THERE'S NOTHING PAST THIS

My original concept for the recent Death Cab For Cutie inspired poster.

WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW FROM WHOM THEY ARE SEEKING ADVICE

There would be two very unwanted effects of introducing the amendments to law that are currently being touted by certain MPs under the banner of the Right to Know campaign. These amendments primarily involve changing the process a women must undergo previous to her being allowed to have an abortion. Introducing the recommendations could easily lead a collapse in faith of patient trust and become a signifier that political agenda is covertly feeding some of the health service reforms.

MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field - amongst others - forward their belief that women do not currently have enough guidance or information made available to them before undergoing the operation. Under their suggestions, women would have to seek council before legally being allowed to have an abortion performed.

This amendment smacks of a sinisiter adgenda in itself. Rather outrageously, it suggests that a group of MPs have a secret moral imperitive to denote women's freedoms under a darker definition.

This last concern of mine isn't simply a fundamental opposition to the wielding of an opinion that clashes with my own (for it is true that I view a woman's right to choose as being of equal importance to the rosta of human rights that govern all of our ethical standards). No, mine is a position borne of the stipulations that accompany the proposed parliamentary bill; namely that any organisation offering guidance to women would be required in law to be seperate from any who offer the proceedure itself.

On initial glance the bill seems to wield a sickly arrogance to suppose that women do not already have the tools and effeciency to investigate the health implications under their own steam. This is not a proposition that reveals its benefits easily and requires a thorough thinking through; not least because there is an unquestionably humanitarian concern that underpins the sentiment.

I can see the obvious welfare implications in wanting women to have all of the facts to hand. I do not believe for one moment that it is worth supposing that every single woman has access and/or the impetus to investiagate themselves into the psychological and physical afteraffects of abortion. It seems entirely justifiable to patronise the majority if it means that an uninformed and at-risk few get the help and support they need.

It is in the nature of this help that my worries lie. If we remove from the equation the help and advise of groups directly involved in providing terminations (and obviously somewhat clouded by financially-vested interests) you end up with a select remainder of people who by definition do not. This pool of lendable ears - it is fair to assume - could largely be compiled from people who are involved in related dialogue from an opposing agenda. As an example of this, a group touted this week as being a potential beneficiary of patients is linked to a figure known to have both significant governmental influence and a personal commitment to the preservation of life from the moment of fertilisation.

By withdrawing the opinion of those who do advocate abortion, we might find ourselves entirely under the influence of those who do not. To give a such a stance full and unopposed reign during such a distressing and confusing time for a woman, we would be performing them a gross misservice on a personal level. Nationally we may also discover a collective hoodwinking by those advocating impartiality and responsibility, but who act under private religious or political predelictions.

(Edited Monday June 6th at 16:41 GMT)

THERE'S NOTHING PAST IT.

Beyond the newly-bolstered sonic strength of Death Cab For Cutie on their new album Codes And Keys, Benjamin Gibbard's celebrated lyrical poignancy retains its heart. On the track St. Peter's Cathedral we also are afforded a brain.

IN THE MOST BIBLICAL SENSE I AM BEYOND REPENTANCE

Another lyrical nod to Lady Gaga, from her latest offering.

Which reminds me to mention AC Grayling's The Good Book... a far more reasonable affair by miles (to the other Good Book that is..) and nicely readable too.

AT WHAT POINT DOES PUBLIC INTIMACY BECOME OFFENSIVE VULGARITY?

The story as it has been reported, to date:
Two men were on a date in a London pub nearby to Soho when they were asked by another drinker to stop kissing. Later, when the pair were set to go, they were asked to leave by a member of staff who cited “obscene” behaviour as her reason for their ejection. Two fellow diners who were sat on a nearby table have described the men’s actions as moderate and unworthy of objection. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police.

The problem I have with the discussion of this news story in its current form is that second-hand information cannot really provide enough of a picture to formulate an informed opinion. There are a number of factors to which none of us are privy; but a wealth of conclusions being drawn regardless. The lack of clarity here leaves us all to mere speculation alone. At what point does public intimacy tip over from a touching display of innocent romance into offensive vulgarity? Is it right or fair to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality?

What this event shows – along with the array of comments listed online – is the subjectivity to human experience and social behaviours that everyone inherently has. It is at the crux of the very story itself – a disagreement about what is acceptable. No pub landlord, couple on their first-date, journalist or web commentator is ever going to solve the problem that people’s ideas about how to live differ.

Until we know the motivations of the pub’s landlord and staff - and the exact nature of the couple’s behaviour - we will not be able to weigh up this event with reason or clarity. In the meantime, vilifying the people involved will only do ourselves a similar disservice.

A note regarding the planned "kiss-in" protests: Deliberately riling those whom you disagree with will not achieve mutual respect but will stoke further division.

The flurry of opinions being spouted from all quarters seem to warrant a nationwide questioning: “AT WHAT POINT DOES PUBLIC INTIMACY BECOME OFFENSIVE VULGARITY?”

STIGMATISING A WHOLE PEOPLE NEVER GOT US ANYWHERE

And for today, a double-bill double entendre:

"Stigmatising a whole people never got us anywhere"

- Angelique Chrisafis, a French Muslim.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU LOVE HIM OR CAPITAL H-I-M

Reason and diplomacy delivered provocatively (Courtesy Miss Gaga).

Source: Born This Way

"FOR GOD'S SAKE" IS USED TO EXPRESS URGENCY AND NOT TO INVOKE A DEITY

From The Guardian: Humanist census posters banned from railway stations.

You can join the British Humanist Association's Census Campaign here.

MUSCULAR LIBERALISM

Prime Minister David Cameron recently spoke on his concerns about terrorism and the integration of various religious groups into British society. His speech offered a view that an erosion of definitive national social principles has allowed the rise of distinct separations in the manner in which we conduct our lives. He argued that without providing robust expectations of its citizens, our country will not tackle the threads of unrest that are slowly boiling beneath its surface. He explicitly refers to extreme religious factions that adopt life principles that are incompatible with the aspirations of the greater UK populace.

Cameron used the terminology "muscular liberalism" to give shape to his image of a nation that holds certain democratic qualities as defining cornerstone principles.

It is easy to imagine liberalism as a compelling way to describe the desires for a population. It is a strong statement of will that declares in grand tones a giddy freedom. Several hints of force that creep into Cameron's rhetoric (economic sanctions for example) are surely contrary to such a vision of a truly liberalised nation? Freedom, after all, moves beyond governance: to enshrine it in doctrine would be an opposition to allowing it to truly flourish. The lingual predominance of this particular point - with the stark adjective "muscular" - only dents the sentiment further with imagery that sounds (if only slightly) violent.

What do his words really mean?

NATIONAL MYOPIA POSES A BIGGER CHALLENGE TO THE U.S.'S LONG-TERM STABILITY THAN TERRORISM EVER WILL.