<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/14058325?origin\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Something to think about when the Census drops through your letterbox next year...

Tuesday, January 26, 2010
For reasons far too dull to go into, I chanced upon this earlier, and decided it needed a narrower audience:

"A Bill proposing "taking and registering an annual Account of the total Number of People, and of the total Number of Marriages, Births and Deaths; and also of the total Number of Poor receiving Alms from every Parish and extra-parochial Place in Great Britain" was passed by the House of Commons on the 8th May 1753. However, Mr Thornton, MP for York, did not accept that 'that there was any set of men, or indeed, any individual of the human species so presumptuous and so abandoned as to make the proposal we have just heard ... I hold this project to be totally subversive of the last remains of English liberty".

I do not doubt he is spinning in his grave at a lathe-like speed even as I type.

(Spectacular typo fixed...)

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

Which countries actually give two hoots for freedom of speech?

Monday, November 23, 2009
From those nice people at World Public Opinion:

As the UN General Assembly prepares to debate a proposal calling for nations to take action against the defamation of religion, majorities in 13 of 20 nations polled around the world support the right to criticize a religion. On average, across all countries polled, 57% of respondents agree that "people should be allowed to publicly criticize a religion because people should have freedom of speech." However, an average of 34% of respondents agree that governments "should have the right to fine or imprison people who publicly criticize a religion because such criticism could defame the religion."
And a further breakdown of figures:



Being of a cynical bent, I suspect that certain respondents were thinking in terms of their own religion, rather than religion generally.  Or perhaps some of our Middle Eastern chums have decided that they actually rather like the Yahudi. 

Anyway, top marks for the Americans, although some 9% seem not to understand the First Amendment. I suppose we get a passing grade with 81% in favour of freedom of speech, while the French have disgraced themselves, frankly.

Labels:

posted by Croydonian

DPRK not bottom of the class for press freedom. Apparently

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
"Reporters Without Borders...today...issued its eighth annual world press freedom index".

Which is nice.  And at the top of the table are Denmark, Finland, Irland (sic), Norway and Sweden with scores of zero.

And how is the list compiled?

"Reporters Without Borders compiles the index every year on the basis of questionnaires that are completed by hundreds of journalists and media experts around the world".

And that is the bit that makes me suspicious, and causes me to wonder about the accusations of the liberal bias claimed for the American media in particular - "The United States has climbed 20 places in the rankings, from 40th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this".


Erm, has anyone noticed that the annulment of the 1st amendment by Bush the Younger (/sarcasm) has been abrogated by everyone's favourite Nobel laureate, or might it be more the case that happy journos are more likely to give positive responses to questions?  The questionnaire is here.

Elsewhere, we are joint 20th with our Uncle Sam and Luxembourg at 4.00, bettering Jamaica at 4.75, but worsted by Canada at 3.70.  Bottom of the heap are Burma, Iran, Turkmenistan, the DPRK and Eritrea, all at 100+.  

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Black hats, white hats and no hats at all

Wednesday, May 13, 2009
From the UN press site:

"The 18 newly elected members of the Human Rights Council would need to prove themselves by implementing the international human rights agenda at home and abroad, Craig Mokhiber, Deputy Director of the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said during a Headquarters news conference this afternoon...“We would like to get away from the idea that there are good guys and bad guys. Today, there were 18 human rights violators elected to the Human Rights Council”, he said, stressing that all 192 United Nations Member States had serious human rights problems".

Over to you, readers, for any attempts to sort sheep from goats:

"The new Council members, elected by secret ballot, include: five African countries (Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria and Senegal); four (sic) Asian States (Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia); two Eastern European countries (Hungary and Russian Federation); three Latin American and Caribbean countries (Cuba, Mexico and Uruguay); and three Western European and Other States (Belgium, Norway and the United States) for three-year terms.

What, no DPRK?

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

O tempora, o mores!

Sunday, March 08, 2009
Courtesy of wonk group the NLGN (headed by a former Labour MP), I have discovered anew quite how many sick punishment freaks lurk among an unsuspecting British populace.

It asked this question:

Please indicate which of the following possible directed surveillance methods your local council would be justified in using as a means of dealing with the following issues?

Now have a look at the chart below. Go on, double click on it, it is worth it.



That the public thinks covert video surveillance is appropriate for dealing with terrorism is not entirely surprising, although given that most councils seem to struggle with gritting the roads, emptying bins and so on, the idea that they would be able to do anything especially useful with film footage, even if the suspects were strolling around with a black spheres marked 'bomb', stretches credulity. It gets worse, however, as Joe and Josie Public think that theft, drug dealing and dangerous driving are more worthy of video surveillance than keeping an eye on those pesky Methodist suicide bombers. This, I fear is only par for the course, as are the majorities who want to point hidden cameras at fly-tippers, and get this, folk who allow their canine charges to leave their calling cards in the street.

Unnerving though that is, folk were also offered the possibility of having their councils tap phones and read one's e-mail. Majorities support that for organised crime and terrorism, and - as God is my witness, I am *not* making this up - around 10% are in favour of the Man (and Woman) at the council offices tapping phones and reading e-mail to see if school catchment rules are being broken.

However, it gets madder yet. There are people in favour of those same powers to combat the Four Horsemen that are, ahem, dog fouling, fly-tipping, illegal street trading and illegal parking.

Imagine, if you will, the conversation they might be listening in on:

"''Ere, Dave, I'm taking Fang out for a walk later. Do you want to bring Rex along, so we can synchronise their dumps right outside Mrs Miggin's house at number 32?"

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

The Great British public disgraces itself again

Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Consider the basic liberal rights - freedom of expression, freedom of religion and so forth. All bar a lunatic fringe would support them, yes? Nope:


The data charted above has been extracted from a report by WorldPublicOpinion.org, and while many other countries were polled on all or some of the issues, I have limited the chart to the UK, US, France and as a contrast Nigeria. In order to keep the chart a tolerable size I have curtailed the text of the questions.

The question charted in the first cluster is "Do you think there are some religions that people should not be allowed to practice in your country?". 33% of Britons think that.

Secondly, "people of any religion should be free to try to convert members of other religions to join theirs.” 57% of Britons disagree. I will concede that early morning visits from Jehovah's Witnesses can be a little irritating, but this is a rather bigger issue.

Thirdly, asked "How important is it for people to have the right to express any opinion, including criticisms of the government or religious leaders?", 3% of Britons did not judge it very or somewhat important.

Fourthly, questioned whether "Do you think the government should or should not have the right to prohibit certain political or religious views from being discussed?", 39% of my fellow citizens agree. The French fared rather better at a still appalling 27%, while the Americans were the least bad at 13%.

Fifthly, asked if "The government should have the right to ban peaceful demonstrations that it thinks would be politically destabilizing", 11% of Britons agree. Mind you, the state already does that, doesn't it?

(To be continued).

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

Three cheers for the Peruvians

Tuesday, May 06, 2008
And for the Mexicans and Argentinians too, as they posted the highest percentages judging media freedom important, at 96% for Peru, and 94% for Mexico and Argentina. Rather depressingly, India underperformed tyrannies like China and Iran, with only 52% valuing media freedom.

Rather disgustingly, 12% of Britons judged media freedom neither very nor somewhat important. Is Broon's payroll vote really that big?

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Nonsense on stilts

Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A Swedish government inquiry proposes that sexist advertising should be banned. No, I am not making this up.

Just a few problems spring to mind...

Sexist? As defined by who? Professional litigants / bores / offence takers, thus giving us complaints over the use of men in adverts for beard trimmers and women in adverts for sanpro? Yes, I have chosen extreme examples, but there are many, many products aimed at particular demographics, and they are advertised accordingly. Note that clothing / hair care / scent etc models are selected to appeal to women rather than men.

Advertising? Is it merely the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket, or should it be seen as commercial art? I would argue the latter, strongly.

Freedom of speech? Yes, it is a freedom of speech issue.

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian