The UK terror threat level is being raised from "substantial" to "severe", Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said. The new alert level means a terrorist attack is considered "highly likely". It had stood at substantial since July. (1)
When I read that the government has raised the terror level to ’severe’, but does not provide any information on the whys or wherefors, I become automatically cynical. I become doubly cynical when I hear that the government is refusing to reveal why at any point.
Mr Johnson refused to say it was linked to the failed Detroit airliner bombing, and said the government would not reveal specific intelligence details. (1)
So, we’re all supposed to quake in our shoes about the possibility of being targeted, but we’re not supposed to know why? Does anyone else see the problem here.
He said the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac), a unit within MI5, had taken the decision based on a broad range of factors, including the intent and capabilities of international terrorist groups in the UK and overseas. (2)
Such as…?
Terrorism expert Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said raising the terror threat level was mainly designed to increase the vigilance of the emergency services and those working in security jobs. "I think it’s not something that the public will notice very much, in terms of everyday life," he said. (2)
My conclusion? Terror threats have become one of our primary forms of social control used by the powerful over the powerless. We are told that they are for our own good, yet we are seldom told why. We are told that we do not need to know why because it will not actually affect our everyday lives, yet they use the word ’severe’ to keep us in check. Semantically, the government is playing a very clever game with our fears and they are doing so very subtly and cleverly. They have used terrorism to give us a moral panic that we can really run with this time…
–
Quoted text from news.bbc.co.uk (1) and guardian.co.uk (2)
Filed under: BBC, guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: 1984, government, politics, security, social control, society, sociology, survelliance, terrorism
A British woman who made a rape complaint in Dubai has been arrested for having illegal sex with her fiance, according to reports. The woman, a 23-year-old from London, said she was raped by a waiter in a luxury hotel after celebrating her engagement to her 44-year-old boyfriend, also from London.
Do we need any more information about the treatment of women in countries which support and practice radical Islam? If it makes me Islamophobic to state that I despise the way that women are treated in some Islamic nations, then Islamophobe am I. It’s disgusting and it is needs to be said.
This woman was raped by someone who followed her into the toilets and took advantage of the fact that she had been drinking. The fact that she was in a country which absolutely prohibits any non-marital sexual activity by women (and does not, interestingly and unsurprisingly, acknowledge marital rape) is enough to damn her. In Saudi Arabia, there is no distinction between violent rape and consensual sex. And it does not matter which takes place when you are a woman.
Could women have fewer rights in these countries? Probably not…
But when she reported the alleged rape to police in the Middle Eastern state she and her boyfriend were arrested for having sex outside marriage and illegal drinking outside licensed premises. …The woman was allegedly inebriated after celebrating her engagement on a three-day new year break to the city, where her boyfriend proposed, and lost consciousness in the women’s toilets of the Address hotel where the couple were staying, according to the Sun. The waiter is said to have followed her into the toilets and raped her while she was in a semi-conscious state. Her fiance, unaware of the attack, took her to her room.
–
Quoted text from guardian.co.uk
Filed under: guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: crime, criminal justice, criminology, feminism, islam, law, legality, rape, religion, sexual violence, women, women's rights
The hidden rise of HIV in the UK
My research in the west Midlands with postgraduate student Betselot Mulugeta, talking to groups of immigrant men and women from the Ethiopian and Eritrean communities, has revealed serious misconceptions about the nature of the HIV/Aids epidemic in the UK. Lack of information tailored for different migrant groups, alongside lower awareness of HIV/Aids through media coverage as a whole, is a problem with real consequences.
The recurrence of HIV as a ‘problem’ virus has been discussed in the UK for a few years now. After the surge in cases of HIV through the 1980s, it dissipated somewhat and the ’scare’ seemed to be over. Of course, now that we live in the Aids Age, we can no longer be complacent about unsafe sex but HIV has certainly not been in the forefront of anyone’s mind for a while now. Until now, perhaps…
Newly reported cases of HIV in the UK are higher than ever before. Between 1995 and 2006, the rate of HIV infection among black Africans in the west Midlands increased 100-fold, compared to a two-fold increase among white people, a three-fold increase among black Caribbeans and a six-fold increase among other mixed ethnic groups (according to the region’s strategic health authority figures).
Yes, the recent rise in HIV cases does seem to be linked to ethnic grouping but the above paragraph indicates that there has been a rise overall. Here’s some (very superior!) explanation:
Taking the Ethiopian and Eritrean population as one example: they are predominantly young and single, tend to live alone and are often sexually active. Their culture and language restrict the information available to them.
But here is an interesting finding that I think needs to be unpicked. This finding says a lot more about British attitudes to the former colonies (and their lack of civilisation) than it does about attitudes to, and knowledge of, sexually transmitted disease.
The respondents in our study said they believed the UK was "civilised" and therefore they could not contract HIV/Aids, that the problem had been left behind in Africa.
And perhaps most tellingly indeed. We are STILL living in a society where the use of condoms in a relationship (or even in casual sex) is linked with notions of female promiscuity. Historically, this has always been the case and it appears from this research that the abundant discourse on safe sexual practices has done nothing to dissipate the notion that condoms = dirty women.
Perhaps most tellingly, interviewees said that Aids wasn’t talked about in the UK and no information or warnings were provided, so they had assumed there wasn’t a problem. Culturally, condoms are a difficult issue. It is considered unacceptable for either partner in a sexual relationship to ask for a condom to be used, because it’s thought to suggest the woman is promiscuous or a prostitute, or that there is a lack of trust between them.
Interesting piece of research and, thankfully, one which avoided the customary and predictable attack on homosexuality and its link with HIV.
–
Quoted text from guardian.co.uk
Filed under: guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: health, homophobia, homosexuality, research, sexuality, society, sociology
The number of suspected sham marriages by illegal immigrants has leapt by more than half in the past year. Figures from the Home Office show a 54% jump in suspected cases reported by registrars in England and Wales. … Mr Rimmer said registrars were seeing cases where the couple could not speak each other’s language and their body language made it obvious that they barely knew each other. "Pakistani and Portuguese is one that has seemed to crop up recently. If you see one [couple] … that’s OK. But when you see three in a week, you start to think that something strange is going on."
This is very reminiscent of reports from the US about the number of ‘green card marriages’ that have taken place there in the last 20/30 years. I’ve not been approached myself to marry someone in order that they gain UK citizenship, but heck, I need the money! I kid. Really, I do…
I’m not sure how the law works exactly but it seems that you can marry anyone from the EU to gain working rights in the UK. (Therefore, although I’m Irish, I could be ‘marriable’.) This current trend of ‘citizenship marriages’ has a more sinister side, however. Women from Eastern Europe and being used to marry migrants. This is 21st Century prostitution in its newest form…
Registrars have told the BBC that marriage rackets are using Eastern European brides to provide other migrants with a toehold in the UK. The scale of the problem has been highlighted in a special BBC investigation in which a reporter posed as an illegal immigrant – and quickly found people offering to help him marry. … Registrars have told the BBC that sham marriage rackets have returned and many are using Eastern European spouses who have a legal right to be in the UK. This makes it easier for the migrant from another part of the world to settle.
The numbers reported (graph on source) are not excessive, although they were very high before the government imposed measures in 2004.
In 2005, the government told foreigners they needed the home secretary’s permission to get married in the UK. If someone did not have a legal right to be in the country, they were denied a certificate of approval. Registrars had lobbied for the change saying they had been powerless to stop a massive rise in bogus marriages, with more than 3,500 suspected cases in one year alone.
–
Quoted text from news.bbc.co.uk
Filed under: BBC | Leave a Comment
Tags: feminism, government, law, legality, politics, prostitution, research, society, sociology, women's rights
The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.
This is a privacy dimension that I had not considered before in terms of body scanners. Of course, this claim could be viewed as another example of reactionary thinking (for which the UK is now almost famous) but there could be a point.
The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.
There has also been a debate for a while now around the images being captured on body scanners (which basically disrobe you) ending up on the Internet, so it is not difficult to extend those concerns to issues around child pornography.
They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown’s announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.
These debates should probably be about the macro (national and global security) rather than the micro (personal privacy) but it is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two issues. Particularly when one is going through such a process knowing that somewhere, someone is have a good look at you naked…
–
Quoted text from guardian.co.uk
Filed under: guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: 1984, law, legality, legislation, pornography, privacy, security, survelliance
This follows on from a piece I just posted around the issue of evidence on alcohol use in rape cases.
In short, Lady Stern is calling for an abolition of an argument often invoked in rape cases that drunk men who rape can be excused because they know no better. This does happen. I also made the point that when the alcohol use of a rape victim is invoked in rape cases, it is more often than not used to demonise the victim. ‘She was drunk so she deserved it’. This absolves the rapist from his actions because she was drunk and brought it on herself.
This is what the Guardian piece is about below, and sums up very well the attitudes of many people (not just jurists) to rape victims.
A young woman walks into a bar, drinks too much and carelessly shows the man next to her that she is carrying a wad of notes in her handbag. He mugs her on her way home and the police arrest him. The jurors mutter that she has no one to blame but herself, but they don’t mean it. However much of an idiot they think she has been, they still know that a mugging is the responsibility of a mugger and the guilty man must pay. A young woman walks into a bar, drinks too much and carelessly flirts with the man next to her. He follows her and rapes her. The jurors mutter that she has no one to blame but herself, but this time they mean it. She is more than just an idiot. The supposed provocation she offered absolves the alleged rapist of responsibility. It’s her fault now.
The rest of the piece presents an interesting perspective on how jurists perceive rape victims (and those accused of rape).
–
Quoted text from guardian.co.uk
Filed under: guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: crime, criminal justice, criminology, feminism, law, legality, rape, sexual violence, society, sociology, women, women's rights
Drunken men who demand sex from their wives or girlfriends should be treated as rapists and no longer allowed to claim their judgment was blurred by alcohol, according to the head of the government’s review of the rape laws.
Well now. This is what seems to be a progressive move. Alcohol (and other substances) have long been use in court to (a) demonise rape victims and (b) excuse rapists. ‘She was drunk so she deserved it’/ ‘He was drunk so he didn’t know what he was doing’.
Lady Stern, who is leading the review into how rape complaints are handled, has said there must be "no grey area" and that drink should be regarded as an aggravating factor when the case comes to court0… "Being drunk is voluntary and people who become drunk are responsible for their actions. It is not the alcohol that commits the rape. It is not an excuse. It used to be regarded as such, but it is not an excuse. It is an aggravating factor."
The very big and troublesome downside of what she is saying, I have already alluded to. If the use of substances is introduced in court as an incriminating factor for men, it will almost certainly be continued to be used as an incriminating factor for women. Which is exactly what the Criminal Justice System has been trying to move away from for years. So I, for one, do not see how this will work in an victim’s favour.
–
Quoted text from guardian.co.uk
Filed under: guardian | Leave a Comment
Tags: feminism, law, legality, public opinion, rape, sexual violence, society, sociology, women, women's rights
Muslims in Britain are the most patriotic in Europe — but more than a quarter in some parts of the country still do not feel British, according to a new study.
Um. I find this piece a little difficult to follow, while some of it appears outright contradictory. In one sentence (above), it’s been stated that UK Muslims are the most patriotic in Europe, yet many do not ‘feel’ British. So which is it? Is it either/ or? Or does Britishness even equate to patriotism? Unfortunately the Times piece doesn’t actually say.
The findings, based on more than 2,000 detailed interviews, suggest that Muslims may be better integrated in Britain than in other parts of the European Union.
Well, that’s good news (isn’t it?). Britain has been trying to increase her integration for many years now.
The report will reopen the debate about the merits of multiculturalism, a policy that has actively promoted cultural and religious differences among minorities in Britain…
Yes, it will. So is this new-found sense of Britishness something we want or something we don’t want? Again, the piece doesn’t actually say.
The survey found that levels of patriotism are much higher among second-generation Muslims. In Leicester, 72% of Muslims born abroad said they felt British; this figure jumped to 94% among UK-born Muslims.
This is a predictable finding and reproduces many findings on second generation Irish and Italians in the US.
All in all, I’m but sure what to make of this because, although the report claims that patriotism is increasing, and that "religious belief made no difference to how patriotic Muslims feel", it doesn’t really tell us much about what this means in terms of multi-culturalism or cohesiveness. Or, perhaps more importantly, it doesn’t state if it means anything at all or if that sense of patriotism is even something that we need or want.
The Times piece is, of course, a classic case of little bits of a research study being quoted, largely out of context, rendering the findings of the research disjointed at best, and meaningless, at worst. If I have time, I will look at the study itself and come back with something more concrete (if, indeed, such a thing exists).
–
Quoted text from timesonline.co.uk
Filed under: times online | Leave a Comment
Tags: islam, religion, research, society, sociology
In the battle of youth aggression, girls are matching their male counterparts blow for blow, according to a team of Brisbane researchers. The University of Queensland group’s report, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, lends support to fears of increasing violence among girls and reports of schoolyard fights. In May last year, three girls beat 15-year-old Tess Stirling in a sickening, premeditated attack on the Gold Coast.
Quick hit: this has been a problem in England for a number of years now. The amount of violence perpetrated by women has increased at a rate not predicted in recent years. There are a number of theories about why this may be happening, normally suggested by the right-wing and conservative among us: changes in family life, increasing independence of women, secularism of society, changes in social control, etc. We don’t why it’s happening, in short.
More thoughts on the piece.
–
Quoted text from brisbanetimes.com.au
Filed under: other | Leave a Comment
Tags: crime, criminal justice, criminology, feminism, society, sociology, women
Bring on today’s pointless, not to mention shockingly patronising, piece of research. Blondes are well determined then, innit.
Yawn!
Women with blonde hair have the competitive edge, being more aggressive and determined than redheads and brunettes, say scientists. Fair-haired women, whether natural or out of a bottle, display a warlike streak when fighting battles to get their own way, findings suggest.
Here’s the overly-simplistic explantion of why this may be the case:
They found blondes were used to getting more attention and being treated better by others. The researchers believe this sense of entitlement is what makes them more willing to "go to war" over an issue.
*insert reminder to the reader that this is about hair colour*
Now, I’m all about the research, and I’ll try to find a sociological/ psychological meaning in just about anything, but this is frankly ludicrous. Nowhere on this BBC piece does it mention anything about any other factors which may influence the ways in which women with any hair colour act. Instead it presents a reductionist perspective on why women (and the pesky ones with opinions at that!) behave the way they do. This research culminates in nothing more than a modern-day blonde joke where women with blond hair are, once again, being criticised because of one physical attribute. At best, this research was ill-conceived and meaningless. At worst, it was yet another attempt to keep those damned strong women in their place.
–
Quoted text from news.bbc.co.uk
Filed under: BBC | Leave a Comment
Tags: feminism, misogyny, psychology, research, society, sociology, women
