Time to end the war on drugs

This week marks the fortieth anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act which heralded the beginning of the war on drugs (a term first used by Nixon in June 1971). This war has done irreparable harm to millions and yet still, it appears, drugs won. It's time to negotiate an honourable surrender and accept we are well and truly occupied.

The ongoing policy treats a public health issue as primarily a law and order issue has not just failed, in many cases we can see that it has made the problems associated with drug use worse.

In the US the continuing anti-drug user escalation means that states are introducing mandatory drug testing for welfare claimants. Don't worry though all you deficit watchers, the claimant has to pay for the test themselves in order to apply for benefits, and if they fail they are simply cut off.

Drug addicts without any means of support - what could go wrong?

Part of the oddness of the whole debate though is that public opinion seems remarkably resilient. Despite the fact that you're unlikely to see an article in the press or a BBC broadcast advocating the repeal of the drugs laws - and God help any politician that suggests such a thing - there is still a large body of opinion that our current approach simply is not working despite the fact this argument is never articulated in the media or by our leading political figures.

A campaign to get the government to rethink was launched today but it was met with a swift rebuff. A government spokesman said:

"We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities. Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer".

But where is the evidence that drug laws protect people from harm rather than simply criminalise a wide spread activity? The campaign's launch letter states that;

"In 2001 Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs and, despite sensationalist predictions to the contrary, this has led to a decrease in the number of young people using illicit drugs, an overall reduction in the number of people using drugs problematically, fewer drug related deaths, and an increase in people accessing treatment voluntarily, things we would all like to see happen in the UK. Whilst there are other factors to take into account, it is clear from the Portuguese experience, and from other jurisdictions, that the decriminalisation of drug possession and use does not lead to an increase in drug use or related harms."

The complete decriminalisation of drugs would bring drug use into the open, allowing users to seek help when they need it, allowing public information to be actually useful rather than censorious crap, ensuring that those drugs in circulation are safe and well regulated and cutting out organised crime from this lucrative industry.

It may even begin to allow the "did not inhalers" in our political establishment to be a little more honest about their own drug histories and make stunning admissions like "I used to smoke weed because I enjoyed it." Wouldn't that be a thing?

The other Wedding stories

• Met Police issue statement which includes: "Let me make it clear. This is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry for Great Britain. Any criminals attempting to disrupt it - be that in the guise of protest or otherwise - will be met by a robust, decisive, flexible and proportionate policing response...
  
  "We have been working closely with officers investigating recent demonstrations in London and as you are aware bail conditions have been imposed on over 60 arrested people, including that they will not be allowed to enter [central] London on the day of the wedding.
  
  "I can also confirm that as part of the investigation into the TUC demonstration and the subsequent disorder that took place, since 18 April six people have been arrested for a range of offences. The work of the investigation team continues and as you would have seen over the last few days further images of people we would like to speak to have been released to the media."
  
  
• There have been a number of 'pre-crime' arrests by the police whose powers appear to be out of control.
  
  
• This includes three Republican street performers. Arrested for planning to say we should live in a modern democratic republic. Wow.
  
  
• A Cambridge activist who was planning to voice dissent peacefully.
  
  
• Seven arrests in Hove.
  
  
• And more disturbances in Bristol around the Tesco-ification of the town.
  
  
• There is a fair pay for Royal Cleaners campaign from the union PCS.
  
  
• There was a not the Royal wedding street party in Red Lion Square as well as a number of similar events organised by different organisations up and down the country.
  
  
• Today is also the day that a swathe of radical facebook groups have been purged from the site in one fell swoop.
  
  
• Meanwhile Bright Green are crowd sourcing any bad news that might get buried today under the avalanche of Wedding ephemera.

Ex-Israeli President Jailed for rape

You have to go back to 2006 on this blog to see the last mention of this, but never let it be said I let a story drop. The ex-Israeli President Moshe Katsav has finally been jailed for rape.

He's been sentenced to seven years in jail some large fines and, when he emerges from prison, will face other legal penalties for the actions he took while he thought he'd be immune from prosecution as President.

The fact it took such a monumental act of political will to bring him to book for raping state employees does not speak well of the legal system, although it is indeed good news to hear that he has at last been brought to justice for these crimes, if not the murders that took place under his authority while.

There is of course little chance that anyone will be tried for the deaths of children in Gaza over the last couple of days. These are a fact of life that we are expected to forget soon enough, as we look to other tragic events around the world.

Sex Workers' and self organisation

In this next installment of the ABC of feminism we have a guest post from Jane Watkinson who takes a look at some of the history of how sex workers have collectively organised to protect their rights.

The sex workers’ movement really took off in the 1970s as sex workers’ within Lyon, France occupied churches in protest against police corruption and treatment against sex workers. The direct action received international coverage, propelled the French Collective of Prostitutes and the English Collective of Prostitutes to form, as well as assisting with the development of many other sex workers’ organisations and collectives around the world.

Whilst sex workers’ organisation has existed for many years, the ‘prostitutes’ right movement’ came into its own in the 1970s; as the fight for sex workers’ rights to be considered with respect and seriousness became more prominent. The 1980s AIDS’ crisis was a double edged sword, as governments provided sex workers and health officials money to help sex workers gain access to preventative treatment and services such as condoms – but it also came with a reinforcement of the negative stigma associated with sex work through legitimising the view that sex workers are the ones who require mandatory testing and health surveillance, not the clients (most likely male).

Furthermore, AIDS funding for sex workers’ organisations has often been associated with an ‘exiting’ strategy. The USA only now provide funding for these organisations on the condition that they advocate for sex workers to exit the industry. This puts a strain on resources, especially given the legal situations of countries such as France where the possession of condoms can be attributed as evidence for ‘passive soliciting’. ‘Passive soliciting’ was introduced in the Domestic Security Bill in 2003 by Sarkozy and has been seen as a human rights attack, as the police often arrest sex workers based on their attitude or dress (even though dress was removed from the legal text after an amendment).

Nevertheless, not all community health organisations have suffered from these conditions. In France, the community health organisations posed in direct conflict with the social workers who took an abolitionist line. Furthermore, in Sonagachi, Kolkata, the sex workers’ AIDS organisation has over 60,000 members, with the Durbah Mahila Samanwaya Committee that runs the project even setting up a civic bank for the sex workers.

Gregory Gall documents sex workers’ organisation. He refers to the development and sophisticated progression of the movement, as the collectives and heath organisations were later complemented by the formation of trade unions for/by sex workers. Whilst Gall refers to the disappointment of sex workers’ unionisation across the world, he states that there have been relative success stories such as in the USA where Lusty Lady’s was unionised and turned into a sex workers’ cooperative. Within the UK, we have the International Union of Sex Workers; however, whilst the union has had relative success affiliated to the GMB specifically in the context of assisting lap dancers rights, it has various controversies surrounding their membership criterion that supposedly allows related groups such as pimps to join. Furthermore, there are concessions that their level of organisation has been limited – reasons for this however are hardly uncommon in regards to the sex workers’ movement at large.

There are problems with sex workers feeling ashamed because of the strong stigma attached to their work meaning they often feel unable to show their faces at protests, covering them up with masks. The laws surrounding sex work do not help with this; our own laws in the UK are a testament to this. Whilst it is legal to have commercial sexual services, there are numerous laws surrounding the industry that make it very dangerous for the sex workers involved to work. This is largely shaped by a ‘moral’ concern for keeping the ‘public’ areas ‘safe’; in consequence sex workers are given ASBOs, pushed into dark unsafe areas and prohibited to work together outside or indoors.

Internationally there are largely calls for decriminalisation of sex work where sex work would be recognised as legitimate work to be considered under existing work laws. There is a strong movements in countries such as France against state legislated brothels, especially given France’s history re brothels and the mandatory health tests that undermine sex workers’ movement and freedom. Regardless, some sex workers’ want brothels, others want designated areas so they can work on the street (managed zones, as designed by Liverpool and as ignored by the Labour government); illustrating the diversity amongst sex workers and the need to provide them space to air their views and arguments in public.

Labour were central to moving the UK closer to a prohibitionist stance. Nevertheless, there are countries such as New Zealand who have adopted a decriminalisation position (influenced by sex workers’ organisation). However, the UK have taken their influence from Sweden and its prohibitionist legal context, as women are treated as vulnerable ‘victims’ said to be in a false consciousness unaware of their experienced ‘coercion’. Sex workers’ organisation is often isolated from the feminist movement as it is polarised by these debates surrounding choice and coercion. Regardless, most feminists and researchers into sex work come to the sensible conclusion that sex workers’ are neither forced or freely choosing sex work – there is a complex mixture of both.

Whilst the sex workers’ movement has come a long way since the Lyon sex workers’ strikes, there are still many obstacles for sex workers to be given the rightful legal, cultural, social and economic recognition they deserve. There are strong moralist forces within countries such as France and the UK that dictate their policies around sex work, making it harder for sex workers to make a living.

However, sex workers’ organisation has illustrated profound resilience. The movement has developed in sophistication and whilst unionisation may not have been as successful as hoped with many unions rejecting sex work as ‘work’; there are real building blocks that sex workers can hold on to and work in correspondence to progressive forces to counteract the negative and moralistic constructions of sex workers that undermine their rights to public space and consideration.

Judy Finnigan talks sense on crime

I picked up a Daily Express on the train yesterday fully expecting it to give me some ammunition for a bile filled rant about thier homophobia, racism or just plain sillyness - but no - I come to praise the Express not to bury it, because when I turned to Judy Finnigan's column on the school boy who's been sent down for throwing a fire extinguisher it was surprisingly sensible.

Judy focuses on the fact that eighteen year old Edward Woolard was persuaded to hand himself in to the police by his mother, who escorted him to the police station. It took real guts for the pair of them to do this and I doubt the praise from the judge made either of them feel any better about that decision when the heavy handed sentence of 32 months was handed down.

Here's some of what Judy said next;

AS I watched Tania Garwood push through the scrum of waiting press photographers, clasping the hand of her teenage son as she led him into court, I saw a determined and courageous mother convinced she was doing the right thing for her boy.

I doubt she thinks that now... Poor Tania. For what I am sure she thought would be a short, sharp slap for her son – maybe a few weeks in prison, or a community service order – has turned into a nightmare for both Edward and her. She broke down and sobbed inconsolably when Justice Geoffrey Rivlin QC delivered his harsh sentence.

I’m not surprised at her shock. Because she may well have just ruined her son’s future. Young offenders institutions are bleak, tough places, full of young men in mental torment who will make Edward’s life hell...

And yes of course the judge was right to punish him. But this punishment is far too harsh. It does not fit the crime.

And while Tania Garwood now probably deeply regrets taking her son to the police station mothers everywhere must be shuddering with horror, vowing that if their child does something reprehensible, stupid and illegal they will remain silent.

So while the judge has punished Edward he has also punished Tania, whose courage he praised in court.

And by making such an extreme example of Edward (whose sentence, I am certain, will not prevent any other young protester from momentarily losing his head) Justice Rivlin has probably ensured that other mothers who want to “do the right thing” when their kids have done wrong will certainly pause before handing them over to what they fondly believe is a fair justice system resulting in a fair, appropriate punishment.

Well done the Express for printing this.

I think she has made a strong point worth considering here. By making an example of this young man many will take from it the lesson, not that they should not break the law, but that the law is unjust and it is not in their interests to cooperate with it, even when they think they should.

How about some first amendment remedies?

A lot of people here in Britain find the obsession among some sections of the US electorate with the 'second amendment' and the right to bear arms a little, well, creepy. Passed in a time of revolution where the population needed to mount an armed defense against a colonial ruler things moved on and it's usefulness has clearly expired.

I'm sure it was right and proper at the time it was passed, but since then it has rarely been used for the purpose it was designed for, ie law abiding citizens protecting themselves from an armed state. The immediate example that springs to mind is the Black Panthers who used the amendment to good effect - so the law was changed and the Party was gunned down or jailed.

The wording of the amendment that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", also seems to be ignored. So the amendment becomes about individuals with MI6s on their living room walls which seems a million miles away from the community collectively organising a well regulated militia. The order of the day is always zero regulation not collective responsibility.

More than that though, while some gun loving rhetoric has been abhorrent, including high profile Tea Partier Sharon Angle consistently referring to 'second amendment methods' if they failed at the ballot box, I do kind of wonder how some amendments have gained a halo of pseudo-religious fervor and others seem, frankly, abandoned and discarded.

How about the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I can't be the only person to note that many of those who are zealots for amendment number two seem less keen on the freedom to practice the Islamic faith, and who rarely seem to have cared about the right to peaceably assemble if the cause was not theirs.

How about number four"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How does that fit with the current airport security regime? Or the patriot act more generally?

Those who love the second amendment might like to give some thought to Bradley Manning and amendment number six which reads "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Or perhaps they don't really care about the constitution - maybe they just like shooting their guns and pretending God told them that was a worth while hobby.

While it is too early to tell whether it will be good or yet more ill that comes out of the Arizona shooting, what is clear is that those gung ho for the gun regard some amendments as more equal than others.

Student protester sent down for 32 months

News just in: Edward Woollard, 18, has been given a thirty two month sentence for 'violent disorder' for his part in the student protest at Tory HQ last year where he dropped a fire extinguisher from the roof of the building, narrowly missing police and protesters alike.

It's a stiff sentence for a stupid act but he'll be unlikely to receive any sympathy from the press. Indeed I'm not going to defend his actions because they were criminally reckless and could have resulted in severe injury or death of a protester, police office or passer-by.

Sadly this does not herald a list of prosecutions against violent behaviour. We will not see those who put Alfie Meadows in hospital before the courts, nor those who put Ian Tomlinson in the morgue. This prosecution may well be the first of many against students though, many of whom will not have endangered lives or been violent in the way that Mr Woollard undoubtedly was.

Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC said in his sentencing;

"It is deeply regrettable, indeed a shocking thing, for a court to have sentence a young man such as you to a substantial term of custody.

"But the courts have a duty to provide the community with such protection from violence as they can and this means sending out a very clear message to anyone minded to behave in this way that an offence of this seriousness will not be tolerated.

"It is my judgment, exceedingly fortunate that your action did not result in death or very serious injury either to a police officer or a fellow protester."

The judge praised Wollard's mother saying he was taking into account her "extraordinary and courageous conduct" in persuading him to give himself up. I'm not sure she will be thanking him for these words at what must be a heart rending time for her.

Woolard is paying the price for being a prat and we shouldn't try to minimise the harm he could have done. Indeed at the time other protesters instantly realised how reckless his actions were and began to chant up to those on the roof "Stop throwing shit", which they did.

However, we should also not allow the hypocrisy surrounding these events to go unmarked. Where Camilla's Stickgate seems to be in the news every day and those police officers who put Alfie Meadows in hospital go unremarked. Thankfully Meadows is recovering, but he was a victim of violence in a far more serious way than Prince Charles' consort, but somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of the great and the good.

My personal view is that this sentence seems comparatively high compared to others who have committed violent offences, but I'm more concerned that this does not herald the start of a series of convictions against those who did not endanger lives on these protests, whilst violent police officers appear to be immune from the law.

Interview: Sarah Cope on prisons

In the second of my twitter interview experiments I spoke to Sarah Cope of Haringey greens on women, prisons and her future criminal career.

Me: Hi Sarah, I was hoping to chat to you about why you wanted to take on the Green Party's prison policy.
Me: I was surprised to see that we didn't already argue that prisoners should have the vote

Sarah: I was sure that would be there already too, but no. It is now, though! Better late than never.
Sarah: We had the bare bones of a prison policy already in the PSS, but a few of us felt it needed more details - particularly re: women prisoners.

Me: So what were the key changes you put forward at conference?

Sarah: They retain vote; only women convicted of serious & violent crime sent to prison; more support for pregnant prisoners & those with babies.
Sarah: Plus promotion of 'buddy schemes' to stop self-harming and addressing homelessness on release - a big reason why people re-offend.

Me: There was some controversy over the prisons' vote wasn't there?

Sarah: We were going to have it that a judge could deny a prisoner the vote but that was dropped. I wasn't keen on that idea anyway - so hurrah!!

Me: I was impressed by the speaker from Birth Companions who works around pregnant prisoners.

Sarah: Denise Marshall. They do great work in Holloway. There are 13 other womens' prisons - that sort of vital work should have govt support.

Me: I was shocked at the tales she had to tell on how women can end up losing contact with their kids having them taken into care

Sarah: Women are often 'phoning from prison, trying to find out where their kids are. Only 5% of kids stay in their own homes when mum is jailed.

Me: this was quite a lot higher for Dads wasn't it?

Sarah: Don't have statistic for that, though do know that a third of mothers are lone parents before imprisonment.

Me: Do you think there's a case for focusing on trying to keep people from falling into crime rather than refusing to jail them when they do?

Sarah: Obviously, yes. Our focus on creating more equal society, plus decriminalising drugs and sex work would go a long way to doing just that!

Me: Good point. There was a good fringe on sex work too. I was impressed by the way we had sex workers and ex-prisoners themselves speak

Sarah: Nothing beats the power of personal testimony - certainly not m/c academic types... though there's a place for them too! (she adds hastily).

Me: It's amazing how many discussions take place without the subject of those discussions ever being allowed to speak

Sarah: Well I generally distrust statistics, but personal testimony is a different matter. I want to get inside Holloway to see it for myself now.

Me: Any particular crime your contemplating?

Sarah: So many to choose from, hmm...No, I've volunteered to help - it's just down the road from me, I have no job...if I can help, I will.

Me: I have a criticism of your motion! It mentions renaming prisons "multi-functional custodial centres" - what's the difference?

Sarah: It's about more than punishment I think - rehab, literacy etc. The problem is, make it too good and we send people to jail access services!

Me: This was a very strong part of the message. How offenders, through losing their housing benefit etc, become destitute on leaving prison

Sarah: We'd encourage schemes like in Liverpool - prisoners were taught construction skills, & given a run-down council house to do up on release.

Me: All good work - what's next on the agenda? Where would you like to go from here?

Sarah: A green govt to implement it all would be rather nice! In the short term, better mental health provision is key - works better than jail...

Me: Well, let's work on the short and the long term! Thanks for your time :)

Sarah: Thanks for the Twinterview - hope my twanswers sufficed.

Postscript:

People might be interested in the UK's only blogging prisoner: Prison Ben
Also mentioned in this interview: Birth Companions.

Prisons: short blunt shock

The Tory Justice Minister Crispin Blunt was quite right to say that we should lift the blanket ban on parties in prisons imposed by the super-authoritarian Jack Straw. Straw's ridiculous over-reaction was typical of the man who personified Labour's autocratic sledge hammer style.

Sadly Number Ten has over ruled the Justice Minister for fear of looking soft on prisoners. Although he was talking about Labour Blunt could have been talking about Cameron's reaction when he said; "At the slightest whiff of criticism of from the popular press, policy tended to get changes and the consequence of an absurd over-reaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction."

Quite what is happening in the Tory Party on prisons I'm not sure. First you have Ken Clarke saying that prison doesn't particularly work and now Blunt hints that a more relaxed regime might help with rehabilitation of prisoners. Sadly the party hierarchy has yet been won over to a more liberal position.

Interestingly Iain Dale came out in defence of Blunt saying; "I hope under a Conservative government that will change. Being tough doesn't just mean locking people up and throwing away the key. A tough politician will take tough choices - and that means locking fewer people up and devoting more resources to preparing prisoners for life on the outside. Only in that way will reoffending rates drop."

While, cynic that I am, I thought Clarke's suggestion might have been about cutting costs rather than addressing our failed and over crowded prison system - but there's nothing in Blunt's suggestions that were about cost cutting and everything about treating prisoners with a bit more humanity.

Ian Tomlinson: police escape prosecution

We're told today that the police officer who made an unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson from behind will not face prosecution. This is, we are told, because of the conflict between the two postmortems.

The first autopsy exonerated the police and claimed he had not been attacked and died of a heart attack, the second was conducted after witness statements and video footage came out showing that he had been attacked and said he had died of internal bleeding.

The police lied and lied again to cover up the actions of their officers - and on this occasion were caught out time and time again. How many other autopsies are as keen to deliver a result that the police want over the facts I wonder. Why does the law not see the first autopsy as a scandal?

What I don't understand is this, does the CPS's reasoning make sense even in their own terms? If the postmortems make it difficult to prove a murder charge (and I think we'd all prefer a jury to make that decision not an arm of law enforcement) why does that mean that a lesser charge could not be considered?

We know Tomlinson was the victim of an unprovoked attacked, it's on film from several different angles for a start. We know that Tomlinson was the victim of an attack from behind while he had his head down and his hands in his pockets. He could have done nothing more to pose less of a threat.

Why were lesser charges not being considered?

It turns out it's because the CPS took so long to make up it's mind. They could have brought a charge of common assault within a few weeks of the incident (when the officer finally came forward) but they chose to string it out and once six months had passed no lesser charge could be brought.

At the end of the day if it had been Ian Tomlinson who had attacked a police officer from behind who then died later that day there would have been no question of him escaping prosecution. He'd have been behind bars long ago. What a disgraceful double standard, utterly corrupt.

Is deception rape?

This is one of those stories which, when I first saw it, I thought it could not possibly be true - and then all the news agencies started reporting it.

The BBC reports that Sabbar Kashur, who has been under house-arrest for two years was sentenced to a further 18 months in jail for "rape by deception".

The pair met in Jerusalem and had sex that day. The woman later discovered that the man who had introduced himself as "Dudu", which is a nickname commonly used by Jews, apparently, is an Arab and was not interested in a serious relationship. He denies ever having said he was Jewish and that his nickname is one used by his friends and family, although he may not have helped his case when he said "My wife even calls me that".

In the court's ruling the judge, Zvi Segal, wrote: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated."

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls," the court judgement was quoted as reading.

I think that there's some really odd language going on there. Shall we start with "co-operated" when they mean "enthusiastically fucked him"? It looks to me that the judge is saying that women's role in sex is to passively allow men to have their way with them - otherwise how do you explain all this "sanctity of their bodies and souls" business?

I suspect the extraordinary judgement and sentence are a product of a revulsion on the part of the law that a Jewish woman was defiled by an Arab man, who is defined as a "smooth-tongued criminal" on the basis that he had consensual sex with a Jew whilst in possession of an Arab penis.

Neither side disputed that this woman met a guy she fancied and they decided to have sex on that first meeting. I don't think I'm being overly controversial by saying if you have sex with someone the first time you meet them it's quite likely that you don't know them very well and that it should not entirely surprise you if your new romance does not necessarily blossom into a life-time's love match.

If you only want to have sex with people who want to have a long-term relationship with you I advise a bit of differed gratification. If you don't mind having sex with people you may never meet again feel free to fuck on first meeting. Fill your boots, as it were.

That's fine and dandy, why should we know someone well if we want to have sex with them? We shouldn't be surprised though that a one-night stand did not end in either a serious long term relationship or that the other person wasn't 100% honest. A reasonable person would not expect to know someone well enough on first meeting to know whether they are an honest person.

A serious jail term isn't the appropriate response here.

Ethically it is quite possible this man hid the "shameful" fact that he's an Arab and was wrong to do so. He certainly hid the fact he was married. That pales in comparison to the ethics of having someone you were, up to that point attracted to, sent to jail when you find out they are an Arab. There are no Israeli Jews getting sent to jail for having affairs.

The "victim" in this case is someone who made a judgement call she later regretted - nothing more. That is her responsibility and no-one else's, and she certainly was not raped. If she'd made an error of judgement and found herself in a position where she was forced to have sex against her will, that would have been his responsibility and a (far longer) jail sentence would have been appropriate, but the undisputed facts show she wanted to have sex and approached Dudu with that in mind.

We cannot start having such a broad definition of rape that the seriousness of the crime becomes diluted by this sort of case.

Moreover the law should not be used to regulate our personal lives in this way. I'm certain that the fact that this man was an Israeli Arab is more than just an incidental fact here, but even if it wasn't the law's still wrong.

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

Well hold on, isn't this tantamount to criminalising adultery? In fact it criminalises all sorts of commonplace situations.

What if I don't mention my criminal record, or my model train collection or my secret desire to be rithlessly flogged with liquorice bootlaces? All things that might make a new lover regret having got involved in the first place. Under this definition any of these could find someone locked up and that has to be wrong.

Without going into too much detail I've had sex with women who, it turned out, had not been wholly truthful about themselves. Did these women rape me? No, of course not, jail would be a bizarre response. Were they unethical to be less than honest with me? I suppose so, but the law is not there to turn us all into saints - that's setting the bar unreasonably high.

This kind of paternalist attitude towards women's sexuality is not healthy and tends towards the idea that women are possessions that men must take good care of. We all make mistakes that we later regret, but when the state steps in to legislate the nuances of sexual relationships we're in very dangerous territory, all the more so when it becomes a crime to conceal your Arabic decent (although this man probably did not do this).

The law is not there to protect us every time we feel hurt or betrayed. It should not treat adults as children, nor should it lock up men for being Arabs.

Raoul Moat, David Cameron and Facebook

David Cameron was taking a swipe at Facebook users today. The Prime Minister spoke for a lot of people when he spoke of his disgust that people had been expressing admiration for the wife beating, misogynist murderer Raoul Moat.

Moat had recently been released from prison after serving time for assaulting a child. His widely reported last, self-pitying words "I had no Dad" were uttered moments before he left his own children fatherless. This was no radical, anti-police, community champion but a reactionary thug whose violence was usually directed towards working class women and children.

I'm all for attempting to understand Moat's motives but some have bordered on sympathy, something I think we should strongly argue against. Empathising with a perpetrator of domestic violence without any but the most cursory nod towards the victims of that violence is to place the importance of Moat's feelings above those of his victims.

However, Cameron has asked Facebook to remove Moat fan pages where tens of thousands have signed up to say what a "legend" the killer was. Facebook, I think rightly, refused to take the page down - although their inconsistency on what they censor is frustrating. You can't ban these ideas, you need to argue against them.

The fact that large numbers of men and women are leaving supportive messages on the page speaks to something that many people never see spoken out loud, and it's an opportunity to look facts in the face. A few examples of posts left by women on the site include;

• love got the better of you moat, RIP x
• His head went, simple as that, anyway he had a fucked up childhood, his baby mom was messing with his brain while he was serving a sentence. them man up newcastle there heads are all fucked, beer drinking steriod taking dudes. Never the less rest in peace Raoul Moat I don't think you are a legend, but a man whos' heart is torn and whose integrity was no more, R.I.P.
  
• RIP, guess it all just got too much for you man :/

The fact that people can say things like "love got the better of you" in response to Moat's killing spree is a product of the way the media focused its attention on an "exciting" movie-like narrative without once giving the thing its proper name - domestic violence.

If you're ex-partner beats you or tries to kill you it is not because "love got the better" of him but because he's a violent misogynist. By turning Moat into the central figure of an exciting man-hunt media circus the press inevitably gave him a more glamorous appearance than he deserved.

But back to Facebook for a moment - the reason it works is by harnessing the enthusiasms of the general public. Cameron is opposed to that when they express ideas he doesn't like, but this comes just a week after Cameron hoped to harness the site for his cuts agenda.

Here he is speaking to the owner of Facebook about winning the hearts and minds of the public for cutting public spending by using social networking.



The fact is you can't have it both ways. If you want to use social networking you have to understand that it works because it is unfettered, and if you start banning groups because you think they're distasteful - guess what - some people might find laying off public sector workers a downright disgrace.

For me I've no particular time for those criticising the police on this occasion. While there may be lessons to learned it is the extraordinary behaviour of the media that needs to be under the spotlight. Hyping up a sad little man into a hero while cavalierly putting his life, the lives of the public and the police in danger is beyond excuses.

See also Obsolete, Organized Rage, Green Reading, Doc Richard, The F Word, Richard Osley, Martin.

Rioting as an absence of democracy

In the last two days there have been two community riots provoked by outrage at reactionary movements.

Yesterday in Belfast three police officers were shot and around two hundred people took part in throwing missiles and petrol bombs at the police. A total of twenty seven police officers were injured during the disturbances, although the press seems to think that none of these injuries is life threatening.

Facing water cannon and baton rounds residents were opposing the loyalist twelfth of July parades that commemorate the killing of Catholics by the forces of William of Orange and the 'traditional' bonfires held on the night of the eleventh.

Over the years these marches have resulted in civil disturbances, violence and an escalation of community tensions. It's understandable that many residents see these celebrations as a deliberate provocation and are consistently frustrated that they seem to have no say about whether they are allowed to take place in their neighbourhoods.

It's no surprise that when people feel they have no democratic option available to them some resort to undemocratic and violent actions. Last night's events really should be a sign that the state's attitudes towards the Orange marches has to change for facilitating their celebrations to regarding them as inciting violence.

However on Friday, in Oakland, California, the rioting was in response to far clearer state complicity in racist violence. Police officer Johannes Mehserle found himself acquitted of murder after he shot an unarmed black man dead.

The court accepted that Oscar Grant was unarmed, and lying face down at the feet of Officer Johannes Mehserle while surrounded by a ring of police officers when Mehserle took out his service revolver and fired a fatal round into his back. The court accepted that because they had no choice, it was all filmed by a by-stander, and yet it still found that the officer had not committed murder, nor had he intended to kill Oscar Grant.

I mean who would expect a man to die after being cold-bloodedly shot in the back at point blank range? And just because grant was unarmed and prone there's no reason to think that this white officer was safe from this extremely black man at his feet. I'm surprised they haven't given Mehserle a medal frankly.

A demonstration of over a thousand people marched after the verdict of non-guilty was announced bearing signs saying "Oakland says guilty". The demo turned into a riot with shops smashed and police lines attacked.

You can watch video here that shows locals speaking for themselves about what they feel about the verdict. The video goes on to show the police response to the peaceful protest although it cuts short before the riot begins.

I'm tempted to say I don't welcome the riots, but frankly I think it's far more important to say that I far from welcome the institution bigotry that allows the Orangemen to dominate Catholic areas with their hate, or the courts that allow police officers to shoot unarmed men in the back just because they're poor and black.

Doctors to break confidentiality

I was disturbed to see the news that doctors are to be given leeway to break patient confidentiality. The BMA has agreed with the police to share patient information where gun owners suffer from mental health problems.

I'm uneasy about this on a number of levels, whatever benign thinking lies behind the idea.

In general there has been a lack of knee jerk responses to the Cumbria shootings from the political establishment, despite the fact that the press felt unable to stop itself from page after page of unseemly rubber necking coverage for day after day. This proposal however could have serious implications.

The BMA has said that "Where doctors know that a patient has a firearm and, in their view, as a result, presents a risk of harm to themselves or others, both legally and ethically, this information can be disclosed without consent."

Part of this new move means that the gun ownership register will be linked up (in some way) to patient records where all medical records of gun owners will be 'flagged'.

There are two key problems with this in my view. Firstly, it could well prevent gun owners from seeking help from their doctor, actually increasing the probability that they will pose a future risk to themselves or others. If the consequence of having mental health problems will be that police officers, who are not properly trained in these issues, are informed that you are a public risk it's a fairly large disincentive from telling your doctor about your problems, not to mention the unpredictability of the actual response of the police when given this information.

The intention may be that doctors only inform the police in the clearest possible circumstances (although this is not explicitly stated) but it is introducing an onus upon doctors to correctly identify when mental health issues are likely to lead to murder or suicide and when they will not - which is a heavy and impossible responsibility.

The second point is that many services find it difficult to get people to come forwards and give confidential information. A slippage in confidentiality creates a problem for every service that relies on the public having absolute confidence that information they give will go no further because it means that there is a redefinition of our terms taking place.

Confidentiality ceases to be an absolute, where a patient or service user can confide information without things going any further, and turns it into a grey area where, generally, no one will be told but sometimes they will be. That's socially dangerous and could well undermine the ability of the mental health services to do their job.

Bring on the clowns

We all know that Latin America is a hot bed of Communism. So much so that the very bastion of conservative comedy has been infected. Yes, the clowns are on the march in El Salvador.

The demonstration of one hundred professional clowns and their supporters included fire-eating, tricycling, sitting in the road and, of course, a quick break for prayers was in response to the fact that a man had been shot dead by two clowns after he had refused to give them money.

One banner read "real clowns are not criminals". A clowns union spokesman (yes, you read that right) told Sky News "If the criminals can get hold of police uniforms imagine how easy it is for them to get hold of a clown's outfit."

The union is calling for clowns to be issued with official documents which they can show members of the public to show they are "real" clowns. The clowns are concerned that their livelihoods depend upon the public (like buskers) and that any ill-will shown towards them may cost them their ability to put food on the table.

News flash: "mephedrone deaths" not drugs related

Yes. You heard that right.

Those two poor lads whose deaths caused the almighty drugs panic around mephedrone had not even taken the drug (what I said at the time was wait for the scientific analysis before jumping to conclusions here).

The BBC reports;

Toxicology tests have shown that two teenagers whose deaths were linked to mephedrone had not taken the drug.

The deaths of Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, in March 2010 sparked concern about the synthetic stimulant, which was then legal.

The Labour government banned the so-called "legal high" in April, making it a Class B drug alongside amphetamines and cannabis.

But tests have revealed there were no traces of mephedrone in their blood.

It is thought further tests are being conducted to try to establish what, if any, substances the pair had taken.

Mephedrone - also known as Meow, Bubbles and M-CAT - is derived from cathinone, a compound found in a plant called Khat.

Humberside Police, which carried out the initial investigation into the teenagers' deaths, said in March it had "information to suggest these deaths are linked to M-CAT".

Its statement went on to say: "We would encourage anyone who may have taken the drug to attend a local hospital as a matter of urgency."

At the time, police believed the pair had been drinking and had also taken methadone - a similar-sounding but completely different drug to mephedrone.

On Friday, a spokeswoman said the force could not confirm or deny the results of the toxicology tests.

She said: "The pathology report, which includes toxicology findings, is prepared on behalf of the coroner and is not yet complete.

"The findings of the report, once completed, will be forwarded to the coroner and may be discussed at any inquest and will not be disclosed without the authority of HM Coroner."

North East Lincolnshire Coroners Court has refused to comment ahead of the inquest.

Mephedrone has been implicated in the deaths of 34 people in the UK - 26 in England and eight in Scotland.

But so far, the drug has been established as a cause of death in only one case in England, that of John Stirling Smith.

I expect you'll see a load of MPs (and ex-MPs) retracting their ill thought out drugs nonsense any day now....

Court's outrageous decision against UNITE

UNITE union members working at British Airways were due to go on strike from midnight tonight but a court has just ruled that the ballot was illegal and therefore the strike could not take place.

What grievous crime had they committed? Ballot stuffing perhaps? Or had they refused to allow a number of no votes because of ticks rather than crosses? No.

The Sun tells us that "BA had argued a technicality that Unite had not "properly complied" with the requirement to "send everyone eligible to vote details of the exact breakdown of the ballot result". The judge said: "I am unable to say it is sufficiently clear that the union took the steps required by law at the time they were required.""

The "exact breakdown" is code for the fact that they had not told their members of the eleven spoiled ballots of the thousands that were cast. Everyone knew the result, these spoiled ballots had no impact on the outcome nor, in fact, did they have any significant interest to members.

Yet this was enough to call off a democratically decided strike action and cost the union thousands correcting the 'error'. On top of the court ruling against the RMT it's quickly becoming clear that the courts are becoming increasingly willing to prevent workers taking strike action even when they have taken a proper ballot to do so.

Mark Thomas wins pay out from police

Just noticed that Mark Thomas has won over a grand off the police after he was stopped and searched for looking "over confident" after speaking at an anti-arms trade rally. According to the Guardian;

"The Met paid £1,200 for "falsely imprisoning" Thomas for 12 minutes. He said: "£100 a minute is slightly more than my usual rate. If over-confidence is a reason for a stop-and-search Jonathan Ross should never leave his house.""

Nice. I also note that "The officer who carried out the search had received "formal words of advice"." I can't be the only one wondering what they words might have been...

Those Primark Bikinis

I don't know if you've seen the news that Primark have stopped selling padded bikinis for children (pictured) but this mini-moral panic has thrown up some really interesting issues to my mind.

On PM tonight (about half an hour in) they covered the fact that Primark had taken the item off sale and donated all profits to a children's charity.

Shy Keenan, an advocate for child protection, had been part of the campaign against the bikinis and made a very clear case against. Whilst I appreciated her tone, for example she repeated a number of times that she did not want anyone to live a "risk averse" life, I do think that a few of the things she said was less helpful than they could have been.

However, although the radio interview was conducted fairly sensibly she did say in The Sun "It never fails to amaze me just how many High Street household names are now prepared to exploit the disgusting 'paedophile pound'." In case people think The Sun might have made this up this is a phrase taken directly from her website.

I don't believe there is any phenomenon that is properly described by the phrase 'paedophile pound'. There are some rather tacky and stupid items like lap dancing kits for kids that pop up occasionally but the objection to these is not that they are bought by paedophiles but that they encourage kids to sexualise too early and in a very distorted, commercialised way.

I also believe her statement is intended to give the impression that you can't go into any of these 'many High Street household names' without seeing goods designed for sale specifically to paedophiles. This is not the case at all. It's dangerous hyperbole in an area where we need to encourage a measured response.

I don't want to get too pedantic over the radio interview because, in fairness to her, she may well have been grappling towards saying something that she didn't quite articulate the way she would have wanted, but never-the-less I think it's worth looking at the claims she made about these bikinis.

Here is the most controversial sample;

"We shouldn't be doing anything to help and facilitate [paedophiles] just don't dress your child up like a sexy adult, it's not terribly helpful."

[She was asked whether she thought there was a link between these bikinis and paedophilia.]

"There are paedophiles everywhere, you are never going to find areas where there are children where there aren't paedophiles. I'm suggesting again you have to live a risk averse life but I don't think you have to do things to encourage their attention and certainly a child dressed in extremely sexualised outfits would attract their attention."

Now, it seems to me there are some factual errors here. We can look at the bikini and make a decision about whether we think the pic above is an example of "extremely sexualised outfits". Unwise, yes. Tacky, yes. Extremely sexualised? That's a real stretch and, I think, more a product of her perspective on the issue than objectively true. It seems to me that she's reacting against her idea of the product not the product itself.

Secondly, it is just not true to say there are "paedophiles everywhere". It is not responsible to say everywhere you find children you will find paedophiles. Perhaps she was trying to make a more general, moderate point - possibly - but the effect is to cast a shadow over all adult-child relations whilst ignoring the extremely basic point that "stranger danger" is not the key issue when it comes to child protection, but those adults with direct responsibility for a child's safety.

The key phrase that made my ears prick up here was the idea that the way you dress your child "may help and facilitate" paedophiles. This is a new version of the idea that women who wear short skirts are somehow partially responsible if they get raped. This is plain wrong.

Those who abuse children are not enticed into abusing by kids dressing like adults. They abuse kids because they have a sick and distorted sexuality that makes them focus sexually on children. They are neither helped nor facilitated by a parent's choice of their kids clothing.

Like the ridiculous media furor over the "panic button" for a Facebook we have these campaigns for things that will have absolutely no effect on the number of kids that get abused whilst simultaneously raising the fear of abuse in society and distorting people's view of society as one that is full of dangers and those dangers are other people.

I'm not sad to see these silly padded bikinis taken off the shelves but it is quite wrong to imply that the cause of child abuse is children behaving and dressing like adults. Kids are not to blame if they've been abused, no matter what they wear.

Update: Digital Economy Bill - who did what?

The public whip tells us that the parties voted the following ways on the Digital Economy Bill. Astonishing that just nine Tory MPs (less than one in twenty) bothered to vote on such controversial legislation.
Well done to those Lib Dems who turned up for their unanimous opposition, although due to their low turnout they were outnumbered by the rebel Labour MPs. I thought I'd publish the Labour role of honour;

• Diane Abbott, Hackney North & Stoke Newington
• Colin Burgon, Elmet
• Colin Challen, Morley & Rothwell
• Jeremy Corbyn, Islington North
• Andrew Dismore, Hendon
• David Drew, Stroud
• Neil Gerrard, Walthamstow
• John Grogan, Selby
• Kate Hoey, Vauxhall
• George Howarth, Knowsley North & Sefton East
• Lynne Jones, Birmingham, Selly Oak
• Eric Joyce, Falkirk
• Peter Kilfoyle, Liverpool, Walton
• Mark Lazarowicz, Edinburgh North & Leith
• Andrew Love, Edmonton
• Robert Marshall-Andrews, Medway
• Austin Mitchell, Great Grimsby
• Nick Palmer, Broxtowe
• Andy Reed, Loughborough
• Alan Simpson, Nottingham South
• Mark Todd, South Derbyshire
• Paul Truswell, Pudsey
• Tom Watson, West Bromwich East

After a comment from Modernity I realised that I should have a corresponding hall of shame, I only include a selection of MPs;

• Charles Clarke, Norwich South
• Frank Dobson, Holborn and St. Pancras
• Jim Fitzpatrick, Poplar and Canning Town
• Glenda Jackson, Hampstead and Highgate
• David Lepper, Brighton Pavillion
• John McDonnell, Hayes and Harlington
• Chris Mole, Ipswich
• Bridget Prentis, Lewisham East
• Joan Ruddock, Lewisham Deptford
• Angus MacNeil, Na h-Eileanan an Iar (SNP)

If you go here you can check out whether your MP voted for, against or didn't bother to show up.