The answer is: there is no difference. Both say offensive, even violent messages. Both are messages of intolerance and hatred of something or someone because they are different or because they have provoked or offended.

The Muslim man says “Death to Americans” because he is offended by Pastor Jones’ intention to burn his holy book. Pastor Jones is offended by radical Islamists who want to hurt Americans. He believes that “Islam is of the devil” just as many Muslims call America “The Great Satan.”

No one is right and no one is wrong in this situation. Pastor Jones is exercising his right to free speech, as is the man holding the poster. The problem with both men is that they are messages of hatred.

Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion. Christ taught his followers to “love thy neighbour” and to “turn the other cheek.” And regardless of what many people may think, Islam is also a peaceful religion, not one hell-bent on destruction. Just as your average pro-life Christian is not going to shoot a doctor who performs abortions so your average Muslim is not preparing a suicide vest and boarding a bus.

There are fundamentalists in every religion. It is just that fundamentalist Islam has probably caused the most deaths in the last, say, 20 years and garners the most media attention.

The problem with Pastor Jones and his intention to burn Qur’ans is that it plays directly into the hands of these fundamentalists. He is a fundamentalist in his actions.

Part of why many Muslim people dislike, even hate, America and turn to radicalism is because of intolerance like this. While many are hardened in their hatred and no “hearts and minds” rhetoric will ever change it, the next generations are still open.

If America is truly a “Christian nation” as many conservatives espouse, it is time to embrace true compassion and sympathy for people in Muslim nations across the world. Show them true Christian love, not hatred and not “Islam is of the devil.”

In shouting such a narrow-minded and ugly message repeatedly all you are doing is creating a new generation of radicalised men and women ready to put on that vest or hijack that plane. This is not utopia and we can’t “all just get along” but, damn it, we can try not to light fire to the inflammable.

Photos from BBC website

• covering a court case;
• phoning my first ever source or contact;
• interviewing over the phone;
• writing up my first stories; and
• doing a Vox Pop.

Vox Pop is short for vox populi, which is Latin, and means voice of the people. Basically if you see a small mugshot photo of someone in a newspaper, magazine or other publication with a quote and their name and age, that is a Vox Pop. It’s asking random members of the public a simple question such as “Do you like broccoli and why or why not?” or “What do you like most about Christmas?” and quoting them. I managed to get nine people to speak to me and have their photo taken in an hour. I’d say it was a success.

Here are links to my articles:

Maverick Pub

Trading estate racing

Computers 4 Africa

The Vox Pop will be up shortly. Keep checking back for more over the next week. www.chessingtonlive.co.uk

The time for passing the buck is over. It is important to bear in mind that sensitive or confidential documents have been leaked but one must look at the bigger picture. What is contained within those documents and what they point to is that the strategy in Afghanistan has not worked. Worse than that, the strategy may in fact be fuelling further insurgency and leading to a quagmire from which the UK and US may struggle to extricate themselves.

While the security of armed forces is paramount, it must be balanced with a proper scrutiny of the war and its administration and direction. Simply throwing up the smoke screen excuse that releasing the documents endangers troops clouds the issue that we are causing real damage to people and property in Afghanistan and international relations with Islamic nations, which is the original cause of this war.

Osama bin Laden believed America’s foreign policy to be anti-Islam. He saw a country that killed innocent civilians in Muslim countries. Regardless of whether this can be proved, the 9/11 attacks were because of this belief. We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11. If we are now killing innocent civilians we are perpetuating bin Laden’s belief and causing more Muslims across the world to understand his reasoning. We are creating a new generation of terrorists who believe the US and the UK are Islam’s enemies. I argue that this is far more dangerous to troops than the release of documents.

Rather than respond to criticism on the handling of the war both the US and UK governments are attacking the leakers. Instead of investigating allegations that Pakistan’s spy agencies are undermining war efforts, they are giving them more aid and continuing to claim them as an ally.

Instead of being open and honest, admitting the war isn’t working and seeking new solutions, they are attempting to gloss over evidence of civilian deaths, friendly fire-fights, Taliban weapons acquisitions and other atrocities all in the name of not ‘endangering our troops.’ It is appalling obfuscation and answers must be forthcoming. The original goal was to catch Osama bin Laden and oust the Taliban.  We have not succeeded should review our goals with urgency.

Sources:

Guardian

New York Times

As someone who considers herself to be a bit of a feminist, I do not agree with wearing them. I see it as denigrating and oppressive even for those that choose to wear it, forget being forced to. But on the other hand, if I choose to walk down the street in thigh-high boots, a skin-tight dress, clown-esque makeup and big 80s style hair, that is my choice. Am I also not being slightly oppressed by the male-dominated fashion industry dictating what is or isn’t in style that season? Am I not being dictated to as to what is or isn’t sexy or attractive? If I feel the need to wear a skin-tight dress, is this not also denigrating that one must wear such a garment to attract someone of the opposite sex?

There are so many issues at play in this debate. From French values and culture and integration into it, to personal freedoms and choices, religious freedom versus secular intrusion, and of course xenophobia and stigmatisation. What this all boils down to, though, is fear of what is different. The French are an interesting lot. On one hand you have a strong democracy founded on basic values of liberty, equality and brotherhood; and on the other you have a strong anti-immigrant, xenophobic culture that tries desperately to cling to the ‘French values’ and French culture.

What is most interesting about the government’s argument here, that this will encourage Muslim integration and assert French values, is that it is actually counterintuitive. Firstly, by stigmatising and singling out a religious group as being different or ‘un-French’ you are hardly encouraging them to become further integrated into a society that is seeking to restrict them. Can it not be argued that the French government is oppressing this section of society just as much as they argue these garments do? Is this not trading one oppression for another?

Secondly, perhaps French values need to adapt. France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. Does it not make sense that French values should be shaped by new generations? Clearly, oppression of women is not a value any society should hope to adopt, and therefore I fully agree with attempts to prevent women being forced by husbands or fathers to wear these garments; but can you always prove that this is the case? Wouldn’t it be more productive to address the oppression head-on rather than hiding it in a fashion debate?

While the law does not specifically mention Islam, niqabs or burkas, it is very clear who and what it is aimed at. I do wonder whether someone wearing a balaclava (ski mask) around Paris would face a similar €150 fine. There is still a chance that the law will be declared unconstitutional and, personally, I hope it does. While I disagree with the garments and the oppression they arguably stand for, I also disagree with oppressing a minority of people who, in the end, are not harming anyone by their choice of dress.

Sources:

BBC

Guardian

Telegraph

Twitter is a strange creature. You only get 140 characters in which to express yourself. It’s funny; you would think that, as someone who wants to write, I would see Twitter as a further nail in the coffin of the written language. Well, call me a hypocrite then, because I have a love-hate relationship with Twitter.

On one hand, like Facebook, the ability to keep in touch with friends and family all over the world is definitely appealing. It could be part sheer curiosity, it could be part generally interested in their daily lives but either way, being able to instantly see what so many people are doing is an amazement of the 21st century.

Twitter, too, has the ability to connect thousands, even millions, of people across the globe. That’s pretty amazing when you consider how much technology has progressed in just 100 years.

On the other hand, I wonder what is so important as to be sent out in a 140-character message that cannot be lengthened into an email or even…a letter! Shock, gasp, whoa there Old Timer! I’m not saying I want to go back to writing letters, far from it, but it does seem to me that Twitter was designed for egomaniacs. “I am so important. Everyone must ‘follow’ me and I will keep you entertained with snippets throughout the day.”

Obviously, this is not the case for most on Twitter and it’s certainly not the case for me. I joined because a good friend tends to use this more than Facebook and I want to keep in touch with that person. I also wonder what contacts or ‘friends’ I might make as I undertake my journalism training. Perhaps they Twitter and so should I; or perhaps not, we shall see.

I barely use Facebook these days. I think I’ve posted a status about once a week, or less, for the last few months. I’m not a daily updater; I’m more of a big event person. There are plenty of “look at me” people on Facebook and I’m sure these people love Twitter too. Funnily enough, it turns out that even though I have a blog, I’m not nearly as egotistical as I thought, at least when it comes to Facebook.

So it does seem slightly odd to join Twitter knowing that hardly anyone will actually want to follow me. But in the end I just thought “why not?” I gave in to Facebook a year ago; why not also give in to Twitter? I am just a 21st century girl, I suppose, but in the end I may just end up being a “twat.”

The Government wants to reduce the amount payable to a civil servant being made redundant (aka laid-off) and bring it in line with those in the private sector. The minimum amount payable to a private sector worker is a week’s pay for every year you have been with the organisation. If you’ve been there for four years you are entitled to four weeks, or around a month, of pay.

At issue is the fact that some civil servants are receiving the equivalent of up to six years worth of salary. Someone who has worked in the public sector for 20 years will receive two years worth of pay. Depending on how high up they are, this could be as much as £100,000 in severance pay. Admittedly, this may be excessive but the Government really ought to consider the consequences of changing this scheme given their prediction of as many as 600,000 public sector job losses.

Many of the job losses may very well be redundancy, whether that is voluntary or compulsory. Changing the redundancy rules too dramatically will give these people a double blow. Not only with they lose their jobs but they’ll receive far less in redundancy pay on which to live while looking for work. They may also be eligible for Jobseekers Allowance or other benefits depending on their household income. This could, in effect, lead to more spending due to more people on the dole queue.

The other announcement will also not only have the potential to put more people out of work but it could also have an effect on the education of this and coming generations. The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) fund was aimed at those areas where school buildings are very out of date or extra pupil places are needed.

The local authority I work for was to be a recipient of this funding to build a secondary school. School places are much needed in this borough as there has been an overwhelming influx of children in the past few years and the schools are struggling to cope. These students will soon reach secondary school age and, thus, a new secondary school is needed. It is yet to be announced whether we will be affected.

As discussed previously, the private sector feels the effect of these public spending cuts in their government contracts. When the public sector is spending money, such as they would in the construction sector building the schools, these companies benefit from the work. If public sector spending is reined in and, specifically, if these new schools are not being built it could have a huge knock-on effect for the UK’s construction industry. More unemployed people equals more eligible for benefits.

Equally as bad would be the pupils that will end up bearing the brunt of these cuts. Their education provision could be extensively stymied in the coming years due to lack of adequate buildings or resources. This could lead to a whole generation of students less well-educated than their predecessors. While there may be arguments for revamping the BSF project, slashing the funding for much-needed schools is not a good idea. The argument that our future generations will be paying for the deficit we’re trying to reduce now is not valid if you’re cutting education that will equip them to get jobs in this deficit-free future.

In other cuts news the Local Government Association has announced results of its poll of what the public would want to see cut. In an ironic twist the very things the Government has ring-fenced – the NHS and overseas aid – are what the public would like to see cut. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced last week that the Government wants to hear from the public on what laws should be kept and should be scrapped in one of the largest ‘consultation’ exercises. Perhaps they ought to be asking what should and shouldn’t be cut since it seems the public disagree with them dramatically.

Finally, in what is not entirely shocking (to me, at least) news, it would seem women will bear the largest burden of these cuts. Because the public sector is largely made up of women they will feel the effects of spending cuts, pay freezes and budget cuts more than their male counterparts. Further to this are the already-announced cuts of child tax credit, child benefit, the Sure Start and the Health in Pregnancy grants. They say that behind every great man is a great woman. In this case, behind poor men will be poorer women.

Sources:

BBC:

Schools

LGA poll

Redundancy

Telegraph:

Redundancy

Unions

Guardian:

Schools

Unions

Women

First past the post is exactly as it sounds: the first person to gain a plurality – not necessarily 50%, mind you – of the votes, wins. This can lead to MPs being elected with as little as 35-40% of the vote. That means more than half of the electorate did not vote for that person. One would think, however, that an elected representative would need at least 50% of the electorate in order to give their election merit or weight. Knowing that at least half of the residents in your constituency voted for you would empower you with a mandate.

Alternative Vote, it would seem to me, makes this mandate more achievable. Instead of voting for one person, you rank the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes (i.e. more people put him/her first than all the rest combined) then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The second choices from those ballot papers are then redistributed to the remaining candidates. If still no one receives a majority it goes to a third round and the third choice votes are redistributed. This continues until a candidate reaches more than 50%. This system can also be called an Instant Run-Off.

Alternative Vote is similar to that used to elect the Mayor of London. That is the Single Transferrable Vote and you only mark a first and second choice candidate. A somewhat similar method is also in use in America for Democratic and Republican primaries for Senate candidates and for local offices such as Sheriff. The difference there is that the top two candidates go into a run-off just between each other at a later date, usually a few weeks after the first election. Voters choose only between these two candidates meaning that one person is guaranteed to get more than 50% of that vote.

An obvious pro for AV is that it can help ‘third’ parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, and smaller parties. In the past, many voters may have agreed with the Liberal Democrats and wanted to vote for them but felt that this was ‘throwing their vote away’ because it would likely be a Labour or Conservative win. There are a few constituencies where the Liberal Democrats had a stronghold but, for the most part, they were consistently in third place across the country. AV would mean that you could vote for the Liberal Democrats if you wanted, knowing that they have a better chance at being elected as many other voters may have them as their second choice.

Effectively, you get more than one vote. If you are torn between two or even three candidates you can vote for them all and your vote can help one reach that 50% threshold. If you are a firm party member, though, and shudder at the thought of voting for anyone other than Conservative/Labour/Liberal Democrat/etc. you can simply mark them as your first choice and mark no others. Some countries that use the AV system require you to rank all candidates but if the UK does not, you can still vote for just the one party if you so choose.

AV arguably means that politicians are more accountable. While they may not have received a majority of first choice votes from their constituents, they are likely to have received second choices. Being someone’s second choice is better than them not having voted for you at all. It lends just a bit more weight to your election to know that more than 50% of the population voted for you in some way. I think most elections will be settled in the first two rounds. I would imagine it would be rare to have to go to a third round but it will probably happen on occasion.

An obvious downside to AV is likely to be confusion with the system. Going from simply having to put an X in a box next to your preferred candidate to having to rank candidates, some of whom you may have no clue who they are (i.e. Monster Raving Loony Party or Independents), may confuse the population to the point of apathy. Some may just say “I don’t understand the system; I can’t be bothered to vote.” Nothing says that doesn’t already happen but, nonetheless, it may be a valid issue with AV.

Additionally, AV will likely lead to much longer counts. What once could be done in around six to eight hours overnight will now take days to complete. What this may lead to, then, is the advent of more electronic counting. This is a controversial issue and many people do not trust results from electronic counts. Some people fear there may be tampering with code or software or hardware that is used in counting the votes leading to fraud. They also may not trust the computers to properly count the votes. Manual counting, though, can be far more error-ridden. Humans make errors in counting much easier than computers. You or I can easily count two papers at once or lose count and make a mistake much easier than can a computer, especially when that person has been counting for two hours straight and it’s three in the morning.

Overall, from a democracy point of view, I think AV is a good idea. Most voters are undecided; party animals are rarer. Most voters will make up their mind who to vote for in the days or weeks prior to the election. Many other voters, even having made up their mind, may still want to vote for a party that is not in the mainstream. This method allows them to vote for their preferred party first but for one of the mainstream parties second or third. They get to give their preferred party a vote but also can have a part in electing a mainstream party candidate if that is their second choice. Their preferred party gains a vote but, at the same time, they do not have to feel as though their vote has been thrown away because their second choice of a mainstream candidate may help that candidate over the 50% threshold.

On the other hand, having worked on elections and from a purely logistical, systematic point of view, AV will be a nightmare. Confusion with ballot papers and longer, more complicated counts are just two of the many issues electoral services staff will have to face across the country. While it is obviously their job to run elections, it doesn’t make changing voting methods any easier.

So many things will have to change if AV comes in and I don’t think that, on balance, the pros outweigh the cons. The public aren’t so much fed up with the method in which we vote; they are fed up with corrupt or inert politicians and the state of the country. Unfortunately, no voting system will fix that.

A Conservative MP has filed a motion urging Parliament to condemn “England’s pathetic exit from the World Cup finals” and to hold an inquiry into overpaid, underperforming Premier League players. My immediate reaction is “And how is this a good use of public money?”  With the coalition government arguing that public spending across the public sector must be cut dramatically, how can an MP have the audacity to suggest a costly public inquiry into something that is not utterly relevant to most daily lives?

Start an inquiry into why house prices are so expensive. Start an inquiry into why social cohesion is so poor. Start an inquiry into improving the benefit system to avoid fraud. Start an inquiry into why the education system is producing illiterates with no discernible skills. There are so many more relevant, timelier, valuable topics worthy of investigation.  

While I realise that his motion and comments are largely ceremonial and nothing will come of it, it is no less infuriating that this MP feels that rather than focusing helping his constituents he would prefer to rant about the England football team. And while I do agree with him completely that football players are overpaid and underperform, I would advise him that, after the expenses scandal of last summer, he ought to look in the mirror and around the room at fellow MPs if he wants to see overpaid underperformers. The pot is calling the kettle black here, Mr Amess, and you need to stop wasting Parliament’s time – and potentially taxpayer money – with pointless early day motions. I do think some MPs live in a world all their own.

Source:

Guardian

On average that is 600,000 jobs in both the public and private sector so no one is immune. But conversely the Treasury has announced that it believes the private sector will be able to create 2.5million jobs during this same period. They think that they can do this despite a cut in public spending and job losses that will result in fewer government contracts and unemployed people who cannot spend money.

John Maynard Keynes argued that in times of depression or recession public spending should increase and taxes should decrease, which is the exact opposite of what this Government has proposed. This may seem counterintuitive so let’s break it down.

Local government has more money to spend on, say, fixing local roads. In order to do this they must hire a contractor to perform the work. The contractor hires employees of all levels from labourers to project managers. Potentially more jobs are created or, at the very least, no jobs are lost and the business continues to succeed and maybe even turn a profit. With taxes being low, people can have more ‘disposable’ income allowing them to buy goods and services from other businesses and the cycle continues.

Conversely, let’s consider my situation with the current austerity budget. Let’s say I buy a cup of coffee every day from the local coffee shop on my way to work. It may just be one cup of coffee but my £1.70 a day, £8.50 a week, £34 a month, £408 a year adds to their profits. If I am taking home less money due to tax increases or, worst case, lose my job because of the public sector spending cuts then that local business may lose my custom. They make less money and that in turn affects the success of the business. To a certain degree, the phrase “you’ve got to spend money to make money” is appropriate here.

The New York Times has reported on Ireland’s austerity measures of two years ago and how it has affected the economy. They swiftly introduced public spending cuts and tax increases in an effort to reduce their deficit. In doing so, Ireland saw its economy shrink and remained in recession until this quarter. It was announced just today that it has finally moved out of recession; however, the number on benefits still rose in June and unemployment is a whopping 13.4%. To put that in perspective the UK unemployment is currently 7.9%. To have more than 10% of your workforce unemployed is dire.

The UK economy now faces a similar situation to Ireland. With the revelations today that so many jobs are expected to be lost, how can the Government argue that this budget is good for the economy? Shoring up the deficit may be a priority but ensuring millions of people do not face more economic hardship in the process should take precedence. While there are valid arguments for some reduction of public spending – losing a few unnecessary ‘consultants’ springs to mind – making vast cuts across the board when the economy is just starting to recover is not the answer.

The Government said the Budget was going to be ‘painful’ but that everyone would suffer. Well, clearly this is the case since it would appear as many as 1.3million people will soon be unemployed.

Sources:

Guardian

BBC

New York Times:

Ireland

Cutting Spending

If you had to name one of the most troublesome points of law in America, you’d be hard-pressed to find anything more challenging than the second amendment. If you could go back and speak with the founding fathers to determine exactly what their intentions were for this amendment, you would. You would go back and advise them that it needed to be worded differently to avoid hundreds of years of problems. I think people on both sides of the gun argument would agree with me on this.

One interpretation is that it only means that the State has the right to go to war or the right to have a militia. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘to bear arms’ as “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” and this definition goes back to 1795. Then, of course, there is the more traditional interpretation that keeping and bearing arms means simply owning them.

The Supreme Court, though, wasn’t looking at the interpretation of the second amendment in its most recent decision McDonald v Chicago. Rather, it was deciding whether or not the second amendment should be incorporated into the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The due process clause says

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The petitioners argued that “privileges and immunities” includes the second amendment and the “no abridge…without due process” applies to states as well as the federal government. The Court has agreed with this argument which means that laws enacted by states or cities banning handguns are unconstitutional.

In the opinion of the Court Justice Alito states that one of the reasons the petitioners feel the need to have a handgun in their home is for self-defence. I could go into all sorts of arguments here for or against guns but I don’t want to do that. I am not a lawyer but I read the second amendment as saying that citizens should be allowed to own a gun. What does trouble me is the fact that people feel the need to own a gun for self-defence. This is a sad state of affairs for Chicago:

“The plight of Chicagoans living in high-crime areas was recently highlighted when two Illinois legislators representing Chicago districts called on the Governor to deploy the Illinois National Guard to patrol the City’s streets. The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year [equalled] the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq…”

When the second amendment was written, America was a very different place with vast amounts of open land on which animals and killers/thieves could roam freely. Owning a gun to protect your home and family was essential. Today, however, we ought not have to rely on self-defence.

Fair enough if you want to own a gun for recreational use such as visiting a shooting range or hunting. What saddens me, though, is the number of people who can either not rely on or have lost faith in their local law enforcement, such as the petitioners in this case. I don’t want to argue against owning guns but I argue against the need to own a gun. We should be able to rely on law enforcement to protect us and our homes. If this is not the case in Chicago and other parts of America, perhaps that needs to be looked at with as much fervour and questioning as that of owning a handgun.

Source:

Wikipedia

Second Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment