Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uk. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
whichfish.org
whichfish.org is a website I've just launched that helps you easily tell which fish are sustainable to eat. Why? Well...
This picture terrifies me. In 1900, we can see huge tracts of ocean where there are massive numbers of fish. In 2000, the map is empty apart from a small leftover smudge clinging to the American coast.
There are no longer plenty more fish in the sea.
Where there once were swarms of fish so abundant we could catch them with simple nets, we are using ever more sophisticated equipment to locate and catch what little is left of them. Once innumerable fish like cod have been reduced to a few isolated stocks and majestic creatures like bluefin tuna are nearly extinct.
At the same time, a lot of the fish we pull out of the sea is thrown straight back in or ground into fishmeal, simply because there is no demand for them. They don't taste bad, they're just not the fish we're used to eating.
The thing to do, of course, is to eat more sustainable kinds of fish. We know this. But that knowledge alone doesn't help much when you're standing in the fish aisle in the supermarket and need to buy dinner now.
There are some very good sources on what fish to eat, like the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Marine Conservation Society. Both have done a huge amount of work collecting and assessing data on sustainability.
I have combined their data, and data from other sources, and turned it into an intentionally simple web page that just tells you which fish are OK to eat. You can view it on your mobile and download it for offline viewing as well. It can help you make a quick decision on what's for dinner.
Give it a spin. It should display well on most mobile phones, and if you have an iPhone or similar, you can also download the site for offline use, so you don't need a signal to be able to use it.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Things to make and do
Here comes a link-post of interesting and worthwhile things, cross-posted from my personal blog. (As such, a couple of points are only locally relevant; sorry about that.)
- Project V (#ProjV on Twitter) is a campaign to get people to realise the impact that denying Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to those who need it would have, organised by The Broken of Britain. It was designed to coincide with the end of the consultation on reform of DLA, on the 14th February, but the consultation has now been extended until the 18th. You can read contributors' tweet-length stories here. What you can do to help (from here):
- Meanwhile in Cambridge, the city council are planning to close the ground-floor, accessible public toilets in Lion Yard shopping centre on very shaky grounds, moving them to smaller and less accessible quarters on the first floor. Apparently they will be debating the subject on Thursday (tomorrow), thanks to the Cambridge Forum for Disabled People's work to raise the profile of the issue. If you're in Cambridge, please do read the text of their leaflet send off a quick email to the council asking them to reconsider (directions at link)!
- More Cambridge-based stuff: the launch event for the brilliant
Think Outside The Box campaign is happening on the 24th February.
Details:
Think Outside The Box Launch, Thursday 24th February, 7:30pm, Cavonius Centre, in the Stephen Hawking Building, Caius' Harvey Court site off West Road.
The Think Outside The Box Campaign has been launched! It started with the simple idea of not forcing people into the boxes of 'male' and 'female' and now has a range of recommendations which challenge many day-to-day ways in which society tries to force us all into the gender binary. The Campaign focuses on access for and awareness of non-binary-gendered people (including gender queer, polygendered, bigendered, agendered, androgynous people) but the benefits are far wider for anyone who doesn't want to have to constantly declare a binary gender. To find out more see the website at www.lgbt.cusu.cam.ac.uk/think.
We're having a launch meeting, come along to find out about the campaign, ask questions about the reasons behind the campaign or discuss plans for the future, both local and national. There'll be an introduction for people new to the issues and then a discussion so bring your questions, your ideas, your concerns and your enthusiasm and help us get this campaign going both in Cambridge and outside.
- Via Saranga (see her post for more information), please support the Norwich Eating Disorders Association and the Abortion Support Network, both of which do vital work but are being threatened by lack of funds.
- Moving to the international, The Godmothers is a way to get involved with helping the UN's new women's agency. I've seen links to it in a few places but The F-Word blog (naturally -- how I love it) has a good write-up here. From the front page of The Godmothers' website:
- I haven't actually read this article yet (ho ho, I thought posting some links would be quick and it's taken most of the evening), but here is one of my favourite bloggers, Merrick Godhaven, debating Philippe Duhamel on the question: Is property damage in protest justified?
- If anyone has read through this whole list -- and maybe sent a few emails -- you deserve a reward. Here's some really beautiful art: a billboard replaced by a swingset for two.
Whatever the reason, we now have 4 more days of the DLA Reform consultation so let us use it well. Write, e,mail, and send a Valentine to your MPs, MSPs and AMs, asking them to oppose DLA reform, tweet your story at #ProjV, and use the extra time well!
Worldwide more than 60 million girls have been forced into early marriage. Of the 780 million people who can't read, 510 million are female. Women work two thirds of the world's working hours but earn just 10% of the income.
The new UN women's agency could put a stop to all this. But to fulfil its promise it needs your help.
They are currently inviting people to take part in their first action, calling on parliamentarians to sign an Early Day Motion calling for proper funding for UN Women.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Halt the deportation of Brenda Namigadde
Brenda Namigadde is a Ugandan lesbian who fled to the UK in 2003 after receiving threats and having her house destroyed. Now she is due to be deported back to Uganda, despite the extreme danger this would put her in.
Why? Well, a LGBT activist called David Kato was beaten to death in Uganda just yesterday, and there is currently a bill pending in their parliament to make homosexuality punishable by death. The author of this bill himself is aware of Namigadde and has said that she must "repent and reform" or will be "punished".
Yet the Border Agency and Home Office want to deport her, arguing that there is "insufficient evidence" that she is a lesbian. As if that matters. If the murderous homophobes in Uganda think she is, she is in grave danger. And if she sets foot in Uganda, she is certain to be detained, and will probably just vanish, much as many of her friends have.
This is about as clear-cut as it gets. If Brenda Namigadde returns to Uganda, she will probably not survive. So I urge you to sign this petition to Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, to stop her deportation.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Julian Assange and Rape-Rape
This may be a rather controversial post, so I will have an extremely short temper with anyone who does not actually read what it says on the page. In that spirit, this comes with three disclaimers:
Disclaimer 1: I think Wikileaks' actions are excellent and necessary. The Iraq and Afghanistan war logs show that we cannot trust governments to do what is right in the absence of transparency. They will abuse our trust to cover up killing journalists, spying on the UN, and letting outlawed munitions into the country. I look forward to further leaks, especially to the ones promised early next year featuring the deeds of a major US bank. And they make me hopeful that individuals can in fact challenge those who consider themselves beyond human accountability.
Disclaimer 2: Julian Assange does not equal Wikileaks. One can fall while the other survives. If Assange were to blink out of existence tomorrow morning, the leaks would continue. If he were assassinated, as some US politicians who should really know better have suggested, the leaks would happen a lot faster, courtesy of the infamous insurance file. And if it turns out that Assange is actually a horrible person, this does not invalidate what Wikileaks has done. They are not the same.
Disclaimer 3: Assange has just been arrested in the UK to be extradited to Sweden on charges of rape. (Having walked into a police station of his own accord with the intent to fight the extradition to Sweden, mind). He says that the allegations are false and orchestrated by the US. The two women who have accused him say otherwise. Swedish prosecutors are acting in a strange manner by refusing to actually communicate with him.
It's possible that Assange is right, and that the charges are bogus and a result of US pressure on Sweden. But it's also possible that Assange is in fact guilty of rape. I don't want that to be the case, but we can't just dismiss that possibility because we don't like it.
Now, assuming the charges are genuine:
What exactly is he accused of? Most news sources just recount the unhelpful official arrest warrant. But according to Feministe, his actual deed is this: "in one case, condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn't, and the woman didn't realize it until after they had sex; in the second case, it sounds like the condom broke and the woman told Assange to stop, which he did not".
At this point, I'm going to make a cruel comparison using a made-up summary:
"Well-travelled man, his work beloved by many, is accused of rape. Supporters rush to side, saying 'it was not really rape, those who say otherwise have ulterior motives'."
When Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland last year, his supporters rushed to his side, voicing their anger that such a great man would be so unfairly hounded. When challenged, they would tend to downplay Polanski's crime. Whoopi Goldberg infamously explained on TV that Polanski's sexual assault of a thirteen year old was not "rape-rape": not actual, proper rape.
Many people now say that what Assange is accused of is not rape but simply a bit of naughtiness, not a very nice thing to do, but not enough to warrant arrest. Sometimes this is because the crucial fact that he did not stop when told to is omitted by many reports, but others simply don't see what he did as rape. "Rape", to many people, is half-human monsters lurking near bus stops waiting to assault total strangers, not a "disagreement in the bedroom".
But if we actually want to clearly define rape, we end up with something like "sexual intercourse without consent". Polanski is definitely guilty of this. So is Assange, according to the women he slept with in Sweden. It makes me wince to see people who were baying for Polanski's blood now refuse to entertain the idea that Assange may be guilty of rape.
As a Swiss, it also makes me extremely angry to see a Swiss bank close Assange's account on a technicality, given that the Swiss government, having nabbed Polanski, ended up releasing him again, on a technicality. It seems such technicalities always crop up whenever there is sufficient political pressure.
But here's the thing: It is possible for Julian Assange to be both a crusader for openness and a rapist. After all, Polanski is both an accomplished director and a rapist.
Famous people are never entirely good or entirely evil. All human beings have flaws and contradictions. Assange can be a maven on political freedoms and a dunce on sexual ones. He can have a sophisticated moral compass in politics and still think "I don't like wearing condoms, and I'm not going to be told otherwise".
This does not excuse his actions. We can't simply offset a person's good deeds against their bad ones and judge them on the result. It may be that the right thing to happen is for Assange to go to prison for rape and for Wikileaks to continue leaking state secrets. After all, they are not the same thing.
We must evaluate Wikileaks' actions on their own merits and not confuse them with those of its figurehead.
Disclaimer 1: I think Wikileaks' actions are excellent and necessary. The Iraq and Afghanistan war logs show that we cannot trust governments to do what is right in the absence of transparency. They will abuse our trust to cover up killing journalists, spying on the UN, and letting outlawed munitions into the country. I look forward to further leaks, especially to the ones promised early next year featuring the deeds of a major US bank. And they make me hopeful that individuals can in fact challenge those who consider themselves beyond human accountability.
Disclaimer 2: Julian Assange does not equal Wikileaks. One can fall while the other survives. If Assange were to blink out of existence tomorrow morning, the leaks would continue. If he were assassinated, as some US politicians who should really know better have suggested, the leaks would happen a lot faster, courtesy of the infamous insurance file. And if it turns out that Assange is actually a horrible person, this does not invalidate what Wikileaks has done. They are not the same.
Disclaimer 3: Assange has just been arrested in the UK to be extradited to Sweden on charges of rape. (Having walked into a police station of his own accord with the intent to fight the extradition to Sweden, mind). He says that the allegations are false and orchestrated by the US. The two women who have accused him say otherwise. Swedish prosecutors are acting in a strange manner by refusing to actually communicate with him.
It's possible that Assange is right, and that the charges are bogus and a result of US pressure on Sweden. But it's also possible that Assange is in fact guilty of rape. I don't want that to be the case, but we can't just dismiss that possibility because we don't like it.
Now, assuming the charges are genuine:
What exactly is he accused of? Most news sources just recount the unhelpful official arrest warrant. But according to Feministe, his actual deed is this: "in one case, condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn't, and the woman didn't realize it until after they had sex; in the second case, it sounds like the condom broke and the woman told Assange to stop, which he did not".
At this point, I'm going to make a cruel comparison using a made-up summary:
"Well-travelled man, his work beloved by many, is accused of rape. Supporters rush to side, saying 'it was not really rape, those who say otherwise have ulterior motives'."
When Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland last year, his supporters rushed to his side, voicing their anger that such a great man would be so unfairly hounded. When challenged, they would tend to downplay Polanski's crime. Whoopi Goldberg infamously explained on TV that Polanski's sexual assault of a thirteen year old was not "rape-rape": not actual, proper rape.
Many people now say that what Assange is accused of is not rape but simply a bit of naughtiness, not a very nice thing to do, but not enough to warrant arrest. Sometimes this is because the crucial fact that he did not stop when told to is omitted by many reports, but others simply don't see what he did as rape. "Rape", to many people, is half-human monsters lurking near bus stops waiting to assault total strangers, not a "disagreement in the bedroom".
But if we actually want to clearly define rape, we end up with something like "sexual intercourse without consent". Polanski is definitely guilty of this. So is Assange, according to the women he slept with in Sweden. It makes me wince to see people who were baying for Polanski's blood now refuse to entertain the idea that Assange may be guilty of rape.
As a Swiss, it also makes me extremely angry to see a Swiss bank close Assange's account on a technicality, given that the Swiss government, having nabbed Polanski, ended up releasing him again, on a technicality. It seems such technicalities always crop up whenever there is sufficient political pressure.
But here's the thing: It is possible for Julian Assange to be both a crusader for openness and a rapist. After all, Polanski is both an accomplished director and a rapist.
Famous people are never entirely good or entirely evil. All human beings have flaws and contradictions. Assange can be a maven on political freedoms and a dunce on sexual ones. He can have a sophisticated moral compass in politics and still think "I don't like wearing condoms, and I'm not going to be told otherwise".
This does not excuse his actions. We can't simply offset a person's good deeds against their bad ones and judge them on the result. It may be that the right thing to happen is for Assange to go to prison for rape and for Wikileaks to continue leaking state secrets. After all, they are not the same thing.
We must evaluate Wikileaks' actions on their own merits and not confuse them with those of its figurehead.
Friday, 3 September 2010
What would you do with £20million?
In September, Pope Benedict XVI will pay a state visit to the United Kingdom. The cost of the visit will be at least £20,000,000, not including security. This is a staggering amount to spend in order to welcome the head of a state (the Vatican City) and head of an organisation which have been responsible for:
Several groups have joined together to organise a protest against the Pope, on Saturday 18th September at 1.30pm, at Hyde Park Corner, London. For more information, see Protest the Pope.
Another website to check out is 20million.org, where you can see other people's suggestions of what they'd do with £20,000,000 and submit them yourself, if you are on Twitter. Some examples:
This isn't a matter of the Pope being allowed to visit the UK as a religious leader, which of course he is entitled to do, but of the type of head of state whom the British government thinks it is appropriate to offer a state reception to.
There is a lot more information available at the links above if you're interested in having your say on the issue.
- opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS
- promoting segregated education
- denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women
- opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people
- failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
- rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.
Several groups have joined together to organise a protest against the Pope, on Saturday 18th September at 1.30pm, at Hyde Park Corner, London. For more information, see Protest the Pope.
Another website to check out is 20million.org, where you can see other people's suggestions of what they'd do with £20,000,000 and submit them yourself, if you are on Twitter. Some examples:
-- this quote was brought to you by quoteurl
rmc47 http://20million.org - If I had #20million... I'd spend it on educating people about scientific principles, and how statistics works.
SimonCarpentier http://20million.org - If I had #20million, I would invest in renewable energy, technology, and alternative transport
kalpana_s http://20million.org - If I had #20million, I would start developing a literacy programme that works in favour of African countries!
Joeyfr88 http://20million.org - if I had #20million, I would donate it all to mental health charities.
This isn't a matter of the Pope being allowed to visit the UK as a religious leader, which of course he is entitled to do, but of the type of head of state whom the British government thinks it is appropriate to offer a state reception to.
There is a lot more information available at the links above if you're interested in having your say on the issue.
Monday, 8 February 2010
On the pointless embrace of mandatory flowers
In less than a week's time it will be Valentine's day, that most manufactured of holidays, when we are asked to buy flowers and chocolate and dinners for our partners - mostly by the people selling flowers and chocolate and dinners.
But to put it bluntly, if your partner doesn't know you love them by now, you've got bigger problems. And any romantic gesture done on the 14th is diminished: did you buy those flowers out of love, or out of habit? Isn't it frankly demeaning to be told how to conduct our love lives by a bunch of advertisers?
So how about, this Valentine's day, use the money you'd spend on dinner and flowers to donate to the Red Cross to help in Haiti.
Of course, the difficulty with saying "I don't want to do anything for Valentine's day" is that neither side wants to make the first step. So to help matters, avail yourself of this handy and to-the-point e-card:
I love you. I know you love me.
Don't get me anything for Valentine's day, help the people in Haiti and donate to the Red Cross instead.
Use the following convenient form to send it:
(Forward this via twitter and
and 
reddit and 
delicious and and and and to free more people from the pointless embrace of mandatory flowers.)
But to put it bluntly, if your partner doesn't know you love them by now, you've got bigger problems. And any romantic gesture done on the 14th is diminished: did you buy those flowers out of love, or out of habit? Isn't it frankly demeaning to be told how to conduct our love lives by a bunch of advertisers?
So how about, this Valentine's day, use the money you'd spend on dinner and flowers to donate to the Red Cross to help in Haiti.
Of course, the difficulty with saying "I don't want to do anything for Valentine's day" is that neither side wants to make the first step. So to help matters, avail yourself of this handy and to-the-point e-card:
I love you. I know you love me.
Don't get me anything for Valentine's day, help the people in Haiti and donate to the Red Cross instead.
Use the following convenient form to send it:
(Forward this via twitter and
and reddit and delicious and and and and to free more people from the pointless embrace of mandatory flowers.)Thursday, 7 January 2010
Homeopathic "cure"
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for a variety of treatments that fall outside of the traditional medical realm. This includes practises such as hypnosis, chiropractic and homeopathy. I'm not a firm believer in such treatments myself, but the practitioners and regulatory bodies of CAM seem intent on not allowing the scientific community a chance to argue with actual facts.
This is most obvious in the recent libel case brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. Despite not having provided any evidence to prove that their practice works they were allowed to bring a case against Mr Singh for an article against the use of chiropractic for treatment of colic. The fear against legal action that denouncing CAM could bring is, in my opinion, stifling the progressive and active research and publication of evidence for or against such practices.
Luckily there is something we can do. A campaign, named Ten23, has been started to raise awareness of Homeopathic practices and question their place alongside legitimate medicine. The campaign isn't aiming to spread unsubstantiated (or substantiated for that matter) claims about Homeopathy's lack of efficacy, but to merely highlight the theories and reasoning behind such treatments.
Please take a look at the site and sign their open letter to Boots the Chemist requesting that Homeopathic treatments aren't marketed alongside actual medicine.
Sign up here.
This is most obvious in the recent libel case brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. Despite not having provided any evidence to prove that their practice works they were allowed to bring a case against Mr Singh for an article against the use of chiropractic for treatment of colic. The fear against legal action that denouncing CAM could bring is, in my opinion, stifling the progressive and active research and publication of evidence for or against such practices.
Luckily there is something we can do. A campaign, named Ten23, has been started to raise awareness of Homeopathic practices and question their place alongside legitimate medicine. The campaign isn't aiming to spread unsubstantiated (or substantiated for that matter) claims about Homeopathy's lack of efficacy, but to merely highlight the theories and reasoning behind such treatments.
Please take a look at the site and sign their open letter to Boots the Chemist requesting that Homeopathic treatments aren't marketed alongside actual medicine.
Sign up here.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Carter-Ruck back down
The Guardian reports that Trafigura's legal firm, Carter-Ruck, has abandoned its attempt to gag the Guardian's parliamentary reporting.
The question was asked by MP Paul Farrelly, and went as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."
Which underlines what kind of scum Trafigura and Carter-Ruck are.
The question was asked by MP Paul Farrelly, and went as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."
Which underlines what kind of scum Trafigura and Carter-Ruck are.
Guardian gagged from reporting UK parliament; bye-bye press freedoms?
The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
— The Guardian, "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", 2009-10-13
I was going to do some work this morning, but urgent news has interfered. Today, the Guardian reports that they have been banned from reporting on a question asked in Parliament. This contravenes the Bill of Rights and basic human rights of freedom of the press and free speech, and is particularly ludicrous given that the question is on public record, and can be found on parliament's website.
Despite the fact that I perfectly well know the reasons behind the ban and what they're trying to hide, I cannot put them here on this page - the legal situation appears to be unpleasant and hairy in the extreme, thanks again to UK libel law. However, I very much encourage you to read the article, and to conduct your own research from thereon. I'm sure you'll be able to find what you're looking for with some digging...
Interestingly, BBC News is completely silent on the topic. Hopefully that's because they're scared of legal action, not because they don't care about civil liberties. Anyway, I would very much appreciate it if you could give them a nudge by sending them a message asking them to cover the Guardian gag.
Furthermore, please write to your MPs and ask them to bring up this issue in parliament.
— The Guardian, "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament", 2009-10-13
I was going to do some work this morning, but urgent news has interfered. Today, the Guardian reports that they have been banned from reporting on a question asked in Parliament. This contravenes the Bill of Rights and basic human rights of freedom of the press and free speech, and is particularly ludicrous given that the question is on public record, and can be found on parliament's website.
Despite the fact that I perfectly well know the reasons behind the ban and what they're trying to hide, I cannot put them here on this page - the legal situation appears to be unpleasant and hairy in the extreme, thanks again to UK libel law. However, I very much encourage you to read the article, and to conduct your own research from thereon. I'm sure you'll be able to find what you're looking for with some digging...
Interestingly, BBC News is completely silent on the topic. Hopefully that's because they're scared of legal action, not because they don't care about civil liberties. Anyway, I would very much appreciate it if you could give them a nudge by sending them a message asking them to cover the Guardian gag.
Furthermore, please write to your MPs and ask them to bring up this issue in parliament.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Trafigura: An Opinion Piece. Opinion! No facts here!
As I have previously mentioned, UK libel law is quite unusual in that it essentially places the burden of proof onto the accused rather than the accuser. Also, the defence costs, even if the defence is successful, have to be carried by the accused, and the costs can easily be half a million pounds. This leaves most organisations and individuals with no choice other than not to contest the suit and having to retract their statements.
On a completely unrelated note, have a series of links to some interesting - but potentially libellous and untrue - news articles about oil trading company Trafigura:
In my personal opinion...
Wait, am I allowed to have an opinion on this?
I'm not entirely certain. I was under the impression that people were generally allowed to have an opinion, but recent events have somewhat dented that idea.
So you're just going to have to form your own. But then you must keep it to yourself, or at least not mention it within sight or earshot of Trafigura's lawyers...
On a completely unrelated note, have a series of links to some interesting - but potentially libellous and untrue - news articles about oil trading company Trafigura:
- How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster, The Guardian, Wednesday 16 September
- Trafigura knew of waste dangers, BBC News, Wednesday 16 September
- Call for murder charges to be brought over toxic dumping, The Independent, Friday 18 September
In my personal opinion...
Wait, am I allowed to have an opinion on this?
I'm not entirely certain. I was under the impression that people were generally allowed to have an opinion, but recent events have somewhat dented that idea.
So you're just going to have to form your own. But then you must keep it to yourself, or at least not mention it within sight or earshot of Trafigura's lawyers...
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Quick Link: How to Organise a Demonstration
I thought readers here might be interested in Carrie Supple's article for The F-Word: How to organise a demonstration:
In this case study, Carrie Supple explains how she and Louise Morris organised a protest to support Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein - and how you can use the same techniques to organise a demo for your campaign too.
Monday, 14 September 2009
A famous face
Zarkonnen's description of the purpose of this blog is that it is a place to practically make the world a little better. I am hoping that posting this here will help something be done about the focus of my post today, TV chef James Martin.
In an article in The Mail on Sunday motoring section he describes how endangering cyclists by "skimming" them and implies he causes them to either crash or certainly come near. I know that it can be challenging for some people to understand the appeal of cycling, but in the UK as in almost all countries cyclists have equal rights on the road and are much more vulnerable road users.
The article itself does not fall foul of the guidelines set out by the Press Complaints Commission, even though he explicitly describes breaking the law and endangering others, but for this reason I feel that complaints against this article should be sent to the BBC. As his main employer he is a representitive of the corporation on TV and in this article puts himself and the BBC into disrepute.
The letter example below is taken from the Bike Radar forums, but can be adjusted and sent to the BBC complaints department. It isn't their fault that his article was published, but I don't want a public body that I help to fund to keep such a person on their payroll.
In an article in The Mail on Sunday motoring section he describes how endangering cyclists by "skimming" them and implies he causes them to either crash or certainly come near. I know that it can be challenging for some people to understand the appeal of cycling, but in the UK as in almost all countries cyclists have equal rights on the road and are much more vulnerable road users.
The article itself does not fall foul of the guidelines set out by the Press Complaints Commission, even though he explicitly describes breaking the law and endangering others, but for this reason I feel that complaints against this article should be sent to the BBC. As his main employer he is a representitive of the corporation on TV and in this article puts himself and the BBC into disrepute.
The letter example below is taken from the Bike Radar forums, but can be adjusted and sent to the BBC complaints department. It isn't their fault that his article was published, but I don't want a public body that I help to fund to keep such a person on their payroll.
I wish to formally complain about the comments made by the presenter James Martin in a column in the Daily Mail newspaper. Whilst I recognise that this is beyond the control of the BBC the presenter is one the public faces of the corporation and receives funding from licence payers.
James Martin specifically admits to causing cyclists distress and possible injury by his actions. The admissions, if substantiated, could well result in prosecution for Inconsiderate Driving, Driving Without Due Care And Attention or even Common Assault. The behaviour of James Martin as described in his column are not those which I have come to expect from the BBC. I would be grateful if you could explore the admissions and recontact me with the results of your findings. The article can be found below.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1211917/JAMES-MARTIN-The-Tesla-Roadster-electric-supercar-thats-fast-Ferrari.html
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Bluefin Update
As stated in my last post, the fate of bluefin tuna is currently being discussed in the European Union's political machinery. When I was writing the last post, the European Commission were about to decide on whether to back the addition of bluefin to CITES, which would make the tuna a protected species and outlaw trade in its meat - giving stocks a chance to recover after years of mis-management.
The EC have now decided to back the application to CITES, which is excellent news. However, according to Reuters, "[...] the EU will not fully commit until its 27 member countries have been consulted on September 21 or before new scientific data emerges in November".
The problem with waiting until November is that the application deadline to CITES is on 14 October! Hence, waiting for the new data, while it may sound reasonable on the surface, is pretty much a delaying tactic aimed at preventing the CITES application from going through this year. I'm really not sure what extra scientific data would be needed - bluefin tuna is clearly being fished to extinction, and the current stock management is clearly ineffectual.
Which means that it's now more important than ever to write to your MEPs and tell them to support the immediate addition of bluefin to CITES Appendix I. You can use this letter as a guide, but it's better if you use your own words. The earlier post also contains more background information.
Using WriteToThem is really quick and straightforward, and even a quick (if polite line) is far better than nothing.
The EC have now decided to back the application to CITES, which is excellent news. However, according to Reuters, "[...] the EU will not fully commit until its 27 member countries have been consulted on September 21 or before new scientific data emerges in November".
The problem with waiting until November is that the application deadline to CITES is on 14 October! Hence, waiting for the new data, while it may sound reasonable on the surface, is pretty much a delaying tactic aimed at preventing the CITES application from going through this year. I'm really not sure what extra scientific data would be needed - bluefin tuna is clearly being fished to extinction, and the current stock management is clearly ineffectual.
Which means that it's now more important than ever to write to your MEPs and tell them to support the immediate addition of bluefin to CITES Appendix I. You can use this letter as a guide, but it's better if you use your own words. The earlier post also contains more background information.
Using WriteToThem is really quick and straightforward, and even a quick (if polite line) is far better than nothing.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Save bluefin tuna
The bluefin tuna is a magificent fish - huge, fast, beautiful, even able to generate its own body heat, not something fish can usually do.
Photo by adalau, CC-licensed
It's also very tasty and very sought after - and about to go extinct due to overfishing. According to marine scientists and conservation organisations [1], bluefin tuna stocks have collapsed. Without careful management of the remaining stocks, the fish will soon be gone entirely.
Unfortunately, the "International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas", supposedly in charge of protecting the fish, has been setting quotas far above safe levels. [2] For example, in November 2009, they were advised by their own scientists that the quota should not exceed 15 000 tonnes - so they set it to 22 000. Add to that the huge illegal catch made possible by lax enforcement, and the actual amount of fish extracted from the sea ends up as 50 000 to 60 000 tonnes. [3]
ICCAT's ineffectual quotas are not enough to save the fish. Hence, the European Commission is mulling a proposal made by Monaco to add bluefin tuna to Appendix I of CITES, which would temporarily ban all international trade in it. This would allow the stocks to recover, especially because it would also curb illegal fishing. Illegally caught tuna can be easily passed off as its legal counterpart right now, but this would no longer work with the ban in place.[4]
However, a number of other countries, especially Malta, who has large tuna fisheries, are trying to stop this ban. And the fisheries commissioner, Joe Borg, says that he wishes to wait for an update from ICCAT before doing anything - by which point the deadline for CITES applications will have (conveniently?) passed. [5]
In short, this is a great big mess of European bureaucracy and horse-trading - but according to the Independent, the vote will be sometime next week. And if it goes the wrong way, it may well doom bluefin tuna.
And you don't need to be a, er, fish-hugger to want to save bluefin - if nothing else, it is a very tasty fish, and its extinction will impoverish our dinner table.
Hence, I would like to appeal to you to quickly write to some of the main players in this thing and ask them to ensure that the ban does go through. To this end, I have collected addresses and some prepared letters. However, if possible, amend or reword the letters in your own words.
An announcement is expected on Wednesday 9 September [6], so you will have to hurry.
So what can you do?
Write to:
Dear NAME,
It has come to my attention that the European Commission is considering an application to add bluefin tuna to Appendix I of CITES, which would declare it an endangered species and outlaw international trade in it.
Bluefin tuna is a popular food fish that has been brought to the brink of extinction by years of overfishing. It is my belief that the current measures to protect it are grossly inadequate, with ICCAT regularly setting quotas far above scientific recommendations. This is compounded by illegal fishing.
Of course, a ban on its trade may cause disruption to European fisheries, but so will its extinction!
I would ask you to do whatever is in your power to ensure that bluefin tuna is added to the list of endangered species. We no longer have the luxury to wait and see.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
Yours Sincerely,
your name here
[1] Bluefin Tuna in Atlantic Nearing Extinction, Conservation Group Says, National Geographic
[2] Managed to death, The Economist
[3] The Sushi Wars: Can the Bluefin Tuna Be Saved? Time
[4] Showdown looms for tuna in Brussels, WWF
[5] Political infighting threatens survival of the bluefin tuna, The Independent
[6] EU mulls ban on tuna as stocks near collapse, EurActiv.com
Photo by adalau, CC-licensedIt's also very tasty and very sought after - and about to go extinct due to overfishing. According to marine scientists and conservation organisations [1], bluefin tuna stocks have collapsed. Without careful management of the remaining stocks, the fish will soon be gone entirely.
Unfortunately, the "International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas", supposedly in charge of protecting the fish, has been setting quotas far above safe levels. [2] For example, in November 2009, they were advised by their own scientists that the quota should not exceed 15 000 tonnes - so they set it to 22 000. Add to that the huge illegal catch made possible by lax enforcement, and the actual amount of fish extracted from the sea ends up as 50 000 to 60 000 tonnes. [3]
ICCAT's ineffectual quotas are not enough to save the fish. Hence, the European Commission is mulling a proposal made by Monaco to add bluefin tuna to Appendix I of CITES, which would temporarily ban all international trade in it. This would allow the stocks to recover, especially because it would also curb illegal fishing. Illegally caught tuna can be easily passed off as its legal counterpart right now, but this would no longer work with the ban in place.[4]
However, a number of other countries, especially Malta, who has large tuna fisheries, are trying to stop this ban. And the fisheries commissioner, Joe Borg, says that he wishes to wait for an update from ICCAT before doing anything - by which point the deadline for CITES applications will have (conveniently?) passed. [5]
In short, this is a great big mess of European bureaucracy and horse-trading - but according to the Independent, the vote will be sometime next week. And if it goes the wrong way, it may well doom bluefin tuna.
And you don't need to be a, er, fish-hugger to want to save bluefin - if nothing else, it is a very tasty fish, and its extinction will impoverish our dinner table.
Hence, I would like to appeal to you to quickly write to some of the main players in this thing and ask them to ensure that the ban does go through. To this end, I have collected addresses and some prepared letters. However, if possible, amend or reword the letters in your own words.
An announcement is expected on Wednesday 9 September [6], so you will have to hurry.
So what can you do?
Write to:
- Your MEP, if you have one
- The European Commission's president, José Manuel Barroso
- Joe Borg, the EC fisheries commissioner
- ...and your country's commissioner, if you have one. (Catherine Ashton is the UK's)
Dear NAME,
It has come to my attention that the European Commission is considering an application to add bluefin tuna to Appendix I of CITES, which would declare it an endangered species and outlaw international trade in it.
Bluefin tuna is a popular food fish that has been brought to the brink of extinction by years of overfishing. It is my belief that the current measures to protect it are grossly inadequate, with ICCAT regularly setting quotas far above scientific recommendations. This is compounded by illegal fishing.
Of course, a ban on its trade may cause disruption to European fisheries, but so will its extinction!
I would ask you to do whatever is in your power to ensure that bluefin tuna is added to the list of endangered species. We no longer have the luxury to wait and see.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
Yours Sincerely,
your name here
[1] Bluefin Tuna in Atlantic Nearing Extinction, Conservation Group Says, National Geographic
[2] Managed to death, The Economist
[3] The Sushi Wars: Can the Bluefin Tuna Be Saved? Time
[4] Showdown looms for tuna in Brussels, WWF
[5] Political infighting threatens survival of the bluefin tuna, The Independent
[6] EU mulls ban on tuna as stocks near collapse, EurActiv.com
That sickly smell
I use a software package called Poser 7 to make character portraits for the game I'm developing. I bought it about a year ago, having played around with the demo briefly.
I also have a copy of Poser 3 floating around, and in some respects, the program's quality is much improved: the monochrome-terracotta skin of the Poser 3 figure models has been replaced by a much more believable texture, and the rendering engine has been upgraded to a proper ray-tracer.
But there are certain issues. A lot of the newer systems integrate very badly into the program's core functionality. For example, while I can edit the shape and colour of a figure's face, the changed colour does not get applied to the rest of the body, making the feature semi-useless.
Adding clothes is hit-and-miss, with a lot of the pre-supplied clothes 3D models being impossible to fit onto the figures properly: the figure's flesh often extends further out than the cloth, leaving random patches of nakedness. In one case this is even visible in the thumbnail picture of that clothes model.
But the most distressing thing about the program is the amount of sexism that it manages to contain:
By default, Poser 7 comes with a male and a female figure (3D model) called "Simon" and "Sydney" respectively. Simon comes in two major variations: naked, and clothed in jeans and T-shirt. Sydney comes in one variation only: naked.
Let me repeat that: the male figure gets a version with clothes on by default. The female one doesn't. Of course, in both cases, the naked figures can then be clothed by adding clothes to them, but why this asymmetry? What if I just want a quick 3D render of a clothed woman? I can do it if it's a man.
This ridiculousness is compounded by some other things:
Simon comes without genitals by default. This is perhaps not so surprising. Sydney doesn't have nipples by default. The figure's breasts are just nipple-less flesh-coloured domes. You have to load in an alternate texture to get the nipples. So here we have sexism intermixing with a tiring shame about the human body.
The default set of clothes models supplied with the program is rather interesting as well. Simon's and Sydney's wardrobes are similar in some parts (tennis shoes, sandals, jeans) - but while Simon has a suit, Sydney has a form-fitting leather jacket and high-heeled leather boots. The two tops in Sydney's wardrobe are an incredibly tight fit as well. In short, Simon can dress casual or business, Sydney can dress casual-sexy or leather-sexy.
Then there's the websites you can buy more figure models at, which heavily feature scantily clad women along with invitations to, er, buy them...
I don't think I will.
To be frank, I don't have any suggestions for you here beyond boycotting software that has that sickly smell of sexism about it - but I am badgering the distributors of Poser, trying to get some sort of statement out of them. If that happens, I will post it here.
I also have a copy of Poser 3 floating around, and in some respects, the program's quality is much improved: the monochrome-terracotta skin of the Poser 3 figure models has been replaced by a much more believable texture, and the rendering engine has been upgraded to a proper ray-tracer.
But there are certain issues. A lot of the newer systems integrate very badly into the program's core functionality. For example, while I can edit the shape and colour of a figure's face, the changed colour does not get applied to the rest of the body, making the feature semi-useless.
Adding clothes is hit-and-miss, with a lot of the pre-supplied clothes 3D models being impossible to fit onto the figures properly: the figure's flesh often extends further out than the cloth, leaving random patches of nakedness. In one case this is even visible in the thumbnail picture of that clothes model.
But the most distressing thing about the program is the amount of sexism that it manages to contain:
By default, Poser 7 comes with a male and a female figure (3D model) called "Simon" and "Sydney" respectively. Simon comes in two major variations: naked, and clothed in jeans and T-shirt. Sydney comes in one variation only: naked.
Let me repeat that: the male figure gets a version with clothes on by default. The female one doesn't. Of course, in both cases, the naked figures can then be clothed by adding clothes to them, but why this asymmetry? What if I just want a quick 3D render of a clothed woman? I can do it if it's a man.
This ridiculousness is compounded by some other things:
Simon comes without genitals by default. This is perhaps not so surprising. Sydney doesn't have nipples by default. The figure's breasts are just nipple-less flesh-coloured domes. You have to load in an alternate texture to get the nipples. So here we have sexism intermixing with a tiring shame about the human body.
The default set of clothes models supplied with the program is rather interesting as well. Simon's and Sydney's wardrobes are similar in some parts (tennis shoes, sandals, jeans) - but while Simon has a suit, Sydney has a form-fitting leather jacket and high-heeled leather boots. The two tops in Sydney's wardrobe are an incredibly tight fit as well. In short, Simon can dress casual or business, Sydney can dress casual-sexy or leather-sexy.
Then there's the websites you can buy more figure models at, which heavily feature scantily clad women along with invitations to, er, buy them...
I don't think I will.
To be frank, I don't have any suggestions for you here beyond boycotting software that has that sickly smell of sexism about it - but I am badgering the distributors of Poser, trying to get some sort of statement out of them. If that happens, I will post it here.
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Useful Resource: the Bad Science Activism Forum
I've been pointed to a very helpful resource for activism and complaint-making (thanks, Suzy!). The forum at the Bad Science website, run by Guardian science writer Ben Goldacre, has an Activism board. As well as how-tos for making complaints to several regulatory bodies, the board has many threads with suggested actions to take, encouragement and discussion on blogging and writing to fix things. The topics are of course skewed towards "bad science" (a selection from the front page of threads includes discussion of detox, vaccination and the British Chiropractic Association vs. Simon Singh) but the advice could be used in any area.
The board is admittedly UK-centric. How-to guides (stickied at the top of the page) include:
The board is admittedly UK-centric. How-to guides (stickied at the top of the page) include:
- Complaining to OFCOM, for TV and radio broadcasts
- Complaining to the MHRA drugs rep, about medicines and medical advertising
- Writing a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA)
- Tips and useful contact details for writing letters to newspapers
- Making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. (Another good resource for making FOI requests is WhatDoTheyKnow.)
Women, men, games, cleavage
Beyond my friends' journals, the two kinds of blogs I mostly read are ones about programming and ones about politics. Typically, their content does not overlap, but the other day there was a rare exception: Both Coding Horror and Sociological Images pointed out the hilarious-yet-depressing evolution of the ads for a browser-based game called "Evony".
Starting out with a fairly generic man-in-armor-with-sword, the ad switched to showing a series of women with increasingly more cleavage - until the final ad, which is literally just cleavage. Any mention of what kind of game this is supposed to advertise has long fallen by the wayside. If I had to take a guess from the way the ad looks, I would go for strip poker, not a "Civilization"-esque empire building game.
The makers of the ads probably noticed a correlation between the amount of cleavage and the proportion of viewers who clicked on the ad - but in the process, they have outed themselves as troglodytes.
(In case you would like to see confirmation that these ads are indeed out on the web, as of the time of this writing, going to livejournal.com is likely to do the trick.)
Sadly, they are hardly alone. Large chunks of the video game industry understand themselves as a hetero-men-only club. The line between game mags and lad mags is frequently quite blurred, for example at IGN.com, who have a "Babe of the day" section. Then there are the ubiquitous "Booth Babes" found at trade shows, a tradition of scantily clad women to be ogled by the (assumedly) all-male crowds. The few games which actually feature female main characters often treat them as mostly eye candy. And on the rare occasions where this isn't the case, certain people complain and wield photoshop.
Still, there are games developers out there who remember that women are people, not eye candy. Spiderweb Games is pretty good on that score. And then there's PopCap Games' Plants vs Zombies, who decided to have their own special take on the Evony ads:
Hence:
For example, I sent the following letter to LiveJournal:
Dear LiveJournal team,
I have noticed that you are showing ads for the web-based game "Evony" on your site. From their cleavage-centric appearance one would guess that they advertise porn, or perhaps strip poker, though apparently they advertise a strategy game.
Certainly, the ad's creators feel the need to insult their potential customers by assuming that the sight of breasts will make us play their game. Given that (according to your stats) some 55.3% of your readership is female, and given that the majority of your male readership (myself included) probably doesn't want to be subjected to these ads either, do you really think it's appropriate to run them?
As you may be aware, there has been quite a backlash against these ads in a number of online communities, and your display of them does taint you by association. Livejournal hosts a large number of different communities, many of whom will feel less than welcome as long as you are showing these ads.
I certainly don't feel welcome.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
I encourage you to send a similar letter, perhaps based on this one - but be sure to make it different enough so that it doesn't look to them as if someone just pasted the same thing a dozen times using different names.
Equally, I encourage you to send a letter to Evony. Now, given that they are still running these ads, it's likely that they are rubbing their little hands with glee at all the publicity the Internet outrage has produced. Try to make it clear to them that insulting their potential customers isn't going to work in the long run.
But if you only send one letter, go for the LJ one, or a letter to another site that's showing the ads. I think we have more of a chance shaming them into not showing the ads than Evony, who have already outed themselves as slimebags.
Starting out with a fairly generic man-in-armor-with-sword, the ad switched to showing a series of women with increasingly more cleavage - until the final ad, which is literally just cleavage. Any mention of what kind of game this is supposed to advertise has long fallen by the wayside. If I had to take a guess from the way the ad looks, I would go for strip poker, not a "Civilization"-esque empire building game.
The makers of the ads probably noticed a correlation between the amount of cleavage and the proportion of viewers who clicked on the ad - but in the process, they have outed themselves as troglodytes.
(In case you would like to see confirmation that these ads are indeed out on the web, as of the time of this writing, going to livejournal.com is likely to do the trick.)
Sadly, they are hardly alone. Large chunks of the video game industry understand themselves as a hetero-men-only club. The line between game mags and lad mags is frequently quite blurred, for example at IGN.com, who have a "Babe of the day" section. Then there are the ubiquitous "Booth Babes" found at trade shows, a tradition of scantily clad women to be ogled by the (assumedly) all-male crowds. The few games which actually feature female main characters often treat them as mostly eye candy. And on the rare occasions where this isn't the case, certain people complain and wield photoshop.
Still, there are games developers out there who remember that women are people, not eye candy. Spiderweb Games is pretty good on that score. And then there's PopCap Games' Plants vs Zombies, who decided to have their own special take on the Evony ads:
Hence:
- Vote with your wallet. Don't play or buy games with sexist content or advertising - or at least consider the alternatives. There are plenty of online empire-building games that don't feel the need to insult their potential customers with the assumption they'll be swayed by boobies. If you like building things, you might also like FreeCiv - and you can typically buy a copy of Sim City 2000 or Alpha Centauri for a pittance.
- Write Angry Letters: To game mags that think casual sexism is OK, to game developers who think the same, and to websites who allow said ads to be run.
For example, I sent the following letter to LiveJournal:
Dear LiveJournal team,
I have noticed that you are showing ads for the web-based game "Evony" on your site. From their cleavage-centric appearance one would guess that they advertise porn, or perhaps strip poker, though apparently they advertise a strategy game.
Certainly, the ad's creators feel the need to insult their potential customers by assuming that the sight of breasts will make us play their game. Given that (according to your stats) some 55.3% of your readership is female, and given that the majority of your male readership (myself included) probably doesn't want to be subjected to these ads either, do you really think it's appropriate to run them?
As you may be aware, there has been quite a backlash against these ads in a number of online communities, and your display of them does taint you by association. Livejournal hosts a large number of different communities, many of whom will feel less than welcome as long as you are showing these ads.
I certainly don't feel welcome.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
I encourage you to send a similar letter, perhaps based on this one - but be sure to make it different enough so that it doesn't look to them as if someone just pasted the same thing a dozen times using different names.
Equally, I encourage you to send a letter to Evony. Now, given that they are still running these ads, it's likely that they are rubbing their little hands with glee at all the publicity the Internet outrage has produced. Try to make it clear to them that insulting their potential customers isn't going to work in the long run.
But if you only send one letter, go for the LJ one, or a letter to another site that's showing the ads. I think we have more of a chance shaming them into not showing the ads than Evony, who have already outed themselves as slimebags.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Simon Singh vs the BCA
"If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market."
— Simon Singh
In a Guardian opinion column on the 19th April, respected science writer Simon Singh wrote about chiropractic, a type of alternative treatment involving the manipulation of the spine. Chiropractic is usually applied to help with back problems, but some practitioners also claim it can be used to deal with various children's ailments such as colic.
Singh pointed out that there is no evidence for its effectiveness even for back problems, much less for colic, and that the treatment was rather more dangerous than people believe, potentially leading to serious spinal problems or even, in at least one case, death.
The British Chiropractic Association was less than pleased about this and promptly sued Singh for libel. This may sound a bit silly, but has actually turned out to be quite a serious problem. It turns out that English libel laws are notoriously unbalanced: libel cases take huge amounts of money to fight, and the burden of proof lies, strangely, on the accused.
Furthermore, if the libel case is won, the judgement can be enforced in other jurisdictions, leading to something called "libel tourism" where people all over the world are being sued for libel in the UK. All it takes is "publication" in the UK, which can be as little as a few people reading a web page.
Rather than back down and retract his statements, as most people would have had to do, Singh decided to rely on his comfortable financial resources (and hard-headedness) and fight the case. Things haven't gone that well so far on the legal front, though, with a preliminary ruling stating that Singh's article was a "fact" article rather than an "opinion" one, which is a bit strange given it was published in the Guardian's opinion section. (The Guardian has since decided to withdraw the column due to the threat of the aforementioned legal costs.)
But the BCA's actions, and the widespread realisation of just how unfair and frequently abused British libel laws are, has spawned a number of interesting campaigns:
Sense about Science have started a campaign and petition called "Keep libel laws out of science" stating that current UK libel laws are damaging free discourse and scientific discussion.
And one blogger at Adventures in Nonsense found some 500 chiropractors claiming to treat colic and reported them to their local Trading Standards office. (The Trading Standards Agency has ruled that chiropractors may not claim to treat colic.)
I have only scratched the surface of a messy but fascinating dispute. I definitely encourage you to read more about it.
If things go badly, we will end up with a precedent enabling all kinds of snake-oil salesmen to silence their critics. But if things go well, there is a real chance of reforms that will protect critics and scientists from being silenced by powerful organisations.
So what can you do?
Finally, given that the amount of bloggage produced on this is quite huge, and that I have understandably not read all of it, if you have any further suggestions on what to do, please leave a comment and I'll incorporate it.
— Simon Singh
In a Guardian opinion column on the 19th April, respected science writer Simon Singh wrote about chiropractic, a type of alternative treatment involving the manipulation of the spine. Chiropractic is usually applied to help with back problems, but some practitioners also claim it can be used to deal with various children's ailments such as colic.
Singh pointed out that there is no evidence for its effectiveness even for back problems, much less for colic, and that the treatment was rather more dangerous than people believe, potentially leading to serious spinal problems or even, in at least one case, death.
The British Chiropractic Association was less than pleased about this and promptly sued Singh for libel. This may sound a bit silly, but has actually turned out to be quite a serious problem. It turns out that English libel laws are notoriously unbalanced: libel cases take huge amounts of money to fight, and the burden of proof lies, strangely, on the accused.
Furthermore, if the libel case is won, the judgement can be enforced in other jurisdictions, leading to something called "libel tourism" where people all over the world are being sued for libel in the UK. All it takes is "publication" in the UK, which can be as little as a few people reading a web page.
Rather than back down and retract his statements, as most people would have had to do, Singh decided to rely on his comfortable financial resources (and hard-headedness) and fight the case. Things haven't gone that well so far on the legal front, though, with a preliminary ruling stating that Singh's article was a "fact" article rather than an "opinion" one, which is a bit strange given it was published in the Guardian's opinion section. (The Guardian has since decided to withdraw the column due to the threat of the aforementioned legal costs.)
But the BCA's actions, and the widespread realisation of just how unfair and frequently abused British libel laws are, has spawned a number of interesting campaigns:
Sense about Science have started a campaign and petition called "Keep libel laws out of science" stating that current UK libel laws are damaging free discourse and scientific discussion.
And one blogger at Adventures in Nonsense found some 500 chiropractors claiming to treat colic and reported them to their local Trading Standards office. (The Trading Standards Agency has ruled that chiropractors may not claim to treat colic.)
I have only scratched the surface of a messy but fascinating dispute. I definitely encourage you to read more about it.
If things go badly, we will end up with a precedent enabling all kinds of snake-oil salesmen to silence their critics. But if things go well, there is a real chance of reforms that will protect critics and scientists from being silenced by powerful organisations.
So what can you do?
- Sign the "Keep libel laws out of science" petition.
- Sign this government petition asking for libel law reform.
- If you have one, write to your MP asking them to support libel law reform.
- Help with this campaign by looking up your local chiropractors and fact-checking their claims: Do they pretend to have academic titles they don't actually hold? Do they claim to cure colic? (The Advertising Standards Agency says they're not allowed to.)
- If you're into that kind of thing, there is also a Facebook group.
- Spread the word - blog about it, tweet about it, bring it up in conversation.
Finally, given that the amount of bloggage produced on this is quite huge, and that I have understandably not read all of it, if you have any further suggestions on what to do, please leave a comment and I'll incorporate it.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Rape crisis crisis followup
I have been in contact with Yvonne Traynor, director of the Croydon rape crisis centre currently forced with closure due to Boris Johnson reneging on his promise of funding. According to her, they are currently in negotiation with the major's office, so let's hope some good will come of that.
Meanwhile, others have set up a campaign called Boris Keep Your Promise aimed at saving the centre. They had a charity event on the 4th which I sadly did not find out about in time, but I will get in touch with them and keep you posted on further activities. Alternatively, you can get in touch with them directly by email or Facebook.
The consultation to decide the funding closes on 20th July. Please write an email or letter to the Major and (politely but firmly) remind him to keep his promise. You can use this one I sent, though I urge you to paraphrase or edit it significantly, as a set of identical emails is just going to be ignored:
Dear Mr Johnson,
I have recently been made aware that you have failed to provide funding for London rape crisis centres. You specifically promised to fund them in your election manifesto. As you are no doubt aware, this means that the only London centre may well have to close.
This is a shameful state of affairs. It is not what you promised, it is not what your supporters signed up for. I urge you to correct this at once and provide the centre with the funding you promised.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
Your sincerely,
your name here
Meanwhile, others have set up a campaign called Boris Keep Your Promise aimed at saving the centre. They had a charity event on the 4th which I sadly did not find out about in time, but I will get in touch with them and keep you posted on further activities. Alternatively, you can get in touch with them directly by email or Facebook.
The consultation to decide the funding closes on 20th July. Please write an email or letter to the Major and (politely but firmly) remind him to keep his promise. You can use this one I sent, though I urge you to paraphrase or edit it significantly, as a set of identical emails is just going to be ignored:
Dear Mr Johnson,
I have recently been made aware that you have failed to provide funding for London rape crisis centres. You specifically promised to fund them in your election manifesto. As you are no doubt aware, this means that the only London centre may well have to close.
This is a shameful state of affairs. It is not what you promised, it is not what your supporters signed up for. I urge you to correct this at once and provide the centre with the funding you promised.
I look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.
Your sincerely,
your name here
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Voting Reform
At the moment, you can hardly go to BBC News without seeing another story about an MP standing down. With parliament being so denuded by the expenses row, the need for reform of some sort is clear.
One direly needed reform is the replacement of the current system for electing MPs. Currently, MPs are elected by pre-defined constituencies through first-past-the-post voting. Unfortunately, first-past-the-post tends to seriously pervert democracy thanks to something called Duverger's law.
Duverger's Law states that a first-past-the-post elections will almost invariably result in a system where only two parties have any significant political clout. This is largely due to people having to tactically vote for candidates they don't like but have a better chance of winning than their real favourite.
In the extreme, this can lead to the absurd situation where there is a third party that would be preferred by the majority of voters, but nevertheless fails to be voted into power. Voters know that unless everyone magically switches to the new party in the same election, the vote will be split and some truly undesirable party will win instead. Meanwhile, the established parties have little incentive to serve the people effectively, as only a truly titanic public discontent could permanently keep them out of the running.
Unfortunately, whenever the topic of alternate voting systems crops up, certain people will start scaremongering about the dangers of such "untested" systems. But in reality, it's hardly the case that everyone is using majority voting.
In Switzerland, for example, the National Council is elected using a somewhat complex but largely effective system of proportional representation: people vote for individual candidates, whose party affiliations determine the number of seats each party gets. Within each party bloc, the candidates with the most votes get seats. For example, if you vote for candidate A of party X, A may not get a seat, but you've at least helped someone else from party X get a seat, instead of indirectly helping party Y.
In Ireland, elections use single transferable vote, which is another system that ensures you can vote for a less popular candidate without wasting your vote. In STV, you simply rank the candidates you like in the order you'd most see them elected. If your first choice can't get a seat, your vote is transferred to your second choice, and so on.
In both systems, you can safely vote for the person you prefer without fear that you're actually propelling their opposite into office. Single transferrable vote would be the most preferable, since it allows people to vote for any combination of individual candidates, and avoids giving undue power to political parties.
The introduction of a new voting system could also coincide with the abolishment of constituencies. But if that's not palatable, STV works just fine for electing a single representative. (In that case it's usually called instant-runoff voting.)
The only real problem with introducing a new voting system is the potential for voter confusion, as unfortunately happened in Scotland in 2007, when the introduction of STV caused a significant number of people to incorrectly fill in their ballot paper. But much of the blame can be laid on organisational mistakes and people plain failing to read the instructions, and the confusion has died down since.
In England, there were serious attempts to introduce STV in both 1884 and 1917, but they ultimately came to nothing due to a lack of support from the political establishment. [1]
To be frank, this is hardly surprising. It's not in the interest of those who have been propelled into power by the current voting system to change anything about it. Any change is likely to decrease their chances of being re-elected. And such established politicians can simply claim that any voting system that is not the current one, no matter its obvious benefits, no matter how well it works in other countries - is unsafe.
But right now, with UK politics in the state it is, we might stand a chance. What can you do?
[1] Nina Barzachka - "Explaining Electoral System Change: The Adoption of Proportional Representation in Belgium and Its Rejection in Great Britain", p 28-31, University of Virginia, 2007
One direly needed reform is the replacement of the current system for electing MPs. Currently, MPs are elected by pre-defined constituencies through first-past-the-post voting. Unfortunately, first-past-the-post tends to seriously pervert democracy thanks to something called Duverger's law.
Duverger's Law states that a first-past-the-post elections will almost invariably result in a system where only two parties have any significant political clout. This is largely due to people having to tactically vote for candidates they don't like but have a better chance of winning than their real favourite.
In the extreme, this can lead to the absurd situation where there is a third party that would be preferred by the majority of voters, but nevertheless fails to be voted into power. Voters know that unless everyone magically switches to the new party in the same election, the vote will be split and some truly undesirable party will win instead. Meanwhile, the established parties have little incentive to serve the people effectively, as only a truly titanic public discontent could permanently keep them out of the running.
Unfortunately, whenever the topic of alternate voting systems crops up, certain people will start scaremongering about the dangers of such "untested" systems. But in reality, it's hardly the case that everyone is using majority voting.
In Switzerland, for example, the National Council is elected using a somewhat complex but largely effective system of proportional representation: people vote for individual candidates, whose party affiliations determine the number of seats each party gets. Within each party bloc, the candidates with the most votes get seats. For example, if you vote for candidate A of party X, A may not get a seat, but you've at least helped someone else from party X get a seat, instead of indirectly helping party Y.
In Ireland, elections use single transferable vote, which is another system that ensures you can vote for a less popular candidate without wasting your vote. In STV, you simply rank the candidates you like in the order you'd most see them elected. If your first choice can't get a seat, your vote is transferred to your second choice, and so on.
In both systems, you can safely vote for the person you prefer without fear that you're actually propelling their opposite into office. Single transferrable vote would be the most preferable, since it allows people to vote for any combination of individual candidates, and avoids giving undue power to political parties.
The introduction of a new voting system could also coincide with the abolishment of constituencies. But if that's not palatable, STV works just fine for electing a single representative. (In that case it's usually called instant-runoff voting.)
The only real problem with introducing a new voting system is the potential for voter confusion, as unfortunately happened in Scotland in 2007, when the introduction of STV caused a significant number of people to incorrectly fill in their ballot paper. But much of the blame can be laid on organisational mistakes and people plain failing to read the instructions, and the confusion has died down since.
In England, there were serious attempts to introduce STV in both 1884 and 1917, but they ultimately came to nothing due to a lack of support from the political establishment. [1]
To be frank, this is hardly surprising. It's not in the interest of those who have been propelled into power by the current voting system to change anything about it. Any change is likely to decrease their chances of being re-elected. And such established politicians can simply claim that any voting system that is not the current one, no matter its obvious benefits, no matter how well it works in other countries - is unsafe.
But right now, with UK politics in the state it is, we might stand a chance. What can you do?
- Join the Electoral Reform Society, who are campaigning for the introduction of STV in the UK.
- If you have one, write to your MP, asking them to bring up and support voting reform in the commons.
- If you have a vote, please use it. Yes, the current system isn't amazing, but if you don't vote, the crazies' votes will count for more.
[1] Nina Barzachka - "Explaining Electoral System Change: The Adoption of Proportional Representation in Belgium and Its Rejection in Great Britain", p 28-31, University of Virginia, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)