You're such a queer

Here's a realisation. One that I've come to after 5 and a bit years of going to a C of E comprehensive school in north Kent. Homophobia is commonly used in insults and is deemed nowhere near as offensive as a remark that is 'racist'. The same goes for other prejudiced insults. I wonder why this is.

Certainly, there are more people in the school from ethnic minorities than people who are gay, so this may have an effect.

What makes the whole situation even worse though is the fact that this school is a Church of England school. They're supposed to be peaceful and loving and endorse pretty much everything, yet there appears to be more prejudice there than at any other school I've visited. It's rather ironic really.

I think mainly, insulting someone with a homophobic remark isn't a clear sign of prejudice, more an attempt to degrade the victim because gay people are commonly more feminine than heterosexual men. However, there is still a lot of prejudice around - there probably always will be - and I think it is unfair that certain forms of it are treated far more seriously than others.

Sure, there is a history of racism and slavery worldwide, but if we are trying to achieve equality here, all prejudiced remarks need to be treated with the same attitude.

Eventually, I would like to see any insult - whether it is based on physical appearance, mental state or lifestyle choice - treated exactly the same. With light heartedness. Slowly, we are banishing viewpoints that see other people are inferior to the majority, and eventually I think there will be very little prejudice, but it would be great if the whole thing was taken a little less seriously.

For example, if somebody with a particular hair colour is insulted based on that particular trait, not much fuss is kicked up, but if somebody is insulted based upon their race or ethnicity a huge fuss is kicked up. But there's no difference. It's an insult based on appearance, that's all.

There are regular stories of primary school children being supposedly racist because they insult people in their classes who are from a different race than the majority in the class are - but they're not racist. They're simply acting as humans do. They exclude the one who is different, that they do not understand. There's nothing deeper than that, it's simply physical difference, the same as hair colour, eye colour, foot size, whatever.

So to conclude then, I think that we should treat all prejudiced remarks the same now - seriously - to banish prejudiced viewpoints, then we should work to ensure that insults are all just taken light heartedly. I don't see why it's such a big shock to people who immigrate here that they meet prejudiced remarks - it would be the same anywhere. As long as we all stay human, we will always be insulting each other, using character traits in these insults, so we should attempt to treat them less seriously and attempt to treat all insults, based on anything, the same way.

Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for reading.

Health and Safety

Ever since health and safety has become a business opportunity, it's become progressively more over the top. Regulations have become so strict in some cases that you are no longer allowed to replace the tank on a water cooler, instead you must wait until somebody who has been taught how to lift a water tank safely arrives and does it for you, because if they didn't, you would definitely break your spine if you tried to lift the tank.

Who are these people taught by? The all powerful master of water cooler tanks?

With all these regulations in place, it's a wonder that accidents still happen. Every few years rivers in the UK break their banks and flood entire areas and cause huge amounts of damage. Where were the health and safety checks for areas with a flood risk? The inspectors were probably looking around tower blocks in London winging about hazard assessment and faulty supply cables while their wives are in bed with postmen.

So, when health and safety checks are required and are perfectly reasonable, no attention is paid, and as a result of this, much more severe accidents happen than the ones which are being prevented constantly by teams of health-Nazis who get in the way of busy people while they are at work.

Nobody cares about petty injuries apart from the health and safety squad; if something breaks and a minor injury is caused, nobody usually minds. But if their house is flooded by several thousand tonnes of water and waste, usually they care.

Attention needs to be paid where attention is required, not where the most amount of money is offered. Preventing towns being flooded is more important than ensuring Percy doesn't staple his tongue to the printer again. So here's a message to any health and safety enforcers out there: pull your finger out and do your work where it's bloody required.

Idiots

We see them daily. People who think poking bears is a good idea and whose IQ is usually about equal to their shoe size. Our whole civilization is plagued by them, and unfortunately they're a majority.

It's no small wonder accidents are so prevalent, or crime rates so high, when the majority of people do not want to fill in gaps in their knowledge and banish their ignorance. The problem is, nobody cares one bit. Especially in their teenage years.

Despite the fact that people who are in a position of power are usually intelligent people, there is not much that can be done to prevent accidents caused by incredible stupidity and general lack of care that does not impinge upon your average halfwit's human rights.

But, if every bit of common sense points to a solution of, say, not allowing people under a certain intelligence threshold to drive, why not implement such a solution? Yes, it's all well and good and very liberal to say that everyone should be allowed to do what they want within reason in the country they are a long standing resident in, but this is the only opposition that holds any ground.

I think it seems silly to ensure that more accidents and fights and 'bad shit' happens simply because these fools happen to belong to the same species as us by allowing them to make important decisions. Intellectually, there are many people who are vastly inferior to many of us, and yet they are allowed to make highly intellectual decisions that are beyond their comprehension. Yes, that is a reference to politics. Politics comes into this too.

In such an intellectual and deeply important environment, somebody who believes that there is no evidence for evolution and that setting other people's pets alight is fun and clever has the same amount of influence in politics as a university graduate. I hope this makes as little sense to you as it does to me.

Unfortunately intelligence is difficult to define, so there is no fair test that could be implemented before somebody makes an important decision that would accurately measure how intellectually capable they are. IQ tests vary greatly and have little effect on driving, for example.

So what do we do? Well, we can't do anything. We all have to grit out teeth and resign ourselves to the fact that the majority of the world's population of humans are foolish, moronic, cold-lamppost-licking, tabloid reading, infuriating idiots.

The Monarchy

For centuries the monarchy of the UK had absolute political power and its existence today is viewed by a lot of people as pointless.

I think that governments should run countries and make important decisions based upon what the public want, so I'm naturally against the idea of an undemocratic system.

However I don't think there is any need to remove the monarchy at the moment. Yes, it still has some power, like giving the final say when laws are going through the process of being passed, but it doesn't really have any real power. I think it should be stripped of its political power but there is no reason to remove the monarchy.

I see it more as a symbol of prestige for our country. All the important decisions are made rightly so by our elected government, so there is no real reason to hate the monarchy and to destroy it somehow.

Prince Charles uses the money at his disposal to fund his charity, The Prince's Trust, which has very commendable aims and is a good use of the fortune that the monarchy possesses. The Royal Family don't really get up to much anyway, so you cannot strip them of power that they do not have.

As I've said before, I don't think a wealthy group of unelected individuals should run a country but they cannot be completely destroyed, they are an important part of England and the UK's history, as well as other countries'. The monarchy is still a great symbol of power and prosperity that our country possesses, so why destroy a symbol of success?

If the monarchy was still governing this country, I'd be angry, but as they're not I don't see why some people do get angry about their existence. I say leave the monarchy as it is, it's a nice display of the wealth that this country possesses and it seems to have good intentions these days, so there is no reason to destroy a national symbol.

Freedom of Speech

Personally I think the notion of restricting free speech is ridiculous and insulting. Yes, there are logical reasons that support limiting it, but it's just such a basic and simple right that we have here that is being limited, and I don't like that one bit.

The main reason people argue for limiting free speech is that because words are very powerful, one person can start a riot simply by shouting controversial words or sentences in highly populated areas. This is true, but I seriously doubt that most people even know that saying certain things is illegal, so why bother to invent a law restricting what we say?

As I'm quite liberal, I also dislike the fact that there is a large body of people telling me what I can and cannot say. It's almost like bullying someone into saying only what that group of people wants people to say. I don't take any notice of these laws, and I doubt it will result in me being arrested but it's a ridiculous concept, limiting what we can and cannot say.

As Martin Luther King said

"In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Obviously he used this in a different context, but it can still be applied here too.

Usually actions are illegal. In this case it is speech itself that is being made illegal (well, in some cases) and speech is not an action in the same sense that physical actions are actions. People choose how they react to things, and speech is something that a person has a wide range of choices to choose from when reacting to it, unlike for example being attacked, where you only have two options, fight or flight.

Surely then the government isn't going to let a minority of people who cannot think for themselves and choose to react idiotically to things that they hear and disagree with be responsible for the limitation of every other citizen's free speech in the country? But apparently so. Our government has definitely started to give minority groups good treatment, it could even be argued preferential treatment. But what about the masses? What do we do?

It has gotten to the point now where we cannot even express ourselves using speech without that being limited. We can no longer say whatever we please. That really is quite depressing for those of us of a liberal persuasion. It is a blatant affront to arguably the most important human right we possess: freedom of expression. And where would we be without it? There would have been no revolutions, no banning of slavery, nobody would have confronted injustice. I believe it is imperative that this right of ours is never limited in any way.

I hope this changes, but in the mean time I will continue to say whatever I damn well please regardless of whether some idiot in London wants me to say it or not. Thanks for reading.

Controversial Political Parties - removing them from politics?

There are those who believe that parties like the BNP or others that hold controversial views and policies should not be allowed to exist in parliament. I disagree. Although not a BNP supporter myself, you cannot remove somebody's right to run for election and express their views simply because they differ from the majority of the population's views. There is no right or wrong if something is simply an opinion.

If a party holds highly disagreeable policies, it is most likely that it will not be voted into office if its views are not supported by the majority of the population. It is all a matter of opinion, and we seem to be very good at creating words to brand people with that disagree with the 'basic' views that most of us express.

For example, we have racists, xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists to name but a few. Very soon it seems we may even have 'thought criminals' the way things are going (yes that is a 1984 ref.).

People also seem incredibly eager to protest about anything that is even slightly controversial. Personally I think it's a waste of time - protesters are rarely listened to and even when they are it is only if there are incredibly large groups of them causing a lot of trouble. People seem so eager to protest that they cannot see that what they are fighting for is exactly what they are fighting against.

For example, it is widely feared that if the BNP were to gain office in the UK, many basic human rights would be removed from people (as there is no way of knowing this, it is a matter of opinion as I said earlier). The leader of this party was due to appear on TV on a political Q&A session and there were thousands of protesters that were attempting to remove his right to free speech and right to run for office because what he is rumoured to believe differs from what they believe and could well remove some of the human rights of many people if he ever gained office.

However, by attempting to remove his right to free speech they are simply doing the same thing that he is rumoured to attempt if he becomes PM: remove human rights. People do not think enough about the effects of their actions before they act. They simply see something they disagree with and march into London letting everyone else know that they disagree with it.

Politics has always been and should continue to be a matter of opinion and no party should be disallowed to run for office simply because their views are disliked by others. It's as simple as that. I think that if a party's policies are confirmed to strip people of their human rights, they should not be allowed to run for office. This is because it has gone beyond opinion and begun to impinge upon basic, established human rights. However if it is just a controversial viewpoint, it is down to opinion again and should not decide the fate of a political party.

If there ever was a prime minister or president or national leader who attempted to strip people of their human rights, there would probably be a body of people with the authority at their disposal to overthrow him/her and remove them from office, so there isn't much to worry about. Also, new laws undergo a vast and extremely complicated new process before being passed, and I doubt that any law that impinged upon our human rights would make it through this process.

To summarise then, I believe that anyone, no matter what their views are, should be allowed to run for office, but if their viewpoints conflict with basic human rights then they should be denied office. If their viewpoints are ambiguous, they should be watched over closely if they ever gain power and if they ever attempt to limit or remove the population's human rights, they should be overthrown and an immediate election should be held.

Why am I an atheist?

I've always been a sceptic, and when it comes to religion and the concept of a 'god' I'm no different. Put simply, I believe in what I can see, touch and what seems most likely to be real.

Most of the arguments that are made do not prove that the deity people are attempting to prove the existence of is the deity that their particular faith describes. Most religions seem to have the same basic beliefs: there was a god or deity who created the world and the universe, there was a human prophet, there were some rules laid down and a holy book.

It seems that a lot of people turn to religion because they cannot possibly understand the big bang theory because the human mind is not capable of understanding the concept of 'forever'. And I can sympathise with that because no human can. It's beyond our mental capability to understand it. But that doesn't mean that everyone should immediately conjure up the idea of a deity that somehow created everything and in such a way that is beyond our understanding - simply because thinking is hard.

The big bang theory and atheism appear to be the most rational beliefs out there. Sure, nobody can understand the big bang theory, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than a magic being creating everything in an amount of time so short that it is scientifically impossible. There is also proof that suggests that the big bang theory is correct. No proof of a god.

I suppose another reason I chose atheism is because I like to question everything. I don't like blindly believing in something and living my life the way that a few scholars wanted people to several thousand years ago. I like to be the master of my own destiny and I'll live my life however I damn well want to.

I also believe that it's nonsensical to attempt to explain a complex universe with a complex being. How is one any different to the other? The universe is so complex that we cannot understand its origins, and attempting to explain this with another complex thing that we cannot understand that is based entirely on blind self-belief in an invisible and unreachable deity makes no sense. It's just like going round in circles..

Also, the world is an unfortunate place to live for the majority of its population, and inventing the idea of an omnipresent and benevolent deity that watches over everyone and looks out for them is a comforting image. But why is it so hard to accept the brutal reality of the world that we live in? It's like putting your hands over your ears and saying 'lalalalalalala everything's great'.

So, these are a few of the reasons why I prefer atheism over blind belief. Other concepts just have too many faults for me, atheism actually makes sense. It just seems as if religions were created to attempt to explain the gaps in our knowledge and understanding that we had two thousand years ago, but we've moved on now. We know a lot more, and there is no purpose for religion any more.

However, the main reason I'm an atheist is because there is no evidence of a deity whatsoever. Every bit of 'evidence' that mankind has attempted to provide has been fabricated and produced by humans. Give me evidence of a deity, I'll be a theist. In the meantime I'm an atheist because I'm choosing to accept what is most probably reality.

The legalisation of drugs

My first reaction to this is to legalise drugs that are currently outlawed. This is probably because I believe that anyone should be allowed by their government to do whatever they damn well want with their body. But thinking this through further, it's much more complicated than that.

There is the argument that drugs are no different to alcohol in the effects they have. You consume them, you go into an unstable mental state and you are much more likely to break laws. So you can see why governments want to keep them non-legal. However if this is the case, why not outlaw alcohol? It has the same effects but is a much larger problem because most people consume alcohol. Personally I'm not in favour of outlawing alcohol, but there is certainly flawed logic here.

When abused, drugs can have far more severe effects on the individual than alcohol can. It can destroy families more easily and it can seriously harm their mental state. One argument is that if drugs were made legal, the crimes people would be more likely to commit under the influence of drugs would still be illegal and therefore it would only be something very similar in its effects as alcohol that the government would be legalising. That makes sense.

However the main reason I am against the legalisation of drugs is that it would almost certainly increase crime. Yes, there have been studies and experiments in countries where drugs were legalised and the results were positive, but I think the effects in countries such as the USA and the UK would be completely different to Portugal. There are many more people who currently make vast amounts of money from selling drugs to people, and they would not like their exclusive products to suddenly become widely available, so crime could well increase.

Usually I take a very libertarian stance on issues like this, but in this case I can only see that legalising drugs in the UK would cause more trouble than good. I like living in a relatively safe and stable society. This would probably cause havoc and misery and cause vast amounts of violence and further crime.

Alternatively, some drugs are used for medicinal purposes and I am heavily in favour of drugs being legal for medicinal purposes. If a doctor knows that a particular thing will help his or her patient, why shouldn't he be allowed to give it to them? It's what doctors are for. Having said that, if drugs were legalised for medical purposes they would need to be under strict regulation and the patients using them would need to be checked on closely so that any signs of addiction could be detected before it could develop into a serious problem.