UKIP are not your friends.

UKIP have been in the news a lot lately. For one, there are European elections coming up and due to unfortunate voter apathy even from the more pro European amongst the electorate, UKIP are expected to do very well. And its a shame. Because UKIP should not be representing us in Europe, for them Europe is an anathema, the thing which is holding back Britain from regaining its former glory, whilst drowning us in immigrants who have come over here to steal our jobs or scrounge for benefits depending on what day of the week it is. In addition this is the kind of thing they get up to when allowed out in public http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY . Its pretty pathetic isn't it?

However, there are those who find appeal in Farage and friends belligerence, who are willing to look past the fact that their economic policies work they would need to be powered by the rainbow coloured poop of a thousand unicorns, who hone in only on their anti European stance or try and dress their support up in the language of challenging the system, of fighting the status quo of opening up the parliamentary system etc etc. And in themselves all this arguments are fine, they have some credence. However, what does not and should not stand is the party they choose to espouse to make these points. Let us say for a moment that UKIP was a party chock full of terrific ideas, a foolproof budget and a neat and amicable exit from Europe ( I am pro Europe by the way). Even if all these factors existed there would be one very big problems with UKIP and that should be the one reason that you choose to deny them. They are a party of division. Whether or not the party is 'racist' or not can be argued using questions of nuance, but what cannot be denied is that they do espouse policies which attract those with racist, bigoted and divisional beliefs. They are the only party to ban former BNP members they exclaim with pride, yet this is because they are the only party which attracts that mind set with any great number and offers them access to the upper levels of the party. They are always quick to act when one of their number is caught putting their unfeasibly large feet into their seemingly even bigger mouths, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their own policy of creating scapegoats which attracts and fosters those with more extreme view points.

I'm not anti UKIP because of the newspapers that I read, I have not 'been blindfolded into your opinion  by the cognitive dissonance of the left wing press' it is not my 'inability to understand the federalist agenda of the EU and its fanatics'.  In fact even if I was vehemently anti the European Union I would not and could not bring my self to support a party such as UKIP. Even if the rest of the parties were slowly collapsing like my hair in the heat, (which its entirely possible they are, they aren't in good shape that's for sure), if UKIP were the only choice I would spoil my ballot. I am anti UKIP because they offend my every sensibility as a citizen and a human. Whilst their policies, such as they are just about manage to skirt the boundaries of out and out offensive, their membership is firmly beyond the pale. They are active members in extreme right wing pan European political groups such as the EFD who have compared Muslim women to Osama Bin Laden and frequently warn against the 'threat' of Islamisation.   A vote for UKIP might 'sock it' it to the Tories, or Labour and quite likely the Lib Dems but it will do so at a cost too high. Its not 'protest', it is complicity. It is not that others don't understand or that they have been duped, it is being an apologist for something that is reprehensible. There are numerous other examples I could use to hammer home my point, but at this juncture they are probably redundant. My abhorrence of UKIP has nothing to do with their anti European stance generally and everything to do with their scapegoating of minorities, their offensive candidates and their general lack of the traits of that make up a decent human being. Alas, they will win their seats later this month and come next year will probably have enough people who are willing to subscribe to their anachronistic xenophobia and posturing or who vote for them out of a desire to protest the other parties that they will win some parliamentary seats. But it will be a shame and despite what their apologists and supporters claim it will not make us a better country. The cycle of division and intolerance will be perpetuated and Nigel Farage's braying voice and idiotic posturing will continue to get booked on Newsnight and Question Time, because clowns always make for entertaining television. Even dangerous ones like Farage.

Check your privilege.

'Check your privilege' a sentence oft heard around the internet and until now not one I was sure I subscribed to, not because we shouldn't be checking our privilege but more because it is often abused and used to censure and silence rather than encourage healthy debate. However, today the idea of checking ones privilege was never more appropriate. In Texas the primarily old, primarily white and primarily male state government are attempting to pass legislation (the controversial SB5 amendment) that would close down all but five of Texas' abortion providers and decrease current 20 week limit. When questioned on abortion in the case of rape the (sadly female) Texas lawmaker Jodie Laubenburg was on record as saying "In Emergency Rooms we have something called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out" Not only does this show a stunning arrogance and ignorance of both the purpose of a rape kit and the reality of how babies are actually made, but also a frightening attitude of some towards women's reproductive rights. One that seems to echoed throughout the GOP, which whilst having some well known anti abortion women members is proportionally speaking largely white and male. The people who hold these views will often describe themselves as 'Pro-life', but nothing could be further from the truth. Even ignoring the fact that in the case of Texas they still have and make use of the death penalty, anti -abortion campaigners are showing themselves to have little or no respect for the life of others. It is the same people who will campaign against universal health care, food stamps, social security. These are the very same people who demand that their 'rights' and 'freedoms' to own dangerous weapons and ammunition despite the fact that children die every day in America as a result of lose gun legislation,  but want greater regulation over what a private individual does with their body. They argue that life begins at the moment of conception but willfully ignore that it also doesn't end at the moment of birth.

This evening Texas democratic Senator Wendy Davis attempted a 13 hour filibuster in order to shut down or at least stall the bill. She was shut down by the house GOP on point of order, a technicality. These mainly old white men, who will never be affected by the issues which they are so arrogantly legislating on essentially made that lady shut up. Unlike so many times in the past the filibuster attempt was streamed live and was watched by millions around the world. The world knows what happened. We all saw. We all know those rich, white men who will never find themselves pregnant as a result of rape, will never find themselves facing the hideous choice of whether or not to bring a life into the world that they are not equipped, either financially, emotionally or mentally to raise. Like those of are against marriage equality, they are railing against an issue that will never make one iota of difference to their lives but can make a huge difference to someone elses. They do this not because they think it is for the best, but because they feel that it is their right to impose their will and beliefs on others. That rights and freedoms only extend to the rights and freedoms they feel are important but not those that are important to others. They make efforts to legislate on private individuals and their private lives in order to exert their own power and privilege.

People who support the right to abortion are not 'pro-abortion' they are 'pro-choice'. There are very few (if any) who would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly regardless of the circumstances. There are few if any who believe that abortion should not be carefully regulated, but in a way that ensures the safety of those who undertake it. There few if any who think that abortion is an alternative to contraception. Pro-choice means allowing people the rights to make their own choice. By lowering the amount of time a woman has to make a decision the anti-abortion faction  believe that they will lower abortion rates by essentially forcing those who are over 15 weeks to have their children regardless of the circumstances. I would argue that possibly the opposite might be true. Given less time to consider their options (particularly women who find out about their pregnancies later or who after screening might be considering their options due to the impact on their family) women might well be more likely to choose an abortion as they do not have enough time to fully consider their options, to look at the support available to them should they opt to keep their babies. Also the banning or limiting of abortions does not stop them happening. As in the case of Ireland, where abortion is banned, the problem is still there, its just been exported to the UK. The same will happen in the US, as people are forced (where possible) to travel to other states for the procedures or more worryingly have illegal procedures.

As Bill Clinton stated, abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare' and this should be the case. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should a person be anti-abortion (or pro-life) then they have the right to exercise that belief, to choose to never consider it as an option regardless of the circumstances. But by the same token a woman should also have the right and choice to terminate a pregnancy if that is what is best for her. This is not an issue like guns, where there is a legitimate public safety concern, this should be an individual choice and freedom, one that a woman takes on her own counsel and that of those she chooses to talk to about it with. Not some group of law makers, made of of old men and women who don't even seem to be fully aware of the facts of the very issue they seek to legislate upon. So before you tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body, check your privilege.

Addendum: In the time since I wrote this post there were numerous protests in the public gallery over the bill, and what can only be described as an awesome act of public filibuster. However, the very same people who had Senator Davies shut down over a rule, it appears to have been quite happy to break the rules themselves holding the vote after the midnight deadline. There seems to be some dispute as whether or the vote actually happened, but at the moment it does seem that it did. And that those people who protested (you know, the people who vote and these people claim they speak for) were being removed and in some cases arrested. So yeah, check your privilege.

A big step back

Originally posted 6th June 2011

Things are getting scary. The Christian Right are getting their claws into social politics and social conservatism is rearing its head in a big way. Abstinence based education is being endorsed and anti - abortion groups are going into the business of main stream government.

But this is not the Tea Party's vision for America, it is the reality facing Britain in 2011 under the appalling ConDem coalition. Conservative MP, Nadine Dorries found herself in hot water a few weeks back, when, whilst endorsing her ideas on abstinence based sex education in schools, she insinuated (either purposefully or as a result of very poor skill of articulation - I'll let you be the judge of that) that if more teenagers said 'no' that sexual abuse would be drastically curtailed. At best a foolishly poorly worded statement, at worst a frightening insight into this woman's views of those most vulnerable in our society. And now it appears that the Conservatives (and by virtue their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats) have decided to take this further. Several weeks ago it was reported that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) have been 'disinvited' from the governments new Sexual Health Advisory Board and replaced by the pro life group, Life. Life are against abortion in all circumstances lean heavily towards an abstinence based approach to sex education. I addition to this a new amendment to abortion legislation is being pushed through by Dorries and her pals. This addition to existing abortion legislation will mean that women seeking terminations, for whatever reason, will be required, by law to undergo a 'counselling session' with an organisation that does not carry out abortions. And its part of a bigger organisation known as Right to Know. In the interests of fairness I will point out that Dorries partner in crime in the former Labour minister Frank Field.

Currently the backlash to these, what can only be described as legalised incursions into our civil rights and personal lives, are causing much consternation and a big Pro Choice rally has been organised and is due to take place on July 7th. Foremost amongst those who see the threat of Dorries and her ilk and their attempts to push through antiquated and morally judgmental legislation is Labour MP Dianne Abbott and she had this to say;

"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," said Abbott. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications. "And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health. This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move." She added: "Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose." (The Guardian, Sunday 5th June 2011)

Depending on your own personal stance on the abortion question you may applaud or deride the actions on either side. Personally, as some one who is passionately Pro Choice (which is not the same as being Pro Abortion any more that being Anti Abortion automatically makes you Pro Life), I fail to see the good in it. Of course the argument that the new amendment would promote a greater understanding of the choice being made and allow women to make a more informed decision will be put forward in defence of this. In theory, yes. However, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Women should be educated and they should be informed.  The decision to terminate a pregnancy should not be one that is made lightly. But that is not what the Right to Know campaign is offering. Instead it is taking women, many of whom will never again feel more frightened, alone or vulnerable and it is bullying them. By subjecting them to counselling by a biased and subjective body they will not be given the necessary information and support to make the 'right' decision (something which is highly dependent on the individual circumstances, not the agenda of an anti abortion organisation), if anything women, already facing, for many of them the hardest decision they will ever have to make, will be left feeling guilty, confused and utterly, utterly alone. What is needed is objective, non judgmental, open and honest advice and that will not be found within the frame work being laid out by Dorries and approved by the government. Women will be stripped of their power, their rights and in the case of the younger generation of women who may also fall foul of Nadine Dorries shortsighted and possibly dangerous push for abstinence based sex education, their chance to make an informed decision about their own lives and bodies based on a free exchange of views and information rather than the outdated convictions of others.