance of, among others, the mentally ill. Mental health sufferers and privacy advocates have been up in arms since the announcement of the new service last week. The response from Samaritans to the criticism has been the most disturbing aspect of this tale.<br />
<br />
At first the Samaritans Radar spokespeople dismissed privacy concerns as coming from users who do not understand how Twitter works, noting that anything their service flags up is publicly available on Twitter anyway, and that any follower would have been able to see those public tweets. They just might not have been paying attention at the time.<br />
<br />
When users tried to explain that privacy is more complicated than that, Samaritans stubbornly stuck to their guns and downplayed the negative feedback as the mutterings of a handful of privacy extremists. They did make one concession, which is to provide an opt-out feature for users who send them a message request. This is something that frankly would have been expected from the very start at a minimum. The opt-out failed to quell the criticism.<br />
<br />
One week on, and Samaritans have taken legal advice that the Samaritans Radar service operates within the law of the United Kingdom, particularly addressing issues raised about the Data Protection Act 1998. The advice that the company has communicated is astounding. Samaritans believe that they are not bound by the Data Protection Act because they are neither a data controller nor a data processor (who then is?). If the Samaritans were deemed to be a data controller, then they believe they satisfy the "vital interest" exemption allowing them to process sensitive personal information without consent. Information practitioner Jon Baines <a href="http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2014/11/05/samaritans-cannot-deny-being-data-controller-for-samaritansradar/">demolishes that position in his Information Rights and Wrongs blog</a>.<br />
<br />
Perhaps even more astounding is that Samaritans are taking legal advice and continuing to defend their controversial new service in the face of very sharp criticism from some of the very people they claim to be attempting to help. Many mental health sufferers who have turned to Samaritans in their past need have stated they no longer trust the Samaritans with the information they might provide. Others no longer feel safe speaking earnestly on Twitter about their conditions. Some have already left, thereby abandoning what might have been a vital outlet for them.<br />
<br />
Technology journalist Adrian Short started a <a href="http://www.change.org/p/twitter-inc-shut-down-samaritans-radar">petition to have the app shut down</a>. At the time of writing it has nearly 1200 signatures after four days. Short has indicated that he is considering a law suit against the charity if they continue to refuse to budge. I cannot imagine how Samaritans will attempt to justify to its patrons and donors the risk and expense of going to court over this untested and unproven offering.<br />
<br />
I had a lengthy dialogue today with a Samaritans volunteer who had tweeted that he couldn't understand the bad reaction, but the app is worth it if it saves even one life. I think I managed to persuade him that there are many problems with the app that would be best solved by pulling it until it can be reworked. The feeling on the street is that it is causing actual real harm just by its mere existence. I laid out the following points:<br />
<ol>
<li>Monitoring people with mental health issues looking for signs, tends to make them feel more exposed, therefore worse.</li>
<li>Many forms of mental illness are joined by paranoia. The mere confirmed existence of surveillance causes anxiety.</li>
<li>Not all interventions are helpful. A sufferer should be able to choose someone s/he trusts. Trust has not been respected.</li>
<li>There are people on twitter who enjoy tormenting mental health sufferers. This app is a gift to them.</li>
<li>It feels like the app is making judgments about people. Suicidal people are not helped by being judged, and that's not what the Samaritans do.</li>
</ol>
<div>
That's a start. There are many other issues, but I don't want this to be too long. We agreed that there appears to be some inexperience of the medium among the decision makers at Samaritans and that they may have rushed into this solution without sufficient understanding. There was a similar offering deployed into the Facebook ecosystem which seems to have been much more successful.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Perhaps the people behind the Twitter offering failed to appreciate that Facebook's trust model is very different. There is a fairly clear concept of friendship in Facebook. That is the foundation of its relationships. On Twitter, the relationship between an account and its followers is not at all clear. If you were going to try to emulate friendship, the best approach would be to add a constraint of mutual following, but even this falls short.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By simply allowing any follower to act as a potential intervener, Samaritans have violated the trust of the users who have no real control over who might get to receive alerts, apart from locking their accounts and dismissing all of their followers. That would be rather pointless.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is also the question of whether this is even legal. Information law experts tend to agree that it runs afoul of the Data Protection Act. Reading paragraphs 56 and 69 together from the <a href="http://ico.org.uk/news/latest_news/2014/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/big-data-and-data-protection.pdf">ICO guidance on the processing of sensitive personal data</a>, we can see that the Samaritans cannot claim to have obtained consent from users (which they have not claimed) and that it is hard to conclude that they would not need it (which they have claimed).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is therefore unsurprising that they have put forward the legal position they have. The best bet to get them off the hook is to claim not to be bound by the Act at all (as they have done), but they have not offered the advice they were given, and the view is frankly unsupportable. And if they are not the data controller, then who is? The subscribers perhaps? They might like to know they may be breaking the law.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If that argument fails, then the Samaritans suggest that they (and I suppose their subscribers) are exempt by reason of vital interest. It's really all they've got, but it's extremely weak. As Jon Baines points out, the app is delivering a large number of false positives, and there is simply no basis to conclude that untrained people in receipt of these alerts would be able to have any net positive effect on a person's health prospects. You could say this is a matter of life or death. All the more reason to proceed carefully, considering a random stranger even with the purest intentions could make the situation a whole lot worse.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Conclusion: if the Samaritans wind up in court they will surely lose, and for what? They seem willing to sacrifice their hard earned reputation for the theoretical possibility of saving one person's life. It is naive and foolish. The charity's attitude this past week has been arrogant and condescending. They are refusing to listen to the concerns of their potential clients, many of whom have turned their backs on what was once a trusted ally. I do hope the Samaritans wake up to sense before irreparable harm is done either to themselves, or worse, to someone who is truly vulnerable.</div>
<br />
EDIT 2014-11-07 10:20:<br />
There's something I forgot to say in my original post. There is an interesting issue highlighted around the muting of Twitter accounts. Twitter offers a Mute feature similar to its Block feature, but with some key differences:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>An account that is muted is not made aware of this in any way. <b>It is still able to follow the account that has performed the Mute</b> and to see public tweets from that account in its timeline feed.</li>
<li>A muted account can be followed by the account that performed the mute, in which case mentions from the muted account will be seen. Otherwise there is no interaction visible to to account that performed the mute.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Because the muted account is not aware it is being muted, the API does not communicate this fact. Therefore, a muted account would be able to receive alerts like any other follower. I can't imagine anyone being comfortable with this. Furthermore, that muted account which is not followed back has no way to directly intervene. Mute was introduced by Twitter as a compromise after it unilaterally changed the way that blocking worked so that it would be silent to the blocked account. This was an effort to calm the blow ups and pile ons that tend to happen when people react to being blocked.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I couldn't understand the negative reaction at the time, but now it makes perfect sense. People who had been stalked in the past felt aggrieved that they would no longer be able to stop people following their public accounts or appearing to interact with them. Twitter got that horribly wrong and they fortunately relented. Had that not happened though, we would now have a Samaritans Radar app that Twitter users would be unable to block other users from scanning their tweets with it. The original offering had no opt-out. This just goes to show how little thought was put into the risks associated with the chosen model.</div>
Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-23327359087790811512014-08-01T09:26:00.000-07:002014-08-01T09:33:47.080-07:00Difficulties overriding XLV web parts with external stylesheets in SharePoint libraries<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Overriding an XSLT List Web Part runs into some limitations when using an external stylesheet with the XslLink property. The problem is that the ECB menu (which comes up when you click the arrow next to a list item name or title) is broken. Also, many of the item related ribbon buttons under the Documents tab are greyed out. The combination of those two problems makes for a very crippled web part which is good for not much more than displaying the list items.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Reproducing the problem is more specific than I've suggested. Only external stylesheets located in the SharePoint content database have these problems. In other words, stylesheets located in one of your document libraries (such as the root site's Style Library) break the ECB and the ribbon. Stylesheets located on the file system in the _layouts folder do not. This is all explained in some detail by Glyn Clough in his SharePoint blog - <a href="http://www.glynblogs.com/2011/05/xlv-bug-xsl-link-property-and-the-ecb-menu.html" style="color: #b10069; text-decoration: none;">XLV Bug: XSL Link Property and the ECB Menu</a>.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
I've done a bit of my own debugging and found that the XslLink problem affects the ECB menu and the ribbon whether you use a fully qualified absolute URL, a server relative URL, or a page relative URL. The ECB menus and ribbon controls are rendered as a result of respective AJAX calls to obtain HTML to add to the DOM node tree. This includes script source, which is executed by the browser. It's a rather clunky and insecure way to do it, if you ask me, and it may even be vulnerable to cross-site scripting exploits. Nevermind that. Long story short, when the XSLT stylesheet is in the web part definition in the page itself, no problem. When the stylesheet is external an in the content database, the SharePoint application page /_layouts/inplview.aspx is unable to create the output required.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
For the ECB menu, the URL would look something like this:<br />
<strong>http://[my host]/[path to my site]/_layouts/inplview.aspx?Cmd=Ctx&List={GUID of list}&View={GUID of view}&ViewCount=1&IsXslView=TRUE&Field=LinkFilename&ID=5&ListViewPageUrl=[URL of my page]</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Plugging that URL into a browser results in the following response:<br />
<div class="ms-vb">Unable to display this Web Part. To troubleshoot the problem, open this Web page in a Microsoft SharePoint Foundation-compatible HTML editor such as Microsoft SharePoint Designer. If the problem persists, contact your Web server administrator.</div><br />
<br/><br/>Correlation ID:[correlation ID GUID]<br/></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The javascript doesn't find what it's looking for in the HTML source of that response, and the result is a canned alert box displaying the unhelpful message "This item is no longer available. It may have been deleted by another user. Click 'OK' to refresh the page."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
It turns out there are a couple decent workarounds to this problem with the ECB menu apart from keeping the XSLT in the page. The simplest workaround is to edit the web part in the browser and tick "Enable Asynchronous Update" under AJAX Options in the web part properites. This causes the ECB menu to be loaded in a different way that does not rely on the bad call to inplview.aspx. What other side effects it may have, desirable or otherwise, I'm not sure.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Another good workaround that avoids editing the web part properties is this one, discovered by Henk Haarsma: <a href="http://hsdhaarsma.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/xslt-in-sandbox-solution.html" style="color: #b10069; text-decoration: none;">XSLT in sandbox solution</a>. This technique uses javascript in the XSLT code to change the URL in the AJAX call so that the isXslView parameter is removed. That parameter does not seem to be needed in this call. When the call is working because the conditions for the bug are not present, the removal of the query string parameter makes no difference to the output.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Neither of these workarounds solve the ribbon problem. Encouraged by the success of the "Enable Asynchronous Update" solution, I tried all sorts of other settings in the web part properties. Nothing made a difference. The javascript solution prompted my to try the same thing in another part of the stylesheet that controls the URL to the AJAX call for the ribbon settings. That URL looks something like this:<br />
<strong>http://[my host]/[path to my site]/_layouts/inplview.aspx?List=</strong><strong>{GUID of list}&View={GUID of view}</strong><strong>&ViewCount=1688&ListViewPageUrl=[URL of my page]&IsXslView=TRUE&Cmd=EcbView</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
It shows the same output as the broken ECB call and removing the isXslView query string parameter does seem to fix it; however, when the call is working properly the output with the isXslView parameter is very different. So that's not a solution for the ribbon.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
There is, however, hope. The two calls seem to fail for different reasons, or in different ways. There is another way to pull in an external stylesheet. You can use a very simple inline stylesheet in the web part's Xsl property that does nothing more than an xsl:include of the external file. It looks something like this:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong><xsl:stylesheet xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" version="1.0" exclude-result-prefixes="xsl msxsl</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong>ddwrt" xmlns:ddwrt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/WebParts/v2/DataView/runtime" xmlns:asp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/ASPNET/20"</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong>xmlns:__designer="http://schemas.microsoft.com/WebParts/v2/DataView/designer" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong>microsoft-com:xslt" xmlns:SharePoint="Microsoft.SharePoint.WebControls" xmlns:ddwrt2="urn:frontpage:internal" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong>ddwrt:ghost="show_all"></strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong><xsl:include href="<em>[path to external XSL file]</em>"/></strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
<strong></xsl:stylesheet></strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #4c4c4c; font-family: Arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">
An xsl:import would give identical results in this case. Using this method had no effect on the rendering of the ECB menu; however, with an absolute URL supplied the ribbon does work! So you can use one of the two methods I described earlier to enable the ECB menu combined with this method for solving the ribbon problem for a fully functioning web part. It is unfortunate to have to use an absolute URL, but at least that shows it's possible. Debugging with .Net Reflector shows that strange things are happening when SharePoint is trying to resolve the URL to the stylesheet in the ribbon AJAX call, and it fails in different ways depending on how the external file is referenced. I'm hoping that with a bit more digging I'll be able to find a workaround for page relative and server relative URLs as well.</div>
Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-46269977824565834752014-02-18T06:14:00.001-08:002014-02-18T08:44:50.536-08:00What am I?What am I?<br />
<br />
I am cisgendered and I speak about gender; therefore, I am a cissplainer.<br />
<br />
I am white and I speak about race; therefore, I am a whitesplainer.<br />
<br />
I am a man and I speak about women's issues; therefore, I am a mansplainer.<br />
<br />
<br />
If I do not want you to think badly of me, then I had better speak about nothing more controversial than the weather. How dull.<br />
<br />
Edit: What am I? Answer - an idiot. I do not mean any of that. I take it back. Thanks for reading.<br />
Edit (again): What am I? Answer (from another party) - "a miserable pile of secrets" Yes, that would be very accurate. Actually, you can't even talk about the weather these days without courting controversy. :)Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-48030915443366372072014-01-31T13:29:00.001-08:002014-01-31T13:38:05.048-08:00Transcript from The Pod Delusion: Jesus & Mo and the right to be offended<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>Following is the transcript of <a href="http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2014/01/31/episode-222-31st-january-2014/">my report for the Pod Delusion podcast</a> today (from 33:06).</i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jesus and Muhammad walk into a bar. On the way in, they greet each other with “Hey”. “How ya doin’?” They seem nice. The barmaid is a witty atheist and they all share deep philosophical discussions and seem to enjoy each other’s company. That’s a bar that I’d like to visit. You wouldn’t think there would calls for beheadings, but you’d be surprised.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="http://www.jesusandmo.net/" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;">Jesus and Mo</a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is a web based comic strip created by an anonymous Author. It is a satirical look at the irrational aspects of some of the world’s major religions. It is irreverent of course but also clever, playful, and really quite benign. I have yet to see anything truly nasty come out of it, except for the frankly hysterical reactions of some members of the British Muslim community who either find the very idea of the cartoons extremely offensive, or find it extremely offensive that another Muslim would dare to say that he didn’t.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A little history: In October last year a couple members of the </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/oct/08/censoring-atheists-lse-oppression-religion" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">atheist society at the London School of Economics were threatened</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> by security guards at a Fresher’s fair on campus for wearing t-shirts depicting an image from one of the Jesus and Mo cartoons. The image shows the two characters as line drawings doing nothing more than greeting each other.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They were forced to cover their shirts or face expulsion, with a representative of LSE’s legal and compliance team telling them that the t-shirts were creating an “offensive atmosphere” and could constitute “harassment”. Some students complained, you see. Following a public outcry and the intervention of Richard Dawkins, </span><a href="https://humanism.org.uk/2013/12/19/triumph-reason-welcome-lses-apology-jesus-mo-controversy/" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the school was forced to apologise</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Fast forward to January 12th. BBC One held its weekly debate program on moral, ethical and religious issues in current events called The Big Questions. The subject of this episode was “</span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5X_lPXnvU" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Should human rights always outweigh religious rights?</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” That in itself may seem strange to those who understand that religious rights ARE human rights, but it gives an idea of how untidy the thinking can be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The incident at LSE came up and was debated. The same students were in the audience and wearing the same offending t-shirts, but the BBC declined to show the depictions of Jesus and Mo saying hello to each other. The reason for this (and the reason for the controversy in the first place) is that in strict Muslim tradition, it is forbidden to draw or otherwise depict an image of the prophet Muhammad or any other prophet to the faith (though Jesus seems to be okay). This is a blasphemy that is extremely offensive to many if not most Muslims. Indeed, in some parts of the world it would be punishable by death.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is a </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">whole laundry list of acts</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> that depending on where they are judged could be Islamic blasphemies of varying degree. Some of these may seem quite strange, such as speculating about how Muhammad would behave if he were alive (Nigeria), saying that Islam is an Arab religion (Indonesia), or practicing yoga (Malaysia). What counts for blasphemy and what counts as punishment is largely the province of clerics in the role of jurist. If you are in a strict Islamic country and wish to avoid blasphemy, it is probably wise to avoid saying or doing anything which might upset anyone.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the panelists invited onto the BBC debate show was Maajid Nawaz, a reformed Islamic extremist who is founder of the anti-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation and now a Liberal Democrats parliamentary candidate. He observed that some Muslim women who had just been arguing for their right to wear the veil were now questioning these students’ right to wear an offensive t-shirt.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nawaz defended the students, saying “I’m not offended by that. I’m sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it”. Later when he got home, Nawaz </span><a href="https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/422342223460855809" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">tweeted the same sentiment</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> with a link to the picture that was on the t-shirts, which the BBC had refused to show. His intention, </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/speaking-islam-loudmouths-hijacked" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">he says</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, was to defend his religion from “those who have hijacked it just because they shout the loudest.” “To carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge, on pain of death.”</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This proved to be a step too far as angry Muslims spread word of the tweet and began attacking Nawaz for having the temerity to admit that he was not offended by something. A fellow member of the Liberal Democrat Party, Mohammed Shafiq, started an </span><a href="http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/nick-clegg-remove-maajid-nawaz-as-ppc-for-hampstead-kilburn" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">online petition</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> as an official complaint to the party, seeking to have Nawaz deselected. He went further, tweeting "We will notify all Muslim organisations in the UK of his despicable behaviour and also notify Islamic countries."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">He used more incendiary language as well.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nawaz would soon wake up to a deluge of abuse, including a significant number of threats to his life. At least one Twitter user called for his beheading. Some of the threats originated in Pakistan and appear credible. And perhaps naturally given the great fuss, the BBC and other news outlets still refuse to show a cartoon line drawing depicting, not rudely by any means, the founder of Islam.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">How did this happen? Britain is a free and liberal democracy with a strong human rights tradition of free speech, though that appears to be slipping. Multiculturalism has tended to produce a stale political atmosphere in which we dare not offend the religious and cultural sensitivities of our minority groups lest we risk inflaming the fragile harmony of our volatile communities. Mockery of religious teachings has been confused with causing harassment. Valid and forceful criticism of the many ignoble deeds carried out in the name of a religion is conflated with hate speech.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some Muslims I’ve spoken to about the present crisis have suggested that although nobody dispute’s Nawaz’s right to tweet an image and to declare that he does not find that image offensive, he should choose more carefully the manner in which he expresses this view so as not to offend. In other words, be serious. Be sober. I have to say, as a liberal I find that idea extremely insulting in itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">It reminds me of something the former Cat Stevens once said to Jon Stewart when asked about Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. The gist was “Yes, of course we have free speech. But why is it necessary to insult the Prophet?” Turning it around into a question for the speaker is a diversionary tactic. It is calling for nothing more or less than self censorship, which is the most insidious kind. It is making the case for fear masquerading as respect. “Yes you have free speech, but please try hard to make your speech the good kind that I don’t object to. Let’s have a civil, constructive debate. Don’t take the piss.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will make this very plain. You do not get to choose the medium and manner in which I am permitted to challenge your beliefs. It is not supposed to be comfortable for you. That’s entirely the point. “Have I Got News For You” can be more effective at opposing government than the opposition party. Nothing unmans oppressive power quite so quickly and effectively as popular ridicule, which is why oppressive authority works so hard to suppress it. If we can’t agree that the Jesus and Mo cartoons are civil and constructive, though by knowledge of their mere existence offensive, then we will never agree the terms of the debate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Liberal Democrats initially tried to patch things up in this row with a predictably milquetoast statement recognising Nawaz’s right to be offensive, but also calling for moderate language and warning members against causing unnecessary offence. Sometimes, though, it is necessary to cause offence in order to make a point that is of great public importance.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Like the Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East, </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><strike>Mike </strike></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">David Ward*, </span><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liberal-democrats-suspend-mp-david-ward-over-israel-comments-on-holocaust-day-8717552.html" style="line-height: 1.15; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">who was suspended</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> after choosing Holocaust Memorial Day to remind us that Israel has committed a few atrocities of its own, Maajid Nawaz has made a brave and principled stand against an orthodoxy of thought. It was wrong to suspend Ward. Israel is a nation state and far from immune to scorn. He should have been asked to clarify his views, which would get people talking instead of having someone shut up. Let’s not make the same mistake here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not deal with the various ad hominem attacks against Maajid Nawaz coming from Islamic quarters that are naturally at odds with him for various political reasons. They are completely transparent and not worth what little time I have to talk. Suffice to say there are plenty of Muslims who have plenty of reasons to want to discredit the man. I will stick to what is relevant. I’ve seen Muslims attempting to explain why defaming the Prophet is so extremely hurtful and offensive. I sort of get it. It goes something like this:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mocking someone’s mother is the one thing in all cultures that is deemed absolutely unacceptable, something you only do when you deliberately seek to offend. Muslims believe paradise lies beneath the feet of your mother, and you must obey her without question unless contrary to God’s laws. The prophet Muhammad, who taught this, is more beloved to Muslims than their mothers and all loved ones.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">That is fair enough; however, I would only say this. If I mock your mother then it is no doubt insulting and very hurtful. But when your mother is Margaret Thatcher who commanded armies and police forces and who still embodies a political ideology, I will say what I damn well feel. My sympathies to Mark and Carol, but when your mother is or was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, mockery and worse go with the territory. Don’t blame me for what she subjected you to. I’m sorry Chelsea Clinton, but when your mother is running for President of the United States, she is fair game. So is your dad, and so is your faith for that matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Those of us whose mothers are powerful public figures need to develop thicker skin or else live a life of monastic seclusion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Why, Yusuf Islam, is it necessary to insult the Prophet? I’ll tell you. Because it is not yet universally accepted (not even in this country) that criticism of a religion and all its various customs and diktats is a right. That such criticism may not be followed by threats to one’s physical existence. It is kind of out of order to suggest that someone who creates a picture of Muhammad should have his head cut off. Belief systems which, as with politics, control entire populaces, and in whose name people are maimed and tortured and killed, are public discourse.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">People have the right to believe that the sin of blasphemy should be punishable by death, but they MUST accept that it is not. It once was, but no longer, and it never will be again as long as there is a liberal in this country with a pulse, drawing breath without the aid of a respirator. Until that time, these acts of defiance are not only justified, they are absolutely necessary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The ridiculous and untenable situation in which we’ve found ourselves only serves to show that they do not happen often enough. Insulting the Prophet (or whatever religious equivalent) needs to become a normal thing. Though it may be painful to many, it will become accustomed and the pain will become manageable in time. Your God is strong and your belief will survive. If not, then what was it ever worth?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The same BBC that was afraid to show a cartoon offensive to Muslims had no qualms about screening Jerry Springer the Opera in January 2005, which features a scene in which it is suggested that the Virgin Mary was “raped by God”. I honestly cannot imagine anything more offensive to anyone deeply Christian. Even I, as a lapsed Catholic, was offended! I sat there transfixed with my jaw halfway to the floor wondering how anyone could be so bold.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Beeb received no fewer than 55,000 complaints from viewers after the event and vigorously defended its decision to broadcast, one which prompted the Christian Institute to attempt to bring a private prosecution against the Director General on a blasphemy charge (thank gawd we binned that one, eh?). I commend the BBC for this, but why the double standards?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact is there was a time in this country when producing Jerry Springer the Opera would have gotten you burned alive on a pyre. Thankfully we are over that. I’m very sorry, but Islam has some catching up to do on that score. Cowardly pseudo-liberal appeasement of extreme feeling does not get us any further along. Drawing the blurry line where the BBC and its contemporaries have chosen to draw it on this occasion is deeply offensive to liberalism. It is simply the case that the belief that drawing a decent cartoon is blasphemy and may deserve death is one that is incompatible with our laws and traditions. The belief, though rightfully held, deserves no respect. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">It needs to be offended, often and mercilessly. Call it tough love.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is often said that you don’t have the right not to be offended. That bears repeating. Nobody has the right to not be offended. A corollary is that, very broadly speaking, everyone has the right to cause offence to anyone. Absolutely, everybody has the right to take offence and to express their outrage, even to call for something to be done. What is not often articulated though is the right to be offended as a proactive thing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we all allowed ourselves to be offended more often, the world would be a much better place. Being offended is good for you and it’s good for me. It is something that I believe we should each seek out regularly for our own personal, empathic development. The reason is that being offended challenges our rigid thinking and stale notions. If we take the time to think about our gut reaction to being offended, we might come to find that the roots of our objection are misjudged and misplaced.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we open our minds to a challenge, our minds can be changed. It is wonderfully transformative and all for the good. At the very least, we can look forward to building some character.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">For me, the right to be offended means that if you find something offensive you have no right to take away my opportunity to be offended. Being offended does not make you special, nor does it give you powers. It certainly does not appoint you my guardian of good taste, whoever you think you are. Be offended and find some way of dealing with it. But go do it over there, away from me please if you’d be so kind. I’m happy for you, but if I’m honest I have my own matters to attend to. But do make sure to thank the person who offended you for the great service performed for humanity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Muhammad Shafiq had the gall to appear on Andrew Neil’s politics show and complain that people were trying to stifle his right to speak as a Muslim on behalf of other Muslims. He mentioned abuse that he’d received over his petition, including some death threats. I noted that this did not prevent him from appearing on the program, unlike his adversary who was advised by police not to make any further comment or to appear on television as it would be too dangerous for him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Shafiq has in fact appeared several times on television since these events unfolded calling for Maajid Nawaz to be silenced, while Nawaz has not. When a person is made to fear for his safety if he tries to speak up, that is silencing. Maajid Nawaz was not able at that time to speak freely on behalf of himself let alone other Muslims who might be inclined to agree with him. Have the police forgotten (or perhaps they never fully understood) that the law owes Maajid Nawaz a positive duty to defend his unpopular speech against the angry torch waving mob?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">Muhammad Shafiq may have a point that I as a non-Muslim have no business telling him how to speak on behalf of Muslims. But I’ll tell you what, Mr Shafiq. I am a liberal with a strong sense of liberty and a particular attachment to Article 10. I can tell you that you have no business wearing the badge of liberal, and I will. Take it off, if you can’t see how important it is to defend the freedom to offend.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">I have criticised you, but I’m not calling for your head. I do not dispute your right to create a petition calling for your party fellow to be disciplined. I just think you’re dead wrong in a way that no self respecting liberal could fail to see. There is no place for such blind intolerance in any party that calls itself liberal or democratic. If anyone has brought the Liberal Democrat Party into disrepute, Mr Shafiq, it is you. Do I need to draw you a picture?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">*</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i> On the podcast recording I mistakenly refer to this person as Mike Ward.</i></span></div>
Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-33795280415675864562013-07-29T02:16:00.004-07:002013-07-31T03:05:28.283-07:00Panic mode - my proposal to curb Twitter abuse<br/><h2>
Background</h2>
<br/>There has been much talk these last few days of what can be done to tackle the problem of the overwhelming deluges of nasty and often threatening abuse that Twitter users can sometimes receive. This abuse can rise to the level of criminality very easily. There have been many suggestions aimed at tackling the social root cause head on, including making it easier to report masses of abuse instead of having to select individual tweets. Some have gone so far as to suggest some sort of annual fee for the use of Twitter in order to cut down on sock puppetry and discourage breaking terms and conditions. Still others have asked for Twitter, like Facebook, to require real names. In my view all of these suggestions would create more problems than what they aim to solve. The problem they aim to solve is not realistic. The world is what it is and human nature is complex and varied. There are nasty people everywhere. It's too much. The problem needs to be redefined.<br />
<br/><h2>
The problem</h2>
<br/>The problem is that when a Twitter user is under attack, as happened recently to feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez, she quite understandably fears using the tool that Twitter provides her. She can't have conversations with people because her mentions are flooded with vile abuse. Nobody should have to put up with that.<br />
<br/><h2>
The solution</h2>
<br/>My solution to this problem would be for Twitter to introduce something like a panic button that would immediately but temporarily place one's account into a state where all mentions are blocked except for those coming from the followers and following lists. Twitter could also allow the user to open a case and have mentions logged against that case to help Twitter to take action against those who violate the terms. Twitter could also perhaps warn users attempting to put the panicked account into a mention or reply. Perhaps they could ask for confirmation either within the stream or in an email. An alternative would be to actually disallow the creation of the mention or reply. A blocked account is currently not allowed to perform a reply but it can use a mention. The same rules might apply here. The mention would still not be seen.<br />
<br/><h2>
Benefits</h2>
<br/>I can see two clear benefits to simply blocking all but the followers and following. This would allow the user to carry on using the tool more or less as normal, while also throwing water on the flames of abuse as the abusers will not be getting the satisfaction of a reaction. Going further, the ability to launch a case with mentions attached would help Twitter to take action against those who violate the terms. This is much more efficient than blocking and reporting users over individual tweets, but it has potential problems so it would need to be implemented very carefully. Warnings, confirmations, and disallowing tweets would cut down on the volume of abusive material.<br />
<br/><h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<br/>We're not going to change the world with a social tool. It would be pointless to try. What is important is to give users the freedom to use the tool without having to suffer the indignity of drowning in a sea of hatred. Do this please, Twitter. Thank you.<br/><br/>
<p><b>UPDATE 30 July 2013</b>: I thought it would be obvious so I didn't mention it, but in my proposal you would also have approval over new followers in the same way that protected mode provides this.</p>
<p><b>UPDATE 31 July 2013</b>: I had another thought this morning. It occurs to me that panic mode combined with a sudden spike in mentions would be a good indicator for twitter to go in and have a look.</p>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-6904807735785267202013-02-24T06:20:00.000-08:002013-02-25T04:02:27.028-08:00Thoughts on the "marital coercion" defence in modern BritainWe are probably by now all aware of the trial that ended last week with the jury discharged and which is due to be heard in front of a fresh jury this week. That of course is the trial of Vicky Pryce, ex wife of the disgraced former Liberal Democrat MP and <strike>Transport</strike> Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. Mr Huhne has pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice by avoiding a prosecution for speeding a decade ago, having his erstwhile wife take 3 points on her license instead. Ms Pryce is contesting the same charge. This case has generated much controversy in the past week with claims that the jury system is fundamentally flawed.<br />
<br />
This case should court controversy for a very different reason. The defence of "marital coercion" that is being relied upon is archaic in that it is only available to a "wife". The defence is provided by the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86#pt4-l1g36">Criminal Justice Act 1925 - section 47</a>, wherein is stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband."</blockquote>
I am surely not alone in thinking that it is ridiculous in the present day when efforts are well under way to redefine marriage as being open to same sex couples, that there exists this distinction in law to afford a criminal defence to a "wife" that is not available to a "husband". The terms husband and wife have themselves become obsolete. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_coercion#cite_note-5">Wikipedia reports that in 1977 the Law Commission</a> recommended that this defence be abolished altogether as it is no longer appropriate. It is no longer appropriate because a husband no longer holds legal dominance over his wife. Although there is still quite some way to go before society treats women as truly equal to men, the law does grant equal rights to this demographic. And yet, the defence still stands.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the next jury hearing the Pryce trial will take the audacious step of disregarding the defence of marital coercion and treating the defendant as a woman in her own right who is capable of making bad decisions and taking responsibility for the consequences.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-37818515792088297642012-09-21T02:48:00.003-07:002012-09-21T09:32:31.138-07:00Justice Denied: The DPP's proposed public consultation on free speech and prosecutions<br />
<i>This is cross posted from <a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-dpps-proposed-public-consultation.html">Justice Denied</a>.</i><br />
<br />
Much has happened, dear reader, since we last spoke. I will focus on just a couple related items. You may be aware that a week ago today the <a href="http://www.pitkanary.com/2012/09/14/azhar-ahmed-found-guilty-at-huddersfield-magistrates-court/">Crown case against Azhar Ahmed of Ravensthorpe</a>, West Yorkshire resulted in a conviction at Huddersfield Magistrate's Court. We had hoped that the prosecution would choose to drop the case after the <a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/transcript-of-my-pod-delusion-report.html">DPP loss in Chambers v DPP at the High Court</a>. Unfortunately, they did not. Rather more unfortunately, the new leading authority of Lord Chief Justice Judge was not introduced into evidence. The defence stuck with DPP v Collins and lost the case. It seems that the judge was not persuaded by arguments that Mr Ahmed never imagined that his Facebook update would be seen by anyone other than his friends and family.<br />
<br />
Now, less than one week from that result, the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday published a statement on the CPS blog about his decision not to prosecute a s127 case and his intention to issue <a href="http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/09/dpp-statement-on-tom-daley-case-and-social-media-prosecutions.html">guidelines to prosecutors on social media</a>. Once draft guidelines are published there is to be a wide public consultation feeding into the final publication. This is very good news, but one feels it comes a few days too late for poor Azhar Ahmed who must now await sentencing as he decides whether or not to appeal.<br />
<br />
The DPP, Keir Starmer QC, has also been making appearances in the media. I'm told he was on BBC Breakfast this morning, though I've not heard what he had to say for himself. In light of his comments yesterday, I would now call upon the Director of Public Prosecutions to instruct his prosecutors to ask for an absolute discharge at the sentencing for Azhar Ahmed on the 9th of October and to explain to the judge that the CPS feel that a conviction would no longer be in the public interest. Certain of Mr Starmer's remarks are particularly relevant as quoted here:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, Jim Brisbane, has concluded that on a full analysis of the context and circumstances in which this single message was sent, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought."</i></blockquote>
<br />
All of this with certain transpositions could be said equally of Mr Ahmed's Facebook remarks, which when taken in context are nothing more than a strong but poorly expressed political opinion. Indeed, his message was not found to be grossly offensive on an objective reading.<br />
<br />
On top of all this recent business we have also seen, on the same day as this announcement by the DPP, another arrest on a s127 charge for a Facebook posting. A man has been <a href="http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/953988414829F95680257A7F0045C63B">arrested for creating an offensive Facebook page</a> following the murders of two female police officers in greater Manchester. This may be the first time someone has been arrested on a s127 charge for publishing a web page. I will leave it to readers to work out why the publishing of a web page should not be caught by this offence. Start by looking up the definition of "public electronic communications network", then the definition of "electronic communications network", then the definition of "content service". All of these are defined within the Communications Act.<br />
<br />
This has not yet been referred to the CPS and I am very interested to see what they would say about it. If it turns out that GMP have got the law "right" and the Lord Chief Justice would agree, then any web page, static or dynamic, can be caught by this offence. If that is the case then we have really opened Pandora's box. I will fight this like hell and I will need your help. In the meantime, please pop over to the Jack of Kent blog to get involved in a <a href="http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-proposal-for-cps-guidance/">discussion about the upcoming public consulation</a>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, please consider signing this <a href="http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-ministry-of-justice-discuss-the-conviction-of-azhar-ahmed">petition in support of Azhar Ahmed</a> if you have not already done so. Thank you.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE 5:16pm</b> - I said I would leave it to the reader to work out why an act of publishing should not be caught by this offence. Ever one to be diligent, I decided to go and reread the relevant sections of the Communications Act, which are sections 151 and 32. Section 151 says <i>“public electronic communications network” means an electronic communications network provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public</i>. Section 32 says:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>32 Meaning of electronic communications networks and services</b><br />
(1)In this Act “electronic communications network” means—<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(a)a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of signals of any description; and<br />
(b)such of the following as are used, by the person providing the system and in association with it, for the conveyance of the signals—<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(i)apparatus comprised in the system;<br />
(ii)apparatus used for the switching or routing of the signals; and<br />
(iii)software and stored data.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
(2)In this Act “electronic communications service” means a service consisting in, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance by means of an electronic communications network of signals, except in so far as it is a content service.</blockquote>
It also defines a content service, but it turns out we don't need that. The internet has been found at the High Court to be a public electronic communications network (PECN); therefore, it is also an ECN. An electronic communications service cannot be a content service, but both operate over an ECN, so it follows that a "message or other matter" sent by way of an ECS or a content service on an ECN can be caught. This is bad news. There is an argument that the internet is not a PECN because it primarily provides content services nowadays, but this got us nowhere in the courts.</div>
Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-13268302975904847092012-07-31T05:53:00.003-07:002012-07-31T05:55:19.156-07:00Tom Daley and the twitter troll problem (an apology of sorts)<div>
This morning I wrote a <a href="http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ijt0sp">somewhat impassioned Twitlonger piece</a> (I'm good at that) calling out the twitter mob that goaded a sick 17 year old young man into carrying on with his abusive behaviour towards the British Olympic diver Tom Daley (as well as others). I did not realise that Daley himself had retweeted an abusive message. That's my mistake and I'll have to live with it. But I mostly still agree with my sentiments. I've received a lot of very interesting responses to that Twitlonger. I'm not going to respond to them, but I'd like to make a few general observations. First, when I say "You know who you are", please understand that this also implies the opposite. If you are one of those who know who you are and are secure in your conscience, so be it. My piece was mainly to get people thinking.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second, criticizing the twitter mob is not the same as "defending the indefensible". This is a straw man. I do not defend the young man's actions. He clearly has broken the letter of the law. He will now be dealt with for better or for worse. I don't see being arrested and facing criminal charges as a particularly good way to sort your life out. I doubt that he will receive much help in that regard, but I hope so. He will very likely be charged over this. I can't see how he won't unless his soundness of mind is questioned. That will probably be left to a judge.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The charges are likely to be more serious than the #TwitterJokeTrial charge of s.127 of the Communications Act 2003. Those who criticize me for making the comparison to Paul Chambers' case are perhaps missing the point. I said that the prosecution will go to the ends of the earth to make an example of someone, whether deserving or not. Paul Chambers was underserving. His prosecution was wildly disproportionate to the stated aims. This prosecution, should one be brought, is clearly much more deserving. But I think if the young man had simply been ignored, he would have ceased entirely. It is a shame that Daley retweeted him, but I certainly understand that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The young man has admitted that he has experienced the recent loss of his mother. Some say that he should then be more sympathetic towards the diver who recently lost his father. Of course he should! We would expect anyone of sound mind to be more respectful. But consider that his own parental loss may have caused him to identify with the young diver (who is roughly the same age and from a nearby area I'm told), to an unhealthy extent. I'm not a phychiatrist and even if I were, I've never spoken to the boy. It's plausible though that he saw the failure of Daley to win a medal yesterday as some sort of personal one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, to any of my friends who have been upset by what I've written, I apologise. But I'm not your dad, I didn't name anyone, no one is identifiable. I'm not in a position to judge and I will not judge anyone individually. However, I will always say my piece. I'm not going to hold back. You should know that about me by now. That's all I have to say on the matter. Thank you for reading.</div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-82383776408075975692012-03-09T15:07:00.001-08:002012-03-09T15:07:30.482-08:00I just wrote to my MP asking him to block the Health and Social Care BillLike the title says, I just wrote to my MP asking him to block the Health and Social Care Bill. I don't expect much. He is a Tory golden boy lawyer who spent years as a wonk in Dominic Grieve's office. But he's my MP now (since 2010) and he's all I've got. My MP is Dominic Raab for Esher and Walton. So here's what I said to him:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Dear Mr Raab,</span><br />
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
I have just read this report today in the BMJ and I have grave concerns: <a href="http://www.allysonpollock.co.uk/administrator/components/com_article/attach/2012-03-08/BMJ_2012_Pollock_HealthSocialCareBill.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.<wbr></wbr>allysonpollock.co.uk/<wbr></wbr>administrator/components/com_<wbr></wbr>article/attach/2012-03-08/BMJ_<wbr></wbr>2012_Pollock_<wbr></wbr>HealthSocialCareBill.pdf</a>. It outlines very clearly how proposed reforms could be used to create a health care system comparable to that of the United States. Mr Raab, I come from the United States. I've seen how that system works. It is a mess. In 2007 it is estimated that some 61% of all US bankruptcies were of a medical nature. <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://www.pnhp.org/<wbr></wbr>new_bankruptcy_study/<wbr></wbr>Bankruptcy-2009.pdf</a>. This was at a time when health care spending accounted for 16% of the country's GDP. This is not a good system. It is costly and fails to deliver care to those who need it most. This is because insurer underwritten health plans account for their service spending as medical costs. The costs are to be kept as low as possible; therefore, the insurers will use any means to avoid paying for medical treatments. People who believe themselves to be adequately insured suddenly find that their medically necessary treatment is not covered for one reason or another. People have incurred costs in the tens of thousands of dollars and lost their homes through mortgage defaults. This is bad for the economy.</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
The proposed reforms to the NHS are supposed to save the government money, but in the long run they will probably not achieve their stated objectives and will end up costing us all a lot more. A single payer system such as what we currently have is less costly to manage because it does not have the overhead of insurance underwriting. I ask that you please do whatever you can to block this bill. Hardly anyone wants it. It seems to be ideologically motivated, and there is absolutely no mandate for it. The NHS is a national treasure. It is probably the single greatest British achievement since the second world war. Please do the right thing. Thank you.</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Best regards,</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Matt Flaherty</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
(et cetera)</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small;">I'll let you know what sort of response I get.</span></div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-24386314813679997972012-02-10T02:52:00.000-08:002012-02-10T04:18:48.016-08:00Is it really "Un-American" to require an employer to provide contraceptive health coverage?After reading this <a href="http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-and-catholics.html">piece by Heresiarch on the Obama/Catholic problem</a> of the day, I forced myself to ingest one of the sources, namely this <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100136144/obamas-war-on-the-catholic-church-isnt-just-insensitive-its-un-american/">Telegraph article by Dr Tim Stanley</a>, titled "Obama's war on the Catholic Church isn't just insensitive – it's un-American". Ignoring the momentary shiver I always feel when I hear someone use that McCarthy era standard, I plowed on. I'm afraid I stopped on this paragraph (six?) as it told me everything I need to know:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The answer is that Obama’s diktat violates the American principle of freedom of conscience. It’s one thing to ask Catholic organisations to provide contraception coverage. It’s another thing to order them to do it. Imagine that you’ve been happily wearing a neck tie since the age of thirteen (imagine you are Mitt Romney). Then, one day, a government bureaucrat knocks on the door to tell you that it’s now the law of the land that you have to wear a neck tie, 24/7. The first reaction of any freedom loving, self-governing individual would be to tear the neck tie off (and maybe use it to throttle the bureaucrat). It’s a basic rule of human nature that people resent being told to do something, even if they intended to do it anyway. The Americans and British are brothers-in-arms when it comes to this kind of obstinacy.</blockquote>
The question that paragraph is attempting to answer is "Why is the Church so agitated, the liberal press asks?". And if that's the answer then I feel the issue of freedom of conscience is back to front. The analogy is poor. Actually, it is woefully bad. A better analogy would be this. Every day a person wears a neck tie but he provides his own. As silly as this may sound, let's say he only wears them at home or otherwise outside working hours. This is how he feels he should dress. Perhaps the employer has an irrational hatred of neck ties or something. Then one day, a government bureaucrat knocks on the door <i>of the employer</i> and says any apparel benefits plan that you provide for your employees must include a provision for neck ties. How horrible.<br />
<br />
Here's how you exercise your freedom of conscience. If you are unhappy with this state of affairs, don't provide employee health benefits. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Employer-sponsored">Businesses with fewer than 50 employees don't have to anyway</a>. For larger businesses, there is a $2000 tax penalty per employee for failing to provide health insurance to full time workers.<br />
<br />
Get real, people. You've got it backwards. Why can't you see that? I think actually these pundits can. I think probably even John Boehner and Mitt Romney can. They're just hoping to hoodwink ordinary people in an election year. I hope the White House is better prepared for this row than it was for the Nazi-Socialist death panel slurs in 2008.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-68379965317225756512012-02-06T09:22:00.000-08:002012-02-06T09:22:14.047-08:00Arsehole Justice: The #TwitterJokeTrial: Why it matters to me - why it should matter to you.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><i>Back in November, just a couple days before Paul Chambers' High Court appeal was originally scheduled to be heard, I gave a brief introductory speech to the specially convened Westminster Skeptics meeting. It is now two days before the appeal will finally be heard (8th February 2012). I have reproduced the notes for my speech here (the actual speech was a bit different). This is the Twitter Joke Trial in a nutshell from my point of view:</i><br /><br />I first became aware of this case back in January 2010 when I read a write up in the Independent about a week after Paul was arrested. He had not yet been charged and the incident was still being treated as a bomb threat or hoax. It struck me as problematic because I felt I understood the context well enough to deduce that no harm was intended. I expected there would be no charge, but I remained curious...</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2012/02/twitterjoketrial-why-it-matters-to-me.html">Read more</a></span></div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-64171573353726821212012-01-27T02:32:00.000-08:002012-01-27T03:08:08.118-08:00Twitter selective tweet blocking. What exactly does that mean?<div>
There's a bit of a twitstorm brewing over <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html">an announcment made yesterday on Twitter's blog</a> outlining a new capability the company has built into its platform. This capability will allow Twitter to selectively block content to particular countries in order to comply with local laws. Here's the bit that has some commenters worried:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/26/twitter-commits-social-suicide/">Mark Gibbs has written this piece on forbes.com</a> which suggests that Twitter will implement this blocking scheme through the use of realtime filtering, saying <i>"given that over the course of 2011 the number of tweets per second (tps) ranged from a high of almost 9,000 tps down to just under 4,000 tps, any filtering has got to be computer-driven."</i> However, if you read the full Twitter blog post you will see that this is not at all what the company has in mind. In particular:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We haven't yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld.</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One wonders whether Mr Gibbs bothered to read beyond the first three paragraphs, because if a system of filtering was being employed "starting today", then it would in fact be in constant use. What Twitter has done is to build some flexibility into their platform which would probably not have sparked such controversy had it simply been there from the very beginning. If it is sensible to do so, they may now selectively block tweets to certain countries on demand. Previously they would have had to block a tweet globally due to technical limitations, so if anything this is a positive step. Twitter might not ever use this new capability, but now they can and we will expect them to weigh the pros and cons and to exercise their best judgement. Some have suggested that the announcement of this new capability will place the company under greater pressure from governments to block tweets. I find that hard to believe. I have no doubt that Twitter is already under enormous pressure from some oppressive regimes. In the past they would have simply ignored the pressure at the risk of a nationwide block of the service. Whereas previously Twitter would have shrugged and cited technical limitations, now they can shrug and state moral objections. I think the company has made a minor communication error. They should have said "retroactively" instead of "reactively". The latter suggests that it is the platform which is reactive. There are however plenty of other clues in that blog post that point towards retroactive human intervention. That is, if you choose to read that far.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE:</b> The Twitter blog post links to some other materials, including this very helpful (um) help page: <a href="https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222">https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222</a>. Here we clearly see that it is only upon receipt of a valid request for a takedown that any content will be withheld. As you were.</div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-69302016277364477422011-09-13T03:12:00.000-07:002011-09-13T03:15:31.321-07:00SharePoint 2010 UI: custom action to launch "Move To" for a list itemMood = :proud:<br />
<br />
I've worked out how to create a custom menu action in a SharePoint 2010 list view that allows a user to move a single file (with meta-data intact) to another location similar to the functionality available in Site Content and Structure. In fact, I have made use of the Site Content and Structure page directly within a modal dialog. You can use SharePoint Designer to create a custom list item menu action. I won't go into detail here on how to do that as there is plenty of information available on the web. In the "Create Custom Action" dialog, tick the radio button next to "Navigate to URL:" and paste in the following javascript URL all on a single line (you will need to change the webId value to your own):<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">javascript:var listId='{ListId}'.toLowerCase().replace(/[{}]/g, ""); var webId='4836a39d-e154-4822-8826-8bcd5029cad2'; var dlg=SP.UI.ModalDialog.showModalDialog({ url: "{SiteUrl}/_Layouts/sitemanager.aspx?FilterOnly=1&SmtContext=SPList:" + listId + "?SPWeb:" + webId + ":&SmtContextExpanded=True&Filter=1&pgsz=100&vrmode=False", dialogReturnValueCallback: function(res, val) {location.reload(true);}}); var idString="SPListItem:{ItemId}?SPList:" + listId + "?SPWeb:" + webId; var item; var func; var doc; var win; setTimeout(func = function() {for (var i=0; i < window.top.frames.length; i++) {if (window.top.frames[i].location.href.indexOf("sitemanager.aspx") != -1) {win = window.top.frames[i]; doc = win.document;}}; if (doc == null || doc.forms.length == 0) {return setTimeout(func, 5000);}; for (var i=0; i < doc.forms[0].elements.length; i++) {var elem=doc.forms[0].elements[i]; if (elem.type == 'checkbox' && elem.id == idString) {item = elem; break;}}; if (item == null) {return setTimeout(func, 500);}; win.SmtSingleObjectMove(idString+":", false); item.checked=true; win.SmtGridSelectItem(item);}, 100); return false;</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I had to use some setTimeout calls in order to ensure that the objects I was referring to were present. There is a particularly long timeout of 5 seconds that allows the dialog to hopefully complete rendering before it attempts to launch the popup with the tree view that actually selects the destination. All efforts to encapsulate this in the dialog's onload function met with failure. Perhaps one day I'll work that one out. Closing the dialog will refresh the view. This should work for any list or library in your SharePoint web application. Unfortunately there is no URL token corresponsing to the guid of the web application, so this will need to be provided as a hard-code value as I have done. I hope this is helpful to someone, as it took quite a lot of trial and error.</span>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-77538057036607930952011-09-07T04:14:00.000-07:002011-09-07T04:18:08.921-07:00SharePoint 2010 - weirdness with custom list item edit formI don't like SharePoint very much, but I'm forced to work with it in my software development role. A lot of what you might think of as simple functionality that could be expected out-of-the-box in a commercial content management system actually requires custom coded solution. Okay, I can do that. The trouble is though that the IT department at my company are quite strict about the provisioning of custom software. Given how buggy SharePoint Services is, I can't say I'm terribly surprised. The upshot is that any custom coded solution is discouraged in favour of some third party alternative if available. And either way, it needs to be justified. I tend not to bother with custom solutions. I often encounter weird problems with the out-of-the-box functionality though. Here's one.<br />
<br />
I have a requirement to allow designated people to move a document from a staging document library to a permanent location once the document has been approved. After lots of mucking around I've found that the simplest way to do this is to create a custom edit form that allows input of only one item property. I've decided to use the Source URL property, since this is not actually useful in the context of the library. The plan is that there will be a workflow that kicks off whenever the document properties are changed and if there is a value for Source URL, the workflow will move the document to within that path (if legal) and then terminate. As an aside, I really wish the standard list views gave access to the file move functionality. You can't move a file from with a library, you can only send it to another location as a copy. But that's only one from an ever growing list of gripes, and not a very important one.<br />
<br />
So anyway, I've found that this can work. However, when I (or the user) submits the custom edit form (which by the way cannot open as a dialog like the built in forms do), the result is that the document is output by the browser as an attachment. This causes a download dialog to open. I really don't want that to happen. It is confusing, to say the least. If I put the IsDialog=1 query string variable on the URL, this does not happen; however, I can't control that from actions and it shouldn't open as a dialog anyway. Also, the form does not close itself and redirect to the list as I'd expect it to. This seems to be a problem only with the custom edit forms. The default EditForm.aspx does not exhibit this strange behaviour, whether or not it is in dialog mode. I can't find anything about it on <i>teh interwebs</i>, so I thought I'd be the first to report it. If anything comes back, I'll be very surprised though.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-84027896751458255862011-09-01T13:10:00.000-07:002011-09-07T04:20:40.547-07:00Twitter Joke Trial articles and related matters to move to new blog Arsehole JusticeI have decided to move all the Twitter Joke Trial and related blog posts over to my new collaborative blog, <a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/">Arsehole Justice</a>. It makes sense to have them there. I haven't yet begun to do this, but will begin soon. I will then reserve this blog for personal use. I'll try to keep the same links in place and use simple redirects. You might want to go and become a follower of that blog if you follow this one.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-2681672277035355292011-08-30T14:26:00.000-07:002011-08-30T14:26:13.155-07:00Arsehole Justice: Head of Humberside Police wonders why justice isn'...<a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/head-of-humberside-police-wonders-why.html?spref=bl">Arsehole Justice: Head of Humberside Police wonders why justice isn'...</a>: I read an article in The Independent today that quoted Tim Hollis , Chief Constable of Humberside Police. In the wake of the worst riots the...Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-76585632850798322112011-08-30T14:25:00.001-07:002011-08-30T14:25:53.579-07:00Arsehole Justice: Shy 19 year old woman of good character could go t...<a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/shy-19-year-old-woman-of-good-character.html?spref=bl">Arsehole Justice: Shy 19 year old woman of good character could go t...</a>: If you've read some of our recent posts then you may be familiar with the case of 19 year old Hollie Bentley from Wakefield, West Yorkshire....Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-16894124567157381042011-08-30T14:25:00.000-07:002011-08-30T14:25:30.947-07:00Arsehole Justice: Social media turns everybody into wankers.<a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/social-media-turns-everybody-into.html?spref=bl">Arsehole Justice: Social media turns everybody into wankers.</a>: Social media turns everybody into wankers.
<br />
<br />It's as simple as that. As soon as anybody gets involved in social media, they immediately tu...Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-87657092794807191202011-08-30T14:24:00.001-07:002011-08-30T14:24:49.696-07:00Arsehole Justice: Hollie Bentley (Facebook Riot Girl) - case referre...<a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/hollie-bentley-facebook-riot-girl-case.html?spref=bl">Arsehole Justice: Hollie Bentley (Facebook Riot Girl) - case referre...</a>: The AJs just keep on rolling in. Today at Wakefield Magistrate's Court in West Yorkshire, a young woman named Hollie Bentley was told that h...Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-23475024624961695422011-08-30T14:24:00.000-07:002011-08-30T14:24:23.471-07:00Arsehole Justice: Another Facebook related Communications Act convic...<a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-facebook-related-communications.html?spref=bl">Arsehole Justice: Another Facebook related Communications Act convic...</a>: I will depart from cynicism just to say that I've never been more afraid for the health of free expression in Britain. This post is on the l...Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-32878297306980006302011-08-23T08:40:00.000-07:002011-08-23T08:53:11.504-07:00Another Facebook Communications Act conviction. Sigh. FOI again.There been another conviction under the Communications Act post UK riots, this time of an adult. Details here: <a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/">http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/</a>. This time, a custodial sentence of 4 months was handed out. I've submitted a query to CPS Wales as follows:<div>
<br /></div><div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>To Whom It May Concern:</div><div>
<br /></div><div>I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Caernarfon concerning 21 year old David Glyn Jones of Bangor, Gwynedd who has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-14631184">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-14631184</a>> and here <<a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/">http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/23/man-jailed-for-four-months-over-facebook-attempt-to-start-riots-in-bangor-91466-29288008/</a>>. It appears that the Facebook update was only live for 20 minutes.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Can you please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time? Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 if he did not deny sending the offending communication? Given the fast track nature of this prosecution, I am requesting an expedited response please. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.</div><div>
<br /></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Matt Flaherty</div></blockquote><div></div></div><div>In this case someone actually turned the poor guy in, but I'm still concerned that once again the Serious Crime Act was dismissed in favour of the Communications Act, which suggests that the CPS felt there was no need to prove intent under the latter. Although 2 weeks is considerably more time to prepare a defence than the 2 days allowed the <a href="http://flay.jellybee.co.uk/2011/08/foi-request-to-suffolk-cps-about-bury.html">unnamed defendant in the Bury St Edmunds case</a>, it's still really not enough. Section 127 of the Communications Act is not well understood. A court appointed public defender is unlikely to be in a position to give good advice. On a personal note, I have never been more afraid for the health of free expression in Britain.</div></div><div>
<br /></div><div>Here are the contact details for CPS Wales:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Arial, Tahoma, 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><p style="margin-top: 0.8333em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.8333em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><strong style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">CPS Wales
<br /></strong>20th Floor, Capital Tower
<br />Greyfriars Road
<br />Cardiff CF10 3PL</p><p style="margin-top: 0.8333em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.8333em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">Telephone: 02920 803800
<br />Fax: 02920 803802</p><p style="margin-top: 0.8333em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.8333em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">Email: <a href="mailto:wales.communications@cps.gsi.gov.uk" title="[GMCP] Compose a new mail to wales.communications@cps.gsi.gov.uk" rel="noreferrer" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 196, 220); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">wales.communications@cps.gsi.gov.uk</a></p></span></div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-23291943261117196602011-08-21T10:03:00.001-07:002011-08-21T10:08:26.317-07:00FOI request to Suffolk CPS about Bury St Edmunds Facebook caseI've just submitted this Freedom of Information request to the CPS:<div>
<br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><blockquote>To Whom It May Concern:
<br />
<br />I am writing to you seeking information about a case recently heard in the Magistrates’ Court at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk about a 17 year old male defendant who has not been named and has been charged and convicted of an offence involving an update he placed on his Facebook page on the 9th of August. The case has been reported here <<a href="http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/west_suffolk_facebook_riot_teen_was_idiot_1_991897" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/<wbr>west_suffolk_facebook_riot_<wbr>teen_was_idiot_1_991897</a>> and here <<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-ban-teenager-encouraged-rioters?intcmp=239" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); ">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/<wbr>2011/aug/17/facebook-ban-<wbr>teenager-encouraged-rioters?<wbr>intcmp=239</a>>. It appears that the case was first brought before the court within two days of the offence.
<br />
<br />Can you please confirm that the charge in this case fell under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003? If so, please explain why the Serious Crime Act 2007 was not applied as it had been in other similar cases around the same period of time. Also please give details about how the Full Code Test was applied in this case. I’m particularly interested in the evidential stage. Was the defendant advised by the CPS that he must enter a guilty plea if he did not deny sending the offending communication? As the prosecution was expedited very quickly, I would consider an expedited response to my query to be appropriate; therefore, I ask that you please respond by Friday, the 26th of August. Email responses are preferred. Thank you.</blockquote></span>I doubt the CPS will honour my request for an expedited response, but I thought I'd give it a try. If you're wondering why I'm interested in this case, <a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/speedy-prosecution-of-facebook-teen.html">read this article which I also wrote</a>.</div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-41109074562616986942011-08-19T05:23:00.000-07:002011-08-19T05:23:23.136-07:00Arsehole Justice: Speedy prosecution of Facebook teen means no time ..."<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">I am so angry about this that I don't even know where to start, so I'll just start. I may need to actually restrain myself. *Deep breaths* A case was brought before the Magistrates Court in Bury St. Edmunds, West Suffolk last week concerning a 17 year old boy who posted an update to Facebook that has been viewed as an invitation to start riots. I knew about this case when I saw it<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-ban-teenager-encouraged-rioters?intcmp=239" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(34, 136, 187); ">written up in the Guardian</a> a few days ago after sentencing. The sentence was a 12 month ban from all social media and some other non-custodial terms. What was not immediately apparent to me when I read that article was that the youth was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 for sending a menacing message. This is the same charge under which Paul Chambers was convicted and which he is still appealing in what has become known as the Twitter Joke Trial..."</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">
<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/speedy-prosecution-of-facebook-teen.html">Read more</a>...</span></div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2008817907674571160.post-69370544499774106782011-08-17T11:53:00.000-07:002011-08-17T12:12:59.476-07:00New blog - Arsehole JusticeHi *waves*. I'm pissed off about the rushed hearings and spate of disproportionate sentencing I've seen following the UK riots of last week. This has prompted me to start a new blog which I've titled "Arsehole Justice", where I feel more free to express the scorn and vitriol I'm feeling towards the ludicrous prosecutions and ridiculous judgements that have been passed down. Jurists have been acting out in ways that make some of these defendants seem like model citizens by comparison. It really is chilling. Look at <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-cases-criticism-riot-sentences">this excerpt from the Guardian</a>:<div>
<br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; "></p><blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; ">In sentencing four other convicted Manchester rioters, a crown court judge, Andrew Gilbart QC, made clear why he was disregarding sentencing guidelines when he said "the offences of the night of 9 August … takes them completely outside the usual context of criminality".</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; ">"The principal purpose is that the courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offences had been committed in isolation," he said. "For those reasons, I consider that the sentencing guidelines for specific offences are of much less weight in the context of the current case, and can properly be departed from."</p></blockquote></span>This is just such a ludicrous thing to say, and any qualified jurist, let alone a Crown Court judge, ought to know better. It makes a mockery of proportionality, which is an absolutely fundamental principle in British justice, indeed in any decent justice system. These knee-jerk responses to some genuinely terrible events are the real tragedy because they undermine the legitimacy of the courts and ignore their actual principal purpose, which first and foremost is to protect the innocent. As <a href="http://arseholejustice.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-arsehole-justice-andrew-gilbart.html">I've said over on Arsehole Justice</a>, nothing takes an offence "completely outside the usual context of criminality." Nothing. There are sentencing guidelines that have evolved to meet the challenges of law enforcement and take into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. To dismiss these guidelines is to flush any notion of justice down the toilet. I happen to think that justice and the rule of law are important, and so I will not stand for it. If you feel the same way then perhaps you'd like to become a contributor. Let me know.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; "></p></span></div>Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.com0