Guido's Death Penalty Campaign*

I seriously think that Kelvin McKenzie should take some sort of legal action against Guido Fawkes (or whoever is running that site these days) for identity theft. Because with this sort of rabble rousing, he is truly gunning to the online version of perhaps The Sun's most notorious famous editor. Yes, he is/they are launching a petition to bring back the death penalty for child and cop murderers.

The logic, such as it is, seems to be that this should be done because a majority of the population back such a move. The evidence offered is scant, and "all polls" actually refers to just one poll, of 2,011 people, dating back to December 2008, in which 50% of the people (so just over 1,000, then) were for the death penalty. It is difficult to take such a result and project it with any degree of credibility across a population of over 60,000,000. And even if you could, would that then make it right for the majority to force their opinions on the minority? What the majority decided that pseudonyms should be banned from the internet? Or, more controversially and seriously, if Catholics should be declared second-rate citizens?

And while we're on the subject or spurious logic and borderline misrepresentation of the facts, what about the guff about "getting real justice" for the next Baby P? Those involved in the foul abuse of Baby P were not convicted of murder, and therefore would not have been eligible for the death penalty. This is nothing other dog-whistle politics - an attempt to gain support by mentioning the most infamous recent case of a malicious child death. Presumably Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting - two people who even to your humble author, a passionate opponent of the death penalty, can see the case for executing - are just too old hat these days.

Guido has done some good work in the past (McBride, Hain) and may yet continue to do so (Morgan), but this sort of thing does him no favours. It also does damage to the blogging world, since one of the few possible USPs that exists for political bloggers is that they are not like the MSM. Guido turning his site into not just a tabloid but one of the worst of the tabloids as well as one currently having its reputation justly dragged through the mud is a a depressing sign that, when (pseudo-)fame and (presumably) money come calling, the temptation to sell out is too much to resist.

I've no idea whether this idea/campaign has legs or will simply die a death. But I do sincerely hope for the latter, since the whole thing reeks of a cynical and desperate attempt to court public approval and precious little else.

*Yup, this post is largely a rehash of an earlier one. But since Guido has not really moved on in his opinons and logic this sort of post, by its very nature, can't move on that much either.

The Pope: You Can Rubber Up After All

And are we supposed to be impressed by this?

Pope Benedict XVI has said the use of condoms is acceptable "in certain cases", according to a new book.

That's big of him. Nice to see that he is slowly taking into account the well-being of those who follow his persistent little cult.

He said condoms could reduce the risk of infection with HIV, such as for a prostitute, in a series of interviews he gave to a German journalist.

No shit Sherlock! I'm amazed - I am absolutely staggered - that his Popiness has only just worked out that there is a link between HIV and unprotected sex. He's stating what almost everyone with half a brain cell has known for decades.

I think we're supposed to see this as a real step forward for the Catholic Church, but the reality is that they are only slowly catching up with the rest of the modern world. And it is pretty repugnant to think of how many lives have been blighted by the Papal stance on contraceptives (and on child rape by priests, of course) over the years - any current half-hearted endorsement of condoms does not make up for the damage inflicted by the previous Papal position on this. This sort of thing only highlights how unrealistic and cruel the Catholic Church often is with its worship of dogmatism and a leadership detached from the rest of the world in a collection of palaces in Vatican City.

Against Certainty

With the Panzer Pope heading home soon, it is perhaps good to reflect on what an extraordinary visit this has been for the religious leader. Sure, his pronouncements have been exactly what you might expect from a Pope - namely, that those who do not share his beliefs are wrong and evil (possibly even Nazis). The protests that arose as the result of his visit reassure me to some extent - they show that this is no longer a religious nation as such, or at least is a nation where religious beliefs are no longer privileged and have to fight for respect alongside other belief systems. This can only be a good thing for a modern democratic nation.

Yet what was striking to me was the sheer level of conviction of many of those who protested the Pope's visit. Don't get me wrong, I can't stomach the man and I think his views, and his actions over the paedophile scandal, are reprehensible and clearly not suitable for a man running a religious organisation of billions. Yet there's a distinction between protesting what the Pope says and arguing against his right to visit this country. I believe anyone with any sort of moral sense should protest what the Pope says; yet to demand that he should not even be allowed to visit his country is just as illiberal (given he is a key figure for Catholics in this country) as many of Ratzinger's pronouncements.

Which has been the striking thing about many of the secular protestors - their certainty that they are right has now reached a point where they seem to be demanding that the religious do not express their views. To me, this is clearly wrong. I believe religion is a lot of stuff and nonsense, and I have no compunction about sharing those views with both believers and non-believers. I believe I have a right to express my beliefs - however, I do not believe that I have a right to tell others what they should believe. The sort of aggressive secularism of some now seems to be reaching a point where it is telling people what they can and cannot believe in and say. And I see this as extremely dangerous.

As far as I can see, the demise of religion as the dominant force in this country has meant that religion has simply been substituted with other views that cannot be argued with. This is a true irony - many people have freed themselves from religious domination only to find other "truths" to dominate their thinking. This isn't just the case with militant atheists - we can see this certainty affecting many other beliefs throughout this country. The climate change campaigners are now so certain that they have discovered an indisputable truth that they are happy to deny the rights of sceptics to debate and question their conclusions. The same with socialists and other statists - their certainty in the benevolence of the state means they cannot contemplate the views of those who seek to reduce the size of the state. Likewise, flawed organisations and bodies created by flawed humans are now revered to such an extent that to talk of reforming or even abolishing them has become a form of sacrilege. Don't believe me? Try saying that you want to abolish the NHS and see what sort of a reaction you get.

Let me be clear here - I'm not calling for people to abandon their beliefs. I'm not putting forward a case for nihilism; positive or otherwise. What I am saying is that while people should have their belief systems, they should also take into account that other people may differ in their beliefs, and in this inherently uncertain world in which we all exist there must be the possibility that a belief, no matter how apparently logical, adamantly held and cherished, may be proved to be wrong in the future.

Certainty and rigidity in belief can be a comforting thing in an ever-changing world, but it can also be used to dominate others and strangle debate. It should go without saying that we must be very careful to prevent this from happening; but given the readiness of some to deny others their right to express their beliefs, it clearly does need to be said anyway.

So if you're like me, and you think the Pope is an appalling person and Catholicism is nothing more than archaic myth and superstition, by all means make your case and make your protests. But don't seek to deny others their right to hold their own beliefs, no matter how ignorant, ludicrous and downright stupid they may seem to you.

Proud to be British...

...for perhaps the first time ever:

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after reportedly saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

If we are pissing off people closely connected to this reprehensible arse of a pontiff, then we must be doing something right.

The Panzer Pope and Paedophilia

This article is well worth reading, partly because it shows that the Panzer Pope is actually doing something about paedophilia in his church - albeit it in a quiet way that doesn't seem that committed to what the rest of the world would recognise as justice - and partly because it shows just how depraved senior members of the Catholic church have been. Go read the whole thing: I certainly think it is worth it.

But as an aside I would just like to point to this statement from the Vatican, talking about the call for blind obedience from the followers of Father Maciel Maciel:

"By pushing away and casting doubt upon all those who questioned his behaviour... he created around him a defence mechanism that made him unassailable for a long period, making it difficult to know his true life."

That sort of behaviour reminds me of something... something in the Catholic church... what is it? What is it? Oh, wait, papal infallibility.

Pot and kettle time for the Vatican...

The Devil and the Pope

Sometimes you don't need to satirise the Catholic Church; it just does it for itself:

"The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences," said Father Amorth, 85, who has been the Holy See's chief exorcist for 25 years.

Doesn't the Pope live in the Vatican as well? If the Devil resides there as well, does that make them roomies? Or something more?!? I think we should be told....

"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler and Stalin did."

Err, Stalin wasn't a Nazi. Small point, but worth highlighting. And the Nazi's weren't possessed by anything than a heady brew of undeserved power mixed with deeply held prejudice. To dismiss them as possessed by evil is rather to miss the point about the banality of evil; the willing killers of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are not necessarily evil - although their actions certainly are - but are rather normal humans given permission to become inhuman by the state. That's why we need to have constant vigilance against the tendencies of government to drift towards authoritarianism. And also why we need to combat any such drift (with something a little more realistic than exorcism).

Plus, wasn't the Pope once in the Hitler Youth? Does that mean he was possessed as well? Perhaps that's why the Devil feels so at home in the Vatican.

"(The Devil) can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, or even appear to be sympathetic. At times he makes fun of me. But I'm a man who is happy in his work."

The Devil makes fun of you, eh? Can't think why...

The Pope On Paedophilia

You know, for most institutions this would be a given, but clearly for the Catholic Church it needs to be spelt out:

Pope Benedict XVI has... condemned abuse of children by priests as a "heinous crime", and said Irish bishops must act to restore the Church's "moral credibility".

Well done to the Panzer Pope! To most people, he has stated the bleedin' obvious. But such is the insanity of the organisation he heads up that this could almost be described as a great step forward. Whatever next? Could we see the Pope taken further leaps forward? Perhaps by saying that contraception is actually quite good at preventing AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. Is that too much to hope for?

Yes, yes it is. I'm probably being optimistic there. But jolly well done, Pope Benedict XVI, for clarifying that your priests shouldn't rape children...

Bears shit in the woods, just as the Pope talks shit

In this season of goodwill, some see it as customary to put differences to one side and embrace those people who, perhaps for the rest of the year, you have some differences with. For others, such as the Pope, it is the time to slag off anyone who does not live in a way he deems suitable:

In his address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration, he described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and said that the Roman Catholic Church had a duty to "protect man from the destruction of himself".

And:

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official described homosexuality as "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound".

So sayeth a celibate man in a dress who lives in a palace a loooonnng way from the real world.

The irony is, of course, that Benedict's words - and the stance of the Catholic church as a whole - shows that it isn't homosexuality that is a deviation, an irregularity or a wound. Rather, it is the archaic, intolerant and out-moded Catholic church that matches that description perfectly.

Benedict In America: "Deep Shame"

The Pope (resisting the temptation to put “Panzer” in front of his title) has been in the US, undermining our PM (hurray!) and generally being well received. He’s also started to acknowledge that Catholic Priests have been abusing children, and that child abuse is not a good thing. Yes, I know most people know this anyway, but given the standards of the previous pontiff this point needs clarification from Benedict XVI:

“The pontiff called the scandal a cause of "deep shame", and spoke of the "enormous pain" that communities have suffered from such "gravely immoral behaviour" by priests.”

This probably stops short of being the total condemnation of child abuse that most people would expect: priests using their positions of authority and responsibility to rape children of more than “gravely immoral”; it is utterly evil. Still, at least the pontiff is acknowledging paedophilia isn’t the done thing, even within the monastic orders of the Catholic Church.

But it is not just the fault of the Church, you see. Oh, no, not at all:

“However, he also brought up what he saw as problems in the wider world, saying the media were to blame for broadcasting unsuitable material.”

‘What sort of unsuitable material?’ you’d be well within your rights to be asking.

"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?" he asked.

So much wrong with that statement that I don’t know where to start. Turns out, in Benedict-land, it is not child pornography causing paedophile priests, which is hardly surprising as child pornography is condemned and restricted across the world. But rather pornography and violence, beamed into households all over the world via the vile media. Benedict’s paedophile priests must be very susceptible to the influence of the media, and also very imaginative about what they see, if they are going to turn the porn and violence broadcast by the media into a calling to rape children. Frankly, if they are that susceptible to the media, you’d have thought that they wouldn’t be the right calibre of individual to spread the word of Benedict’s God on earth, would you?

And even given the violence and pornography beamed around the world by the media, why does it become meaningless to talk about child protection? Probably always worth having a conversation at some point about child protection. You know, to protect children ‘n’ all.

But Benedict and the upper echelons of the Catholic Church don’t want to have a proper conversation about how they can help to protect children – which has nothing to do with porn or violence in the media. Rather it is about how their priests behave and what they do when cases of child abuse come to light. I don’t think the Panzer Pope will be admitting this, though. That would challenge the authority of his church and, as we know, the church is infallible.

Cue the sound of hollow laughter.