But the line that triggered it is typically considered politician-poison. And why? Because we have a system which relies upon people who are not intelligent enough to listen to an argument before deciding whether the argument is cogent or not. That system, in case it’s not clear, is democracy using First Past The Post and political parties. Ya boo sucks and I’ll do what I like while wearing this red/blue/yellow rosette and see if you can do anything about it.

The sentence that caused the ‘It’s liberating’ comment?

“I don’t know anything.”

I could claim to know that I believe it is wrong to treat particular sections of society differently to others on the basis of some arbitrary feature or idiosyncrasy. But would I follow my argument to any logical conclusions or would I reach, at some philosophical point, a point where I would have to add a proviso?

If I was interviewed about my political beliefs I could not defend any pre-written ideology to the end. I could not claim to be more able to follow philosophical, moral, cultural or political arguments past the first few bends in the road than the next person. And, actually, very few people have ever been able to. It is why, actually, Greek philosophers and philosophers from a long time ago are still read, enjoyed and debated — there are no right answers.

Politicians in interviews inevitably end up not answering questions. It’s not because they’re stupid, more stupid than the interviewer or, even, because they’re wrong. It’s because it’s bloody hard to make a point that cannot be argued against. And the media that tries to trip politicians up isn’t helping push on the argument.

When a politician says “I believe gay marriage is fair” he’s saying that he does not believe in discriminating arbitrarily against homosexuals. He is not saying that he understands the cultural imperative of marriage (because I’m not sure I do), he’s not saying that it is wrong for a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) to cohabit, he’s not saying that he thinks that the bible is wrong or right, he’s not saying that everyone should like his opinion and he’s not saying “this is what my party thinks”…

He’s saying that he believes gay couples can be as in love as straight couples and they should be allowed to publicly express this in the same manner.

Okay, I know I went off on a tangent about homosexuality but I know it’s a particular divide between the so-called right and the so-called left.

Skip advert

Offensive material: The site linked to below is definitely for mature people only.

So back to my original point:

Can we please stop employing interviewers who are after soundbites. Can we please stop quoting soundbites in the ‘news’. And can we please use the BBC (a public service broadcaster afterall) to remind people that at all elections except those to the EU ‘parliament’ we are voting for individuals not parties.

I am a Conservative Councillor but that doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what David Cameron, John Redwood, Ken Clarke and William Hague believe. It doesn’t mean I agree with any more than a certain proportion of what Adur District Council’s leaders believe and it doesn’t mean that I can be pigeon-holed. In fact I am sure there are Liberal Democrat, UKIP and Green politicians who I share more beliefs with than I do with some Conservatives.

I stood for the Conservatives at the last election to my Ward in Adur and I am still pleased I did that. I shall make an announcement at some stage about my plans for next May (2010) when my seat will next be contested. But if I do contest that seat base your decision on me, not on my party affiliation and not on what the Council as a whole does or does not do (which is a whole other post).

1. Greed
2. Envy
3. Lust
4. Gluttony
5. Pride
6. Wrath
7. Sloth

Now having listed those, let me sling something into your consciousness: most right-wing parties in Europe and the Americas tend to be Christian parties.

Surely if right-wing parties are more often the home of Christians in politics, the policies of right-wing parties must suit those people’s morals? But doesn’t the ‘Loads-a-money’ caricature of 80s Conservativism stinks rather of gluttony, pride and envy?

In fact post-Thatcher Britain has been struck by all of these ‘sins’. Aside from those with eating disorders, I would have thought that everyone has sinned with greed (and those with eating disorders, religion tells us with no hint of sympathy, have sinned with pride). Anyone who enters the lottery and does not intend on giving away all but what they ‘need’ has sinned with envy and would sin with gluttony. Everyone who has watched a football match and willed their own team on is verging on wrath.

I know of no man who has not noticed in an inappropriate way (for the sin of lust) an attractive woman (or man — although homosexuality and religion really don’t like being in the same sentence). And those of us with a mirror in their bathroom have at least a little pride.

In fact, of the ‘sins’ on that list, wrath is best avoided (but is a character trait for some) and envy is truly unpleasant. Aside from those two, I would proudly admit to having committed them all!

Maybe Conservatives and Christians are similar in not thinking about some aspects of life in any detail: How many of us can name, for instance, a deeply religious (Christian) person who has not read the bible? How many of us can name a strongly Conservative person who would secretly admit to believing homosexuality is unnatural? I would suggest that both these positions are illogical and so fit well together in the same person.

New Testament Christians, if they agreed with Jesus tipping the tables in the synagogue, if they agreed that gluttony, greed and pride are sins, if they believe there’s something metaphysically bigger, really should be socialists or libertarians.

Seeing on Faith
Religion might literally influence how you view the world. Scientists in the Netherlands compared Dutch Calvinists with Dutch atheists, looking for any effects potentially imposed on thinking by the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty, which emphasizes that each sector of society has its own responsibilities and authorities. The researchers hypothesize that Calvinists might therefore not be as good as atheists at seeing the big picture. Participants were shown images of large rectangles or squares that each consisted of smaller rectangles or squares.
In some tests, volunteers had to quickly identify the shapes of the smaller parts; in others, the larger wholes. The Calvinists scored slightly but significantly lower than atheists did in correctly identifying whole images. The investigators plan to study other religions for similar influences. See more in the November 12 PLoS ONE.
—Charles Q. Choi

This from Scientific American‘s January 2009 issue.

Adverts

Offensive material: The site linked to below is definitely for mature people only.

With that said I thought I would clarify my comment policy once more. If you wish to be racist in the comments here. If you wish to mock the disabled or the terminally sick then you are free to do so. Likewise anyone that might be offended by your comments is free to bitchslap you verbally in response. That is what debate and being adult is all about.
If a comment of these sorts is made and I don’t respond to it with outrage it does not mean I condone or support the comment. Evidence that I have not taken a contrary view is not evidence that I do not hold a contrary view. It is simply evidence that I’m lazy sometimes, or I have a life and better things to do.

After a bit I do not agree with, he continues:

If you link to kiddie porn, warez or torrents of copyright protected content then you’ll be deleted. If I think a comment is potentially libelous then it may get deleted. Apart from that you can say what you want.

The only addition I shall make is to refer to spam; If your comment links to some dodgy Russian medicine establishment and is quite obviously in no way related to the content of my post or other comments I shall not approve it.

Comment approval is only required on this site until you have had one comment approved — after that your comments will appear immediately.

I have expressed, to the dismay of the Conservatives, my distress that civilian-enforcement of parking restrictions will be introduced in Shoreham, Lancing, Sompting and Southwick. I express, publicly and often, my dismay that there is no party that promises to repeal or amend the Road Traffic Act 1991 and to remove charges for parking on public roads.

But these concerns are nothing — less than nothing — when we, as a country, support the oppression of freedom of speech.

Geert Wilders made some unfortunate comparisons between the Qu’ran and Mein Kampf. Now I cannot pretend to have read either but that does not matter to me. The principle here is that a man of conviction, who criticised a religion not a race, has been stopped from entering this country.

Worse, the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats support this ban (Chris Huhne’s quote).

As I said in 2006, we are under attack by people who would rather control our thoughts and our actions. It’s not enough that we must respect those who do not respect us by law; we must now not say anything against a book written 1,100 years ago. Presumably if I said that the writings of the Ancient Greeks were nonsense, I would not be roundly assaulted by the machines of state, but if I dare criticise a more modern religion I must be censored by the Orwellian machinery?

As I say, I have not read the holy book of Islam or the full-text of the frightening witterings of Germany’s most famous mass-murderer, but some points should be made about Geert Wilder’s claims.

1. The Old Testament could safely be described as fascist if taken literally
2. The principles of Islamic Finance that I have recently studied are about fair trade and commerce — fairer trade than the Western fiscal model
3. Islam is a religion that, unlike Judaism and Hinduism, can be practised by anyone who manages to find faith in the God of Muhammed
4. Criticising a religion, and especially Christianity or Islam, is not the same as criticising a race

I suspect that none of those points could be competently criticised as they are not opinions (okay, maybe the first one but then read Leviticus and Exodus and come back to me), but facts.

Some people accept, and I have to say, I have some sympathy here, that there are things people can say that can manipulate people and endanger other peoples’ lives. It is possible, but to criticise a religion (no matter how specifically) is not to tell people to attack any group or individual. Of itself I can see no way that comparing the Qu’ran to Mein Kampf (or by showing video of appalling atrocities committed in the name of Islam) has placed any individual or group in danger (except maybe Geert himself — from his government, ours and the misguided Muslims that he shows).

I know some Muslims (not many, I grant you, and surely not enough to make any statistical sense) and they are not, as a group, different to any other group. You could find, within any organisation, people who would do bad things or twist the meaning or exaggerate and in this respect Islam is no different. In the same way, a group of people who would normally be expected to be in favour of free speech (the Liberal Democrats) have amongst them the mealy-mouthed Chris Huhne.

Having watched a part of Fitna, Wilder’s video, the quotes he gives are not dissimilar from quotes you would find in the Old Testament of the Bible. If Wilder is guilty of anything, he is guilty of suggesting that it is only Islam which, if its Holy Books were taken literally, could be used to commit atrocities.

It is not news that the verbatim words of some religious texts could be used to commit acts of violence. I don’t have the answers but I do know that blocking freedom of speech is not the answer to greater understanding and liberalism in those Islamic countries that we, as a nation, do not count amongst our friends.

I don’t know how much we can trust the claims of the BBC’s Science and Islam programme but if we can, then we must know that Fitna is over the top; that Islam allowed other religions to live alongside it; and that the aggression in the passages that Wilder quotes (and that could be quoted, as I said, just as easily from the Old Testament of the Bible) was not acted upon even shortly after the Prophet passed on his message.

But it is key, is it not, that I can only make these comments, only criticise Wilder, only criticise Islamic extremists, only criticise people who believe in God (any God), only question people who would do something only because their Rabbi, Mullah, Priest, Vicar or whatever tells them to… I can only make these comments, if the other side is available. We cannot debate without hearing all sides.

How could I convince someone on a doorstep in Crawley (as I did at an election in 2006) that the BNP is not for them if the things that the BNP believe and promote are not public knowledge, if what they say cannot be criticised? The same would be true of Respect, if their version of political insanity was under threat of state-censure.

We need free speech in order to ensure all other forms of freedom and I demand it. We must all demand it. We must all vote tactically at every opportunity, to ensure that this Labour government does not continue on its path.

See also montanareddog’s comments on the Guardian.

Final thoughts “A spokesman for the Conservative Party said it did not wish to comment.” according to the Daily Malice.

My Political Views
I am a centrist social libertarian
Right: 0.44, Libertarian: 5.6

Political Spectrum Quiz

I think this test is actually a little more accurate than the one I completed in June 2006. James Hellyer, where are you?

Watch the whole episode on BBC iPlayer (UK only).

Now, watch the first half of that video (and don’t get suckered in — religion and politics are separate things and I cannot condone the Christian parties that are united behind this candidate) and tell me whether you see anything offensive. I don’t.

Now, back on message:

Vote Boris in London
Vote Kennard in Buckingham Ward
Vote Conservative in Adur

And the BBC’s Have Your Say on the subject is reassuring.

So, I was right yesterday then.

So here’s an extraordinarily brief bit on each of the things I’ve missed:

On May 1st there are local elections here in Adur. If you’re in Buckingham Ward, vote for Debbie Kennard. If you’re elsewhere in Adur or if you’re in Worthing, vote Conservative. And if you’re in another District, Borough, Unitary, Parish, County etc. then check out your local candidate and assuming they’re not insane (hey, I don’t know that their selection processes are perfect) vote for the Conservative one.

Ken Livingstone has five children… Who cares? And even if you do care, don’t read his responses because they’re far too clever. No, instead, ignore the story and vote Johnson anyway.

Car trouble has forced me to use public transport. Sort out the prices will you (whoever you may be) please?

A trip to London, and a savvy companion caused me to invest in an Oyster card. Say what you like about civil liberties (only applicable if they become compulsory in my humble opinion), but they’re fantastic. They just need to work on the rest of the public transport infrastructure and you may find people giving up on their cars (not likely given the infrequency of services to and from some locations).

Embyro Bill

Discussions about the so-called embryo bill set some dangerous precedents. Religions have no reason so claim the right to direct people’s ethics and MPs voting on religious grounds scares the bejesus out of me. If I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s take on ethics (you know, the one where condoms are evil even if they protect African women from their promiscuous husband’s HIV) I am presumably forced to vote along religious lines. In some future where Islamic votes reach a critical point, will people start to find that Islam in the UK is politicised? Is this not the very thing we are fighting in Afghanistan and which Turkey’s constitution protects against?

MPs who wish to violate the whip because of religious reasons should be sacked from their party before the vote’s even taken place. Religious zealots who would put the country on the path to politicised religion in the House of Commons should not be welcome in mainstream parties.

That said, the gradual emergence of primaries in British politics may be the thing we look back upon as the reaon Britain didn’t fall into the politicised religion trap.