The French report calling for a ban on women wearing Islamic face veils worries me, for a number of reasons. Don't get me wrong, I think the world would be a better place in general if religion ceased to exist, but I don't think banning it, or specific religious practices, is the way forward.

I'd base my reasoning, in part, on John Stuart Mill: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. The wearing of a veil, when done willingly and without coercion or manipulation, harms nobody; therefore, it should be permitted.

The supporters of the report claim that “it is the symbol of the repression of women”; while ending the oppression of women is a goal I'd wholeheartedly support, I'm not entirely convinced that fining women for being oppressed is a particularly helpful solution. Punish men who force women to wear the burka; don't punish women who are forced to wear it (and, for that matter, don't punish women who wear it by choice).

The report also recommends that anyone showing signs of “radical religious practice” be refused citizenship or residence. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, assuming for the moment that “radical religious practice” is harmful to others; however, I suspect that the burka is a much more obvious symbol of “radical religious practice” than anything that might be worn by men, leading to disproportionate punishment of women.

In discussion with members of TermiSoc, I took my position further: though in many cases, religion is harmful to liberty, banning or restricting religion and most religious practices would be in contradiction with the Harm Principle quoted above.

It does not hurt others, for example, for someone to believe that the world was created by an omnipotent being. It does not hurt others, even, for someone to believe that the world was created in six days 6014 years ago, any more than it hurts others for someone to believe that the sky is green or that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. They are almost certainly incorrect, but they have the right to be.

The point at which it becomes legitimate to oppose religion is the point at which it begins to affect others. When people demand that children are taught about the orbitting teapot as if it were fact, or at least likely, oppose it: being taught something as if it is fact when it is not is harmful. When people demand that women wear robes that covers their entire body aside from their eyes, oppose that, and oppose violence against women who don't wear it (in fact, oppose violence against all women) – but don't, as explained above, punish the victims for being victims. Conversely, when people try to demand that someone not wear a symbol of their faith, oppose that – a crucifix or turban harms nobody, and thus there are no grounds on which to forbid it.

When people try to pass laws based solely on their religion, oppose them, because while people may opt into a set of religious laws if they like, such laws shouldn't be enforced upon others. In fact, any laws that are not simply an application of the Harm Principle should be opposed: government has no right to exercise power over individuals for any other purpose, and neither do other individuals.

This was written for week 4 of project52, see others .

A couple of days ago I watched Twilight, for two reasons – one, I thought it only fair that I watch it before ranting about how terrible it is, and two, I was really bored.

It wasn't the worst film I've ever seen; I wasn't forced to turn it off in disgust after ten minutes. However, I think that's probably because I have a lower threshold for boredom than for things pissing me off.

It's not the plot that I have an issue with, per se, as the characters. I think the same general plot could be reasonably good, given better lead characters.

Firstly, Edward. Let's start with the age thing. He's supposedly the same age as Bella – seventeen. However, in his own words, he's been seventeen for “a while”. Ninety years, as it happens. Why, exactly, is a centenarian picking up teenage girls? In what universe is that appropriate? Age differences are all well and good, but he's old enough to be her great-grandfather.

It might be okay, of course, if he was slightly less, um, obsessive and creepy. Let's see – he regularly breaks into her house and watches her sleep without her consent or even knowledge. He stalks her “for her own good”. He repeatedly talks about how he wants to kill her – how, in fact, it's a constant struggle for him not to do so. How, exactly, is that romantic? If that's not an abusive relationship, it's on the way there; apparently he gets even worse in the later books, abandoning her “for her own good”, then returning, only to make her leave her family and friends to be with him (or is it “for her own good” again?).

I wasn't going to comment on the “sparkly vampire” thing, but as I've been writing this it's been bugging me more and more. There are thousands of vampire legends. They share many features in common, and have many more unique points. If you're going to write vampire fiction, you could take elements from any of these to come up with something new and unique – a dozen times over, probably. Or you could make up your own, fitting in with the general vampire theme. I quite like how Interview With The Vampire explains which of the vampire legends are true and which aren't, tying it in nicely with the real world and the millennia of folklore. Or, you could make up something that sounds more appropriate to a My Little Pony than a vampire, explain it away as something that “evolved” as a way of catching prey (vampires “evolved”? how? and how does evolution fit in with Stephanie Meyer's much-vaunted Mormon faith?).

The problem with Bella is the complete lack of a character. She's a face, a name, and a bit of backstory. There's nothing to distinguish her, no reason for her even to exist other than as someone for Edward to fall in love with (supposedly). At first, she demonstrates that she's relatively intelligent (she recognises the square root of pi being recited, completely out of context, and manages to figure out the truth about Edward through research). However, even that seems to disappear once they become a couple, and once she's put in a dangerous situation.

That's the big problem I have: she's in danger, so she must sit around and be rescued by her boyfriend and his family. Earlier in the film, she was perfectly willing to try to defend herself (though, again, rescued by Edward, who'd conveniently been stalking her for her own protection). Now, though, she just gives up, completely incapable of acting on her own behalf. She doesn't even seem to play a role in planning her own escape and the trap for the vampire who's threatening her. In fact, the only part she does play is to put herself in even more danger, so that Edward looks even better when he shows up to rescue her.

Is this really something that should be encouraged? Girls, don't think for yourselves, don't live your own lives; just sit around and wait for a controlling, obsessive, abusive — sorry, I mean “romantic” — guy, then live your life exactly how he wants you to, get married and have his kids (even if it means risking your own life to do so – because abortions are under no circumstances acceptable), and so on, and so forth. Just conform to the strictest, most out-of-date gender roles you can – welcome back to the 1950s!

A few links to finish: Buffy v. Edward, an amusing mashup video (Flash, sorry, but links to other formats), and the writeup that goes with it, plus another article: Twilight's Bella Swan is a Feminist's Nightmare – I particularly liked a comment that pointed out that if Edward wasn't good-looking, his behaviour would be obviously unacceptable, but because he is it's considered “romantic”. I also like all the other comments from fans jumping to Twilight's defence at the slightest hint of criticism…

(And just one minor point to finish off with: I don't know what sort of vegetarians Stephanie Meyer has met, but if you eat animals you are by definition not one. Calling yourself a vegetarian because you don't eat humans is like calling yourself a vegetarian because you don't eat red meat. Just saying.)

This was written for week 1 of project52, see others .

So, I saw an article on ConservativeHome defending David Cameron’s proposal for all-women shortlists, and another opposing it, and the more I read the more I had to comment on it myself.

My first thought was "hey, didn’t Labour try that" followed quickly by "hey, wasn’t that deemed illegal when Labour tried it"; yes, and yes, but apparently it’s since been legalised. Still, I find it amusing that the Tories are doing something they no doubt criticised Labour for.

However, I can’t say I’m opposed at all — as I previously commented, I dislike this sort of "reverse discrimination", but I dislike the inequality it’s meant to fix even more. (Unless you have a better solution to the inequality in Parliament, I suggest you shut up and stop whinging about "sexism" when your party is primarily made up of rich white men).

What really drove me to comment, however, were the replies:

In my experience 30% women is about right. Higher than that and it had better not be a critical enterprise.

Yes, really showing up the Conservative Party as a progressive, inclusive party there.

Doesn’t the fact that the members of Westminster North chose you as their candidate cut the ground from under your argument that Conservative Party members are too prejudiced to select women candidates?

Yes — there is at least one candidate who is not a woman, so that proves that the Tories aren’t sexist! On a similar note:

Did Mrs Thatcher need an all-women shortlist? Did Anne Widdecombe? Teresa May? Edwina Currie?

Four women have been Tory MPs! That’s practically sexist against men, that is.

As someone who is short and bald and 53,what will Dave do for us,perhaps a short bald and middle aged shortlist?

Yes, bald people are definitely discriminated against; look how few of them there are in Parliament, for a start…

Isn’t it racist and sexist to blame the problem with politics on white men? What about Jaquii [sic] Smith, Keith Vaz?

More of the same. "Some women/ethnic minorities aren’t perfect, so that proves that white men aren’t a problem!". Yes.

…the once-Conservative party has been taken over by an unrepresentative clique of non-Conservatives who have about as much idea of what the ordinary Joe and Josephine think and want as does Stephen Fry.

Yes, multi-millionaire David Cameron and "you’re just jealous of my big house" Anthony Steen (among others) have a much better idea of what ordinary people want. Personally, I think that’s extremely unfair to Stephen Fry.

Seriously, I could go on all night. Instead, I’ll leave you with my favourite:

I know they used to call the Tories the ‘stupid party’…

Used to?

Apparently the University of Plymouth Students’ Union is giving away free copies of FHM magazine for Freshers’ Week, along with a number of other universities around the country.

This despite the open letter from the NUS Women’s Officer condemning the “marketing campaign” by BAM Student Marketing, and the fact that the University recently won an award for gender equality.

I’ve sent an email to the President of the SU, and to the Vice-President of Education and Welfare (which used to be several positions: LGBT Officer, Women’s Officer, etc.; I don’t know whether the change is for the better). I’ve also sent a copy to the Equality and Diversity team at the University. Awaiting replies…

Update 17:40: I’ve had a reply from the President of the SU; something I hadn’t noticed is that she has already signed the NUS petition. Apparently, “We will be debating the issue of ‘lad’s mags’ at a forthcoming Student Parliament meeting, to seek further student opinion.”

Harriet Harman is quoted as saying that “One of Labour’s top two posts should always be held by a woman”, and that she does “not agree with all-male leaderships” because men “cannot be left to run things on their own”.

I initially started writing about how I felt that positive discrimination was a bad thing, and that discrimination for whatever reason just harms both the group who are discriminated against, and probably the group who are discriminated in favour of, too.

Then I stopped and read what I’d written, and wondered if I was possibly missing the point by quite a wide margin. After all, it’s almost certainly not me who’d be gaining anything from positive discrimination. So, I had a look for some explicitly feminist opinions of positive discrimination (and came across various anti-feminist pieces on the way, plus one that started “I’m not a feminist, but…I’m in favour of equal rights for men and women”. If that’s not a feminist, what is?). I came across the following quote from former Liberal Democrat MP, Jackie Ballard: “Every liberal bone in my body is opposed to positive discrimination but every liberal bone in my body is even more opposed to gender inequality.”

That really struck a chord with me. I’m not going to say that the end justifies the means, because in a lot of cases it just doesn’t. In this case, though, I sort of feel that it does. A few years of carefully-regulated discrimination in favour of women and minorities, to redress the balance of decades (or centuries, even) of unregulated, out-of-control discrimination and bigotry against them, and working towards a truly equal society, can’t be a terribly bad thing.

Ann Widdecombe’s comments interested me, and Penny Red makes a similar point: she insists that positions should be handed out on the basis of merit, rather than mandating a 50/50 split between men and women. Why, though, aren’t these the same thing? If giving the jobs to the people who will do them best means giving most of them to men — why? Why aren’t there an equal number of women who can do a job just as well? If you think that government positions should be given out on the basis of merit, ask yourself why they’re overwhelmingly held by men.

All in all, a democratic government should reflect the makeup of the population as closely as possible. If it doesn’t, there had better be a bloody good reason why. If there’s a better way of getting there than positive discrimination, but in the mean time (and given that I don’t really have any useful suggestions myself), that’s what we’ve got.

(As an aside, I do have to object to Harman’s comment that “men cannot be left to run things on their own”. That sort of comment is on exactly the same level as “women belong in the kitchen” and such things. Men should not be left to run things on our own; we make up only half of the population and should have no more than half of the political power.)

If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Yes, you are.

(Via The F-Word.)

Wow, what an astonishing lot of bollocks this Cardinal Rouco has come out with. Typically for a Catholic spokesman [1], he manages to make a lot of claims (about how wonderful and perfect "God’s law" is) without even a shred of evidence — after all, why would he need evidence? He’s speaking on behalf of God!

I especially love the nonsense he’s spouting about "biological limits". Though he’s far from clear, I think he’s trying to make two points: a) that legal rights for gay people have come about because of "gender ideology" — feminism? — and b) that "gender ideology" is somehow opposed to human biology. I can’t be bothered commenting any further on this bigot.

Ellen Degeneres interviews Sen. John McCain; he’s completely unable to give a reason why gay people should be allowed to marry other than "it’s my belief! you can’t argue with my belief! lalalalala!". (To be fair, he does support civil unions and opposes the banning of same-sex partnerships, but that’s sort of the point — he supports everything except calling it marriage, with no readily-apparent reason).

The F-Word talks about why viability shouldn’t matter. It’s argued that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is exactly like forcing someone to donate an organ against their will — no matter how worthy the recipient, the donor always has the right to refuse to use their body to support another person’s life.

Some whisky company came out with adverts promoting stone-age gender roles, and this was the response, including things like "your mom built fighter jets", "your mom played sports", and "your mom was a pilot".

I sent a letter to my MP [1] for the first time on Friday, in opposition to the proposal to reduce the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 20. You should do the same; if you’re not sure why, here’s a big list of reasons.

So, some guy has decided that by going to conventions with a group of his mates and asking random women if he can grope their breasts, he’s somehow being feminist and sexually liberating.

I cannot even begin to express how completely and disgustingly moronic and sexist that is. Fortunately, other people have expressed it much more eloquently than I can; I don’t really have much to add to the discussion.

Seriously, what kind of stupid fuck is he? I found this sentence, right at the beginning, particularly moronic:

"…I wish this was the kind of world where say, ‘Wow, I’d like to touch your breasts,’ and people would understand that it’s not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful."

The problem there is simple: you might say that the mind is at least as important as the body, but the fact that you could even make (or agree with) the above statement says exactly the opposite — that the body is more important, so much so that you’re more interested in copping a feel of a woman than you are in getting to know her first. It’s not so much disturbing that this guy could think like this as mind-numbingly, frustratingly stupid.

Another one that was just disturbing was:

By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they… are they good enough to be touched?" And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry.

As some of the commenters on the original article have pointed out, there’s a whole load of judgemental bullshit about body image and so on tied up in that, like these guys are being generous enough to show women how beautiful their breasts are (because obviously that’s the only part of a woman that matters), and the women are lucky enough to have participated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for anything that’ll encourage women — and men — to stop worrying about their appearance, but this is really not the way.

There’s another cringingly moronic discussion on Matthew Garrett’s blog, where some other guy actually attempts to argue that by criticising this "project", people are disadvantaging the (vanishingly small minority of) women who don’t mind being groped by strangers; the obvious argument being that if a woman wants to be groped by strangers, she has many opportunities, whereas the women who don’t tend not to get the option — especially, apparently, at conventions.

Another thing that puzzles me — that again, several people have already pointed out — is, why would you want to grope some random stranger? It kind of devalues the whole thing; there’s no intimacy or whatever there, which I’d always assumed was the whole point of sexual interaction. It comes back to the whole mind-versus-body thing: if the person you’re groping is a stranger, you don’t know their mind, so they’re just a body to you — why would you even want to? Being sexually liberated doesn’t mean that you have to grope strangers, or allow yourself to be groped by strangers; again, other people make this point better than I can. I don’t think I’m expressing this very well, really.

Finally, a comparatively minor point, but what the bloody hell does it have to do with open-source? For a start, I’d rather not be associated with your moronic schemes to get your hands on a pair of breasts, ta very much, and I doubt many other people in the free software community would either. Geeks have a bad enough reputation as it is for being a bunch of guys (I use the word "guys" intentionally, because that’s certainly how geeks are seen by a lot of people) with no social skills and an overwhelming desire to get laid, without people going around and demonstrating that the stereotype is occasionally accurate. Quite aside from that, the term just makes no sense when applied to something that’s not software.

Update: via isako, two entries from his blog that suggest he’s not so much naïve, as I’d assumed, as typically sexist: arguing that if women dress provocatively, they’re "asking for" male attention. Hurray patriarchy!