Monthly Archives: March 2009

I’m a Republican

Posted on by

I’m a republican and reading the article The monarchy is not ‘harmless’ on LabourList by Graham Smith campaign manager of Republic reminded me how much – in response I’ve registered my support at the Republic website and ripped off Smith’s article in full below.

The recent debate on changing the rules of royal succession has only served to remind many people in this country what an absurd and out-dated constitution this country has. Why, in the 21st century – or in any century for that matter – do we consider the freedom of one family to marry whom they choose a constitutional question? The answer is simple: the monarchy is about power and privilege, it is designed to protect that power and privilege by masking it in the ‘magic’ and ‘majesty’ of royal mythology.

It is one of the great deceptions of our age – the idea that the monarchy is ‘harmless’ or that it simply doesn’t matter. Even Evan Harris, an otherwise intelligent and accomplished MP for whom I have a great deal of respect, suggested this most bizarre of institutions could stay for those very reasons – and because it is ‘popular’. But the monarchy isn’t harmless, and this issue really does matter.

There are two key themes to the republican argument, both are strong arguments against the monarchy. The first is what I often refer to as the ‘princes and palaces’ argument. This basically makes the case that inheritance of public office is wrong in principle, it doesn’t work in practice, it generates greed and deference and it corrupts those it touches.

The second, and perhaps more important, theme is the question of ‘power and politics’. The monarchy isn’t just some harmless decoration, it is the core of the British constitution. It is the source of all political and legal power in this country, it is what allows the Prime Minister to take us to war or to sign treaties without the consent of parliament. It is what enables parliament to whittle away our rights and freedoms without the consent of the people. The Crown is all powerful. It has been placed in parliament, which in effect means we now have King Gordon wielding the power while Queen Elizabeth lives in the big house. But the PM’s control over monarchical power doesn’t make it any more acceptable.

There is no higher authority than our parliament. Yes, EU law has direct applicability in British courts, yes there are treaties we’ve signed which put obligations on us to, for example, not use the death penalty. But these are only binding while our parliament agrees them to be. Parliament is sovereign, it has virtually all the power. What power it doesn’t have the PM has through the use of the royal prerogatives. Oh, and the PM pretty much controls parliament too. So when the nation was debating whether or not we should sign the Lisbon treaty it really came down to one-man-one-vote. And that one man was Mr Gordon Brown.

Britain has the least intelligible, least democratic constitution in the western world. It is a train-wreck of a constitution, deliberately kept vague and mysterious so the people can’t quite get to grips with how it all works. It isn’t and never has been based on the principle of popular sovereignty. Our constitution is based on the power of Kings – the power has shifted slightly, but still ‘we the people’ rarely get a look in, save for the occasional chance to elect less than half our parliament.

All of this can be traced back to the monarchy. That isn’t to say the monarch herself is to blame, although she isn’t above criticism. It is the institution that is at fault. It is open to abuse, it masks the truth about power behind the façade of royalty, it deadens debate and holds back reform.

Our democracy should inspire aspiration amongst our young, it should instill in all of us a sense of responsibility for our politics, a real sense of ‘we the people’. Britain is a great country, a union of nations we should all be proud of, and for that reason we should have the best of everything – and that means the very best democracy possible. That means a democracy based on the notion of popular sovereignty, one where the power of the politicians is limited, not limitless. A democracy that has no place for inheritance of public office, deference and servility.

Tinkering with the succession really is a case of shifting deckchairs. Forget reform, abolition of the monarchy is the challenge and a democratic republican constitution for Britain is the answer. Graham Smith, LabourList.

If you have doubts try reading Republic’s question and answer page, which provides answers to some of the most common arguments against a republic.

Wikipedia Kills Encarta

Posted on by

Encarta the once ubiquitous encyclopaedia is to be discontinued

On October 31, 2009, MSN® Encarta® Web sites worldwide will be discontinued, with the exception of Encarta Japan, which will be discontinued on December 31, 2009. Additionally, Microsoft will cease to sell Microsoft Student and Encarta Premium software products worldwide by June 2009. Encarta FAQ.

Why

Encarta has been a popular product around the world for many years. However, the category of traditional encyclopedias and reference material has changed. People today seek and consume information in considerably different ways than in years past. As part of Microsoft’s goal to deliver the most effective and engaging resources for today’s consumer, it has made the decision to exit the Encarta business. Encarta FAQ.

What tosh companies speak – the way people consume information as far as online encyclopedias go is much the same as it ever was: it’s just Microsoft couldn’t compete with Wikipedia. In the current financial climate Encyclopaedia Britannica must be suffering – why pay £50 pounds for annual subscription or even £5 a month when Wikipedia’s free?

Hat Tip: Ars Technica.

Women’s Rights Sacrificed for the War on Terror

Posted on by

There seems a deathly silence from western governments when there should be an outcry over a new law which the Afghan government has refused to publish.

Although the ministry of justice confirmed the bill was signed by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, at some point this month, there is confusion about the full contents of the final law, which human rights activists have struggled to obtain a copy of. The justice ministry said the law would not be published until various “technical problems” had been ironed out. Jon Boone, The Guardian.

However, it’s certain the law contains legislation to appease the Shia and Hazara minorities ahead the forthcoming presidential election.

The UN says the law legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands’ permission.

Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was “worse than during the Taliban. Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam”. Jon Boone, The Guardian.

We mustn’t accept this, we must speak out, if we don’t we are condemning half the Afghan population to a life of abject slavery. Which I is what our spineless governments have been doing for decades in Saudi Arabia for instance as the Human Rights watch report Perpetual Minors demonstrates. Religion what is it good for – raping an imprisoning women would seem to be the answer from an Afghan Muslim.

I leave the last word to Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women’s affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission who said.

Western silence had been “disastrous for women’s rights in Afghanistan”.

“What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It’s too late for that.”

The Pot Black, The Sun…

Posted on by
Clip of The Sun's Pornification article

Clip of The Sun's Pornification article

A Sun headline reads Pornification of our kids – which is like the kettle calling the kettle black. As you can see in the clip of the The Sun website above the article uses an accompanying picture of a women in black underwear with the description “Disturbing … internet images” – nothing compared to page 3 of the paper. However, apart from the papers typical sensationalism there’s an important point – perhaps as a first step The Sun could put its own house in order by removing page 3 stop chasing women celebrities in the hope they’ll flash a part of their anatomy and the like.

Posted in Sex

The Wire, Get’s its UK Terrestrial Debut Tonight

Posted on by
Michael Kenneth Williams as The Wire's Omar Little

Michael Kenneth Williams as The Wire's Omar Little

Tonight BBC2 starts showing the best TV series you can watch, The Wire. In a major scheduling blunder the series will be show every weekday at 11:20pm so that’s 60 episodes in 12 weeks solid, however if you only ever watch one thing on TV then this is it – and stick with it – The Wire makes no concessions to the viewer in its portrayal of Baltimore; you won’t understand half what’s said to start with (and you’ll never understand everything) but by the end of episode three you’ll be hooked.

Biodegradable Gum

Posted on by

I don’t know what your towns like, but I guess it’s like mine – the pavements are blighted with chewing gum. Chicza have produced the world’s first organic biodegradable chewing gum.

Unlike conventional chewing gum, which contains petrochemicals, the organic chewing gum does not stick to clothing or pavements. And once disposed of, it will crumble to dust in about six weeks, dissolving harmlessly in water or being absorbed into the soil. Rebecca Smithers, The Guardian.

Personally I don’t much like chewing gum, and haven’t tried it so I can’t comment how it compares to more traditional chewing gum. Currently Chicza is only available in Waitrose so it’s not going to challenge the leading brands quite yet – still it’s a start and if it’s successful then maybe all gum will become biodegradable.

Now what are we going to do about the remaining mountains of litter on our streets?

Norman Strike’s Blog

Posted on by

Remember the Miner’s strike? I guess many don’t, it was a defining moment in British Politics, when Thatcher defeated the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). Norman Strike spent a year as a picket and to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the strike he’s publishing his diary he kept during that time as a blog – day by day – a fascinating document from a perspective of a striking miner – which wasn’t heard from much at the time nor since.

Abolish the Parasites

Posted on by

There’s a lot of talk over the rights of succession to the throne, namely that Catholics are excluded and a women can only succeed if they have no brothers.

Gordon Brown said “I think in the 21st century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues.” The Guardian.

Actually in the 21st century I don’t expect to be the subject of an over privileged inbred we should be abolishing royalty, not tinkering with the rights of succession.

Just Call it Rohypnol

Posted on by

[flashvideo filename="http://www.outofrange.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lynxad.flv" image="http://www.outofrange.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lynxpic.jpg" /]

This advert for Lynx is appalling, the man in the advert is ignored by a number of women until he sprays himself all over with the scent from a Lynx bullet he’s whipped out from his pocket, which makes he irresistible. What rubbish, aren’t adverts supposed to contain a modicum of truth? The only thing this advert bears any relationship to is the drug GHB, in fact why don’t they call it Rohypnol – and what does the voice at the end mean when it says “Never miss an opportunity”. Yet more appalling sexist tosh!

To get the sound you might need to click the sound control at the bottom right – there seems to be a little problem affecting some systems – sorry.

Blackmail

Posted on by

The libel laws in the UK are a farce, in fact as Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, writes they are legal blackmail.

Libel laws remain the most significant daily chill on free speech in the UK. Although there is currently a rare momentum for change, with a select committee inquiry and a number of consultations scheduled or under way, it’s likely that politicians will shrink from the necessary radical reform. The establishment’s ingrained suspicion of the press, coupled with some of the media’s more egregious recent excesses, means that the push for reform may be hamstrung by the fear that this would release the media from all restraint. The smears against Kate and Gerry McCann did not endear the press to anyone.

But this attitude fails to comprehend the true impact of libel on freedom of speech. It also ignores the fact that this is not just about tabloids, broadsheets and the bigger media players. Libel also has a damaging effect on the smaller, but no less significant, players. Some of the most important investigations into corruption and human rights abuse are conducted by non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Global Witness, whose work is constantly threatened by libel action.

Independent book publishers routinely factor the spectre of libel into decisions about publishing manuscripts. This is a largely hidden form of censorship: faced with a lawyer’s letter, most publishers have to surrender if they want to stay in business. The book, article or report does not see the light of day – and no one gets to hear about it. This is what Lord Hoffman called “the blackmailing effect”, where the mere threat of action, even if a bluff, is enough to inhibit publication.

The key issue is costs. The use of “no win no fee” (conditional fee agreements, or CFAs) has turned libel courts into casinos. CFAs were introduced in 1995 to ensure broader access to justice. But under this system lawyers can charge a 100% uplift on their fees, creating an absurd situation where legal costs can be 100 times the damages awarded.

A recent study by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University revealed the astonishing fact that the cost of libel litigation in England and Wales is 140 times the average elsewhere in Europe. The introduction of CFAs has clearly had the unforeseen effect of limiting the exercise of freedom of expression in the public interest – and decreasing access to justice for groups that would be ruined by legal action.

English PEN and Index on Censorship have been conducting their own inquiry into the impact of libel this year, talking to editors, lawyers, journalists, publishers, bloggers and NGOs. Such is the concern that media competitors and interest groups who are traditionally suspicious of each other have been prepared to sit down at the same table. There is a strong argument that “no win no fee” is incompatible with the right to freedom of speech under article 10 of the convention on human rights.

The Mirror is making this case in the European court of human rights, having faced a bill of more than £1m after being sued by the model Naomi Campbell in a privacy hearing. Index on Censorship and other NGOs are submitting evidence to the court in Strasbourg in an effort to make the court aware that this is not simply a matter of celebrity or tabloid journalism – it’s about the crippling of reporting in the public interest. Jo Glanville, The Guardian.

Unusually – I wish the Mirror success.

Posted in Law