Fuck off, dear.

Saying, "Calm down, dear," is not sexism.

I hate sexism. I hate racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. When I use the word hate, I don't mean dislike. I mean hate. If I find out one of my friends is any of these things, they cease to be my friend. I hate sexism. I also think that quite frequently the right wing parties in this country and the press that represent those parties (looking at you: Daily Mail, Express, red-top tabloids et. al) go out of their way to patronise those represented by equality campaigns; what these people use is rarely anything but a diversion technique, or a movement against equality, which shifts the focus of the discourse from real discrimination to positively inane discussions of the plight of Christians. Please.

But tonight, I find myself in the unusal position of unequivocally agreeing with the right-wing press. I don't know to what extent this makes me disagree with the left-wing press but I would assume there's a substantial degree of discord.

But saying, in Prime Minister's Questions - a notoriously raucous affair - "Calm down dear," is not even remotely sexist. It is arguably not even offensive. It is a very fleeting jibe, one which encapsulates friendly rivalry at the same time as being mildly condescending. There is literally no way that David Cameron intended his comments to be a statement on women's inferiority, and nor is there even the most minute of possibilities that Cameron said what he said as the result of a prejudiced nature which he failed to control or appreciate. I wish it were so. I would adore the chance to nail Cameron as a sexist or a homophobe or a racist or anything else which could explain why the government he leads continues to penalise the most vulnerable members of society instead of the most prosperous.

But this is not the case. Why? Because freedom of speech, you stupid little fuck. It sounds like a Daily Mail argument, but it is infinitely true: if things continue like this, alongside cases like that of the man that joked about blowing up Robin Hood airport due to delays, we will find ourselves in a situation where every person considers the social and potentially offensive consequences of everything they say. This is the masked death of freedom of speech.

Anybody who thinks that what David Cameron said tonight is sexist, is a moron. I make no apologies for the blunt nature of that assertion.

Sexism only happens in domains where the perpetrators of sexism believe they can get away with being sexist.

The Truth About AV

In little over two weeks' time the country (or half of it) (or less than half of it) will head to the ballot box for a vote about voting. It's only the second referendum in the history of UK politics, the first having addressed the question of whether to remain in the EU (then the Common Market) back in 1975. It's unlikely that, should the country vote NO on May 5, there will ever (and certainly in our lifetime) be another chance for real political reform.

But the campaigns about AV and the representation of the choice facing the public have had almost no foundation in facts whatsoever. Both sides of the argument have twisted statistics and rhetoric to suit their particular needs, and at the majority of points those needs have been politically motivated - that is to say that the Tories don't want AV because it would hurt them, and the Lib Dems do want it because it would help them, and Labour don't know whether they want it because it's not clear how it would affect their representation.

The NO campaign have even tried to argue that the BNP would vote YES to AV even though the BNP have declared their support for the NO campaign because they know AV would hurt them. This is the most extreme example of the way that voters have been taken for idiots. So this post exists to throw the masks off the arguments that don't make sense from both sides.

A simple, tried & tested alternative. (YES campaign)

No. The YES campaign tries to use this as a way to make people feel safer about the potential upheaval of political decision-making, when in order to achieve that it should instead concentrate on the positives of such upheaval and the similarities (of which there are many) between FPTP and AV. Just because AV is used in leadership campaigns does not mean it is tried and tested in democratically electing parliaments. It is used in Australia, one good example, but it is hardly the overwhelming choice of Western democracies.

AV is costly. Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote. (NO campaign)

No. Of all the untruths told in these campaigns this one is arguably the most irresponsible. The referendum is already happening so the cost of it is not a reason to vote NO. The electronic voting systems mentioned in the NO campaign's literature are not planned and there are even suggestions of legal action being taken against this claim. This statement also greatly devalues the importance of democracy.

Shutting down extremism. Extremists can get in by the back door under FPTP. (YES campaign)

No. Firstly, the use of the term 'extremism' is a terrible misnomer and reveals the real intention of using this as a fundamental argument: to make people scared that one of these systems makes it easy for the BNP to stroll into power. Neither of them does. Let's call 'extremism' what it really is: non-mainstream opinion. This includes the Greens (who I doubt many would label as 'extremists' in the stereotypical sense) and to some extent even the Lib Dems. Basically, the majority of people now who would vote for these parties but don't because it's a wasted vote in almost all constituencies (in that the party is never going to win a seat due to a core of Lab/Con/Lib supporters) can vote for that party under AV with the knowledge that in the likely scenario that the party doesn't win they can still express their preference between more mainstream parties. It remains to be seen how the introduction of AV in the long-term would affect fringe parties in the UK but it is difficult to argue that the BNP are more likely to win 30% of votes in a specific constituency from nowhere under FPTP.

AV is complex and unfair. (NO campaign)

No. This is the most offensive of all of these lies. AV is not complex. You choose candidates in order of preference until you no longer wish to choose candidates. So, so, so simple. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school. The NO campaign have made huge waves by saying that under AV 'the loser can win'. What that means is simply smoke and mirrors: it simply means that under AV, the person that would win under FPTP doesn't always win in AV. Which is the whole point of this fucking referendum because there would be no point in choosing between 2 voting systems if the results of an election were the same under both.

Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. (NO campaign)

No. Australia uses AV and it doesn't have a coalition government every time it forms a new one. We have a coalition at the moment and it came from FPTP. The only reason this argument is being used is because Nick Clegg has been demonised - rightly or wrongly, who cares - because of his decisions as Deputy Prime Minister and the NO campaign think (perhaps rightly) that they can win a few extra % of the votes by associating him strongly with the YES campaign. Which sucks. Like both campaigns do in general. The end.

Where Are All These Eastern Europeans Coming From?

Today the Daily Mail carries an article I couldn't avoid. I really intend not to solely focus on the output of the Mail, as even though they provide easily enough distorted rhetoric to support three of these blogs, they're by no means the only culprits (even if they are consistently the worst).

The article makes claims to analysing and discussing all the real aspects of immigration but, as always, these questions and more importantly their answers are blurred and tarted up by certain journalists in order to manufacture a worldview which enables readers to displace rage and blame at the same time as pretending that people like Gillian Duffy (the woman at the centre of the bigot 'scandal' during last year's General Election) are legitimately concerned about the economic consequences of immigration despite regularly saying things like "Where are all these eastern Europeans coming from?"

The Mail article begins:

Britain faces a new influx of migrants(1) who could claim benefits of up to £250 a week(2) within weeks(3) of arriving.

which actually means:

We're worried that there might be a slight increase in migrants from eight European countries.(1) They could claim benefits of an absolute maximum of £250 a week(2) within 3 months(3) of arriving.

It's imperative to realise that when newspapers twist facts like these, they don't lie - they're very clever indeed. They can say 'within weeks' when they mean 'within 3 months' because technically, 3 months is about twelve weeks. It isn't an explicit falsehood, so it's seen as fair game. It's also worth noting that the headline is:

Bar on benefits lifted for East European migrants who will be able to claim £250 a week

which isn't true, since it implies directly that all of the included migrants will be entitled to £250 a week (they won't) and indirectly suggests that it's the sudden overturning of a blanket ban on benefits for East European migrants (it isn't.)

As we sink deeper into the article we find this brilliant little rhetorical device:

Critics(1) are concerned about the risk of ‘benefits tourism’ by immigrants from the eight former(2) Communist countries affected.

which in plain English means:

We(1) are concerned about the risk of 'benefits tourism' by immigrants from the eight obviously evil(2) countries affected by the pre-planned abolition of a rule which was always meant to occur and is required by EU law.

This fantastic device enables newspapers with no real sources to suggest that there is vociferous and reasonable opposition to an idea, decision or even a system by using the umbrella term 'critics' which can include any or all of the following categories:

• Journalists at the very same newspaper
• One or two MPs from any political party
• Heads of organizations like MigrationWatch and the TaxPayers' Alliance who exist solely to provide quotes for stories like these.
• On occasion, when desperation sets in, even average members of the public

The Mail's article implies that parties from at least two of these four categories are included under the label of 'critic'.

It also contains the most common and crude of diversion and deception techniques: the last-paragraph game-changer.

The Department for Work and Pensions insisted that the rule changes will not mean people will be able simply to come to the UK and start claiming benefits – because there will be strict tests.

The rules have to be lifted because they conflict with the EU’s freedom of movement laws.

How many people do you reckon read this far down the article? Those are literally the last 2 paragraphs of the main body of text, before the paper starts quoting a YouGov poll in which 'Fifty per cent say benefits are too generous'.

I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with how the Daily Mail reports about them.

'Aggressive Secularism'

It is immediately worth mentioning that this blog is not, and nor will it ever be, anti-religious. It simply aims to dispel some of the institutionalised mythologies and empty rhetoric used to communicate with large audiences. The areas where these discourses are most common aren't hard to fathom: politics, journalism, religion and sport. The ideas expressed on this blog are not intended to criticise or promote particular perspectives in any of those domains, but simply to shift the discussions within them back to a clear and rational position.

Today, Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland gave his Easter sermon in which he bemoaned what he perceives as a marginalisation of the Christian faith in the United Kingdom. Here's what he said:

Perhaps more than ever before(1) there is that aggressive secularism and there are those who would indeed try to destroy(2) our Christian heritage and culture(3) and take God from the public square.

which translated through a machine which removes clever rhetorical devices means:

Why do none of you come to my church any more?!(1) I don't understand (or support) the desire of non-religious people(2) to not have religious ideas imposed upon them. In order to create the illusion that the church is still important, here are two vague aspects of public life which are to some extent linked with Christianity but are in no sense good reasons for the interference of religion in law- or policy-making(3).

He went on to add:

Yes - Christians must work toward that full unity for which Christ prayed(1) - but even at this present time Christians must be united in their common awareness of the enemies(2) of the Christian faith in our country, of the power that they are at present exerting(3), and the need for us to be aware of that right to equality(4) which so many others cry out for(5).

which, in English, says:

Christians must try to make everybody else Christian(1) - but not if it includes fraternising with the gays or the Muslims(2). I feel threatened by the idea that people will stop believing the things I do(3) and no longer want to see or hear those things on a regular basis. We are used to our church having a privileged position(4) and, in order to preserve that, we must align our desire for special treatment alongside the reasonable expectations of heathens(5) to be treated like humans. By equating religious belief with sexual orientation we can blur the line between choices and naturally-occurring phenomena, which helps us both ways.

And he closes by asserting that:

Recently(1), various Christians(2) in our society were marginalised(3) and prevented from acting in accordance with their beliefs(4) because they were not willing to publicly endorse a particular lifestyle.

which it should be quite obvious actually means:

I have read the Daily Mail(1) and been vicariously outraged by the treatment of a few people(2). They were prevented from marginalising various groups(3) and required to tone down their bigotry, which is based in a non-universal system of 'morals' far removed from the equality and liberty we intend to move towards(4).

One of the more interesting things about the sermon of O'Brien is its audience. Who is he actually speaking to? The idea of a sermon is to speak to the followers of your church, but in that case, what is he really persuading them of? A victim complex? On the whole it appears to be far more of a PR stunt than anything else, a list of soundbites for the right pressure groups to re-print and get angry about. Ultimately, though, it's a self-serving piece of rhetoric filled with skewed perceptions of 'fairness' delivered in such a way as to be initially convincing. It's a shame it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

How Much Do You Know About Kate Middleton?

We are, I think, all aware that a royal wedding is happening next week. At the risk of adding to the already considerable amounts of yawn-inducing anticipation, it interests me because it's a perfect example of news outlets finding stories from absolutely nowhere. In the lead-up to major events like this, the papers need to keep the 'excitement' (which, by and large, they themselves create and procure) ticking over, and so you end up with mundane stories about the type of alcohol that will be served at the reception and tedious procedural bullshit. But more than that, the media also become the voice of the public. It's sort of similar to the Your Views section of news broadcasts but with an interesting twist whereby the opinions of 'commoners' (Harris Interactive actually uses that term in the poll below) become the news rather than just providing a different perspective upon it.

This type of opinion poll is interesting because nobody has a fucking clue. At the end of the day, the only thing any average person knows about Kate Middleton is what they've read in the press. The same goes for Prince William - for the most part we have no idea that he will 'make a good king' (whatever that actually means, anyway). Our perception of these things is skewed by news coverage so far that it leads 77% of the admittedly small sample to think they know whether a total stranger would be a good head of state. The only people with their heads screwed on properly are the 23% who said they weren't sure. It might well be the case that Prince William would make a superb King William. We wouldn't know; all we've seen are pictures of the happy couple posing for engagement photographs and sort-of-endearing stories about him growing up as a young royal.

One of the most interesting questions is the one regarding Camilla and Kate Middleton, because on the whole, and largely as a result of the hysterical grief over the death of Princess Diana, the press (especially from the right) generally don't like Camilla Parker Bowles. So when the Daily Mail asks:

In your opinion who would make the better queen?

the literal translation of that question is:

Of these two women that you don't (and can't possibly) know more about than the clothes they wear and the carefully chosen soundbites we've presented to you over the course of their life in the media spotlight, which one do you personally like more? Is it the old, husband-stealing, horse-faced bitch, or the young, sprightly symbol of optimism and hope with which the whole nation is obsessed?

This sort of coverage is interesting because it basically allows newspapers to gauge how effective they are in persuading the public of a particular notion. If the right-wing press had decided to demonise Middleton and publish stories about a distant and long-dead relative that was a criminal or interviews with bitter ex-classmates of the princess-in-waiting, the results of these polls would be very different indeed.

What it represents more than anything is the need for every person in the news to possess a persona lest the public be confused by the potential ambiguity of a real human being in a real situation. Kate Middleton is elegant, determined and a middle-class underdog, because that's what the newspapers decided she would be. They could have decided she was a scrounging, pandering waste of space, and found 'sources' to support that image too - it would just have been a lot more difficult to sell the 5million-page pullout section next Friday.

A Mission Statement

We live - supposedly - in a world where information is as readily available as it's ever been. A one-second Google search or flick through the innumerable pages of Wikipedia can throw up the most obscure of facts from the most hidden of sources, and once something's recorded, it stays recorded. But increasingly, despite the obvious benefits of such easy access to media and knowledge, we find the airwaves clouded with static. Politics has turned into a platitude, any semblance of a clear or distinct message having drowned amid tepid clichés and apologetic non-sentences. Journalism has become a caricature of itself, catering so transparently to specific audiences that sometimes the same sequence of real-world events is reported (or ignored) in completely different fashions by different publications.

What are facts, and where do we get our information from? In an age where news is accessible at the touch of a button, which buttons do we press, and how do we know that what we read when we get there isn't either made up or distorted? Where does the noise come from which prevents us from distinguishing fact from fiction and spin from substance? And, perhaps most importantly, what are people actually thinking as they speak or write words which have been designed to have a specific effect?

Unquestioned Answers is a blog which, from today, aims to translate the things that public figures and news outlets say into non-bullshit - that is to say, it will attempt to strip away the layers of artifice which have become so accepted in the 'information' we receive on a daily basis, and to present news stories and discourses in a way which actually means something beyond the convenient and trite cages of the people we ordinarily trust to deliver them.

Here's to restoring some form of sense to the things we read and hear.