Why Andrew Mitchell should have been arrested

Posted on September 26, 2012

Arresting people for swearing is ridiculous. And yet, under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, it regularly happens.

Section 5 is a badly written, catch-all law which – as one former officer put it to me recently – “lets us take people off the streets if they haven’t committed a specific offence but we don’t really want them there”.

The precise wording outlaws anyone who:

(a)     uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)     displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Given the total lack of any definition of what constitutes “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”, and the overzealous nature of some (though far from all) bobbies on the beat, it is hardly surprising that the clause has been abused over the years. It has been applied to stop people making perfectly valid criticisms of Scientology, protesting against the murder and oppression of gay people in the Middle East, and saying religions are “fairy tales”, among many others.

Given that it is on the statute book, and that it is regularly used to arrest ordinary members of the public for far less serious behaviour than that displayed at Downing Street last week, Section 5 should surely have been used to arrest Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip.

Instead, he was allowed to swear repeatedly at a police officer, despite the police log’s report that bystanders looked “visibly shocked” – which seems to my lay perspective to qualify as using “insulting words…within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress”.

How many plebeians would be allowed to get away with that with only a verbal warning, rather than a trip to the cells?

Giving greater privileges and more freedom under the law to members of the Government than is given to the people at large prevents Westminster from understanding how bad the criminal law of this country has become. Leading the Chief Whip away in cuffs would have been an absurd scene when his sacking or resignation should be the sensible outcome, but it would have woken our representatives up to the excessive powers of Section 5.

Until that happens, what hope is there that they will realise the urgent need to reform the Public Order Act?

Whatever your faith, you have got to be a socialist

Posted on August 29, 2012

Jesus would vote Labour.

In a sane society, such a claim would be outlandish in the extreme. That’s not because, as Dawkinsians would claim, sanity and Christianity are incompatible – such a sweeping insult is obviously nonsense to all but the most arrogant person. No, pinning a red rosette on Jesus is bonkers because it is alien to the very personal nature of religious faith to issue every single follower of one religion or another with a pre-printed party membership card.

As peculiar and presumptive as it may be to slap party political allegiances on everyone who believes in the Gospel, attempts are still made to do so. The declaration I started this post with is not a straw man I built in order to knock it down, it’s the actual argument made by various people, including in this Labour List piece.

This is tiresome for those of us who aren’t socialists, and it is incredibly frustrating for non-socialist Christians, who see their God hijacked for party political reasons. It must be a severe irritant when some ignore the tenet “love one another” and instead send out the message that you’re not welcome unless you’re  into taxing one another as well.

So, as an atheist, imagine my frustration when I found out that some atheists are trying to follow the same route. “Atheism Plus” is a new movement which asserts that atheists are also progressives who campaign for social justice. (It’s worth remembering at this point that while we all want progress and justice, in the lexicon of the left these phrases are PR-friendly synonyms for “socialism”).

“A+” may have been born out of good intentions, having started as a reaction against Richard Dawkins, whose abusive approach I have criticised before. But it is symptomatic of the attitude of many on the Left that, when designing a new model of promoting atheism, they assumed that logical, fair-minded people could only possibly be socialists.

My religion, or lack of, does form my political views in many ways. My family background is Methodist, and I’m sure the culture and traditions of non-conformist religion contributed to my personal scepticism of instituted authority, for example. However, it is also the case that there are Catholic libertarians and, indeed, socialist Methodists.

It is the height of irony that some of those who proclaim to approach the world based solely on the facts are in this instance drawing a direct correlation between only two elements of such a complex topic.

For me, my atheism came about through the same process as my libertarianism – I believe in the natural dignity of human beings, and the importance of logic. That doesn’t make me a socialist, and trying to pretend that it should is, frankly, insulting.

To those self-proclaimed logicians and “skeptics” who have rallied behind the banner of Atheism Plus, I say this: leave us alone. Part of the tradition of atheism is the hard-won belief that you should be free to think what you want. Declaring that atheist=socialist is just as absurd as saying that followers of Jesus must be Labour voters, or that all Muslims should reject democracy. People’s personal faith and beliefs are more important than your petty political crusades.

Stop trying to claim us for your own – we each belong to no-one but ourselves.

Gorgeous George’s Twitter Twaddle

Posted on August 10, 2012

George Galloway has never been far away from the top of the Talkers of Nonsense League, but yesterday he managed to excel himself. “Gorgeous” George, renowned for fulminating against “imperialists” for their violent and oppressive ways, has turned his fire on that notorious running dog of capitalism, water-boarding enthusiast and plutocrat, the, err, Dalai Lama.

That sound you can hear is the snapping of the last thread even vaguely connecting Galloway to reality.

Never one to stop digging if he finds himself holding a shovel and standing in a hole, the Mustachioed Maoist didn’t exactly cover himself in glory when pulled up on it, either:

@wallaceme he is neither vicious nor an imperialist. But he does think he’s God and he does want to take Tibetans into the obscurantist mist

— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) August 9, 2012

So that’ll be the Dalai Lama, a follower of Buddhism – a religion with no God whatsoever, still less a belief that leading priests are themselves God on earth – who in Galloway Land “thinks he’s God”. It seems George needs to do a resit on his religious studies GCSE.

It wasn’t a good day on Twitter for Bradford’s answer to Rasputin. Having rejected the Tibetans’ right to live freely, and then fundamentally misunderstood one of the world’s major religions, he merrily tweeted agreement that he is a “tankie” - ie a hardline Stalinist who supported the crushing of the Hungarian Uprising by Soviet tanks.

Perhaps Galloway may want to reconsider whether Twitter is for him…

Archbishop mitre got his dates wrong

Posted on May 16, 2012

It seems it isn’t just Theresa May who’s been having some problems reading her calendar of late. Abu Qatada’s deportation is a pretty important process for the Home Secretary – almost as important, you could say, as the date of Easter is to the country’s second most important Churchman, John Sentamu.

And yet my man with a prayer book informs me that the Archbishop of York’s official email address is currently running an Out of Office which reads:

“The Office is closed for Easter…”

That’ll be Easter, which fell on 8th April – over a month ago. Either he’s got Easter wrong, or that’s quite some holiday.

Richard Dawkins, the Pope of preachy atheism

Posted on February 14, 2012

With today’s almighty row about secularism, atheism and religion, it seems like an opportune time to repost this article I wrote on why Richard Dawkins does atheism a gross dis-service by acting like a religious zealot.

Dawkins was on the Today Programme this morning, debating with Occupy-luvvy and former Chancellor of St Paul’s. With two of my least favourite public figures fighting against each other, it was a bit like the Iran/Iraq War, in that you rather wish they could both lose, but in the end it was wonderful to hear Fraser expose the absurdity of Dawkins’ illogical approach to attacking religious people. Listen here.

Gay marriage? Straight marriage? Just de-regulate marriage

Posted on January 18, 2012

The gay marriage debate is back.

The Coalition plans to lift the ban, changing the law to allow same-sex marriage. The Independent reports that David Burrowes MP is (somewhat implausibly) claiming there will be a triple-figure rebellion of Tory backbenchers to defeat the plans.

The Evangelical Alliance  claim the proposals signal “the end of conservatism” (despite Evangelical Christianity being a new radicalism, rather than a conservative movement). Ben Summerskill of Stonewall has accused backbench Tories of “old-fashioned homophobia” (on the evidence of only one MP’s comments).

On one side, supposedly the very concept of the family is threatened if the Government changes its regulations. On the other side, unless the Government extends its regulations then a whole tranche of the population are given second class status under the law.

The mud flies, the rhetorical stakes are raised again and again. Questions fly, and few useful answers are delivered.

But what is the libertarian response? The answer must surely be that the State should not regulate marriage at all.

Two people agree to make a private contract between each other.  They make it for love, or for family logistics, or for religious belief. They make their vows before God, or before their friends and family or simply before each other. That is down to them.

Marriage is an unusual kind of contract, but it is one nonetheless – each party makes pledges, receiving promises and takes on responsibilities in return.

Where is the Government’s place at the wedding breakfast table? Why should the grey-suited regulator get a save-the-date and a dainty invite?

The best way to banish the acrimony and the legislative to and fro over same sex marriage is to abolish the regulation of all marriage entirely. It is the vowing to each other, the exchanging of rings and the sealing kiss, not the signing of the State’s register, that is the focal point of a couple’s day.

Richard Dawkins: an embarrassment to atheists

Posted on August 24, 2010

I was brought up in a Christian household. Baptised a Methodist and confirmed an Anglican, I ended up as head chorister at Newcastle Cathedral.

It was a good upbringing – and my love of church music lingers on. But I’m now an atheist. The church didn’t do anything to offend me, or turn me away, I simply feel that the facts as they are available to me do not justify the existence of a God or the concept of a creator.

When Richard Dawkins records his deliberately contrarian, snarling TV trailers, he probably feels all fuzzy inside knowing that he’s offended some religious people. What he doesn’t seem to factor in is how much he drives me as an atheist, and many others like me, round the bend.

Once a respectable scientist producing interesting and informative books about evolution, somewhere along the way Dawkins seems to have decided that seeing as the original Jesus wasn’t the Messiah, he may as well don the loincloth himself.

His chosen role in the public eye is as a self-appointed leader of atheists – the supreme irony of portraying oneself as the Pope of non-religion would be hilarious if it wasn’t clearly so earnest and conceited.

Every time he speaks out in public it is not to communicate the logic of his position so much as to deride and provoke others. Take his latest Channel 4 trailer, for example – it is ridiculous to suggest that religion is the source of all evil, the only thing which “makes good people do bad things”.

I hate, hate, hate the fact that this pompous, unpleasant, hectoring bully attaches his name ubiquitously to the belief that I happen to hold. Sometimes, it’s almost enough to make me want to change back to believing in God – half to escape association with him, and half just to spite him.

Whilst wrapping himself in the banner of reason and humanity, he’s become a frothing-at-the-mouth, bigoted zealot who is an embarrassment to his cause. He has more in common with the medieval people who flayed themselves and burned innocent people at the stake in the name of Christ than he does with the vast majority of casual, polite atheists in modern Britain.

Is there a worse posterboy for any movement in Britain than Richard Dawkins?