Are you with the Bride or Groom?

You may not know who Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is. If you lived in Bahrain however you probably would. Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (we will call him Salman for short) is considered responsible for quashing the uprising of pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain earlier this year. He directly ordered the destruction of the poetically named focal point, Pearl Roundabout and is regularly criticised by Human Rights group Amnesty International. Possibly the most shocking thing on his recent resume is the charge that he may have directly ordered the army to destroy a hospital full of civilians.

Yes, by all accounts a lovely bloke.

Unfortunately for most of us civilised folk, Salman is a prince, not only any prince but the heir apparent of Bahrain. This, unfortunately, makes him eligible for an invitation to the wedding of William and Kate.

Now despite this being protocol there is nothing to gain by inviting a murderous prince to our country to celebrate the Royal Wedding. He is a man who has wide-spread international condemnation and the Foreign Secretary William Hague has personally singled him out for criticism.

However not only has Prince Salman been invited to the wedding, he has accepted the invitation and will be on our shores next week. Yes, a man responsible for crushing pro-democracy rebellions, upholding a dictatorship and murdering innocent people is the type of person we have decided to invite to our country to celebrate with us.

The Real Problem is the Internet

It has been announced this evening (well last night technically) that the police have been working with Internet Service Providers to find out the home addresses of online bigots involved in Old Firm sectarian hate campaigns. At least 50 people have been targeted by the police, and ahead of the Celtic - Rangers showdown they will be raiding the home addresses of the internet hardmen in an attempt to prevent sectarianism.

Strathclyde police claim those that they are targeting have used sectarian terms to describe Celtic's manager Neil Lennon and people who have used racist terms online to describe Rangers hate figure El Hadji Diouf.

On the one hand I agree that sectarianism is a blight on our society. The vast majority of us want to see sectarianism eradicated, along with racism, sexism and homophobia. But what will this really achieve?

According to police figures domestic violence almost doubles on Old Firm game days. The rate of people in Glasgow attending A&E increases by over a third and Strathclyde police have to put an extra 1,000 officers on duty to try and prevent violence from breaking out. These statistics are shocking. When Celtic and Rangers play there are a large and vocal minority who sing offensive songs which glorify the IRA and express prejudice against Catholics.

This needs to be stopped and I support police efforts to prevent violence and offensive singing at games. But does some eejit on twitter calling Neil Lennon a 'Fenian' really require their home to be raided? Is it worth the effort of not only arresting such people, but going through the difficult process of discovering the home address of someone using the internet pseudo-anonymously?

Do not get me wrong, anyone who uses such language I condemn, but people who sit on facebook or on forum websites using sectarian terms and holding archaic views are not the problem. It is the people who use football as an excuse to kick each other's heads in who are the poison in our country.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can't imagine the wee ned sitting on facebook acting hard and using offensive language is the same person who will spend the day kicking seven shades of shit out of anyone wearing the wrong coloured football top.

I may not like what they say, but the perceived anonymity provided by the internet will lead a lot of people who are quiet as a mouse in reality to act tough. After the recent case where Paul Chambers lost his job and was convicted due to making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport I have began to fear that the police and the courts are misunderstanding the processes and actions of the internet. I also fear they will misunderstand irony.

All in all I do not want to see people convicted of inciting racial hatred, or menacing behaviour because they ignorantly tweeted something without thinking about any perceived consequences. I fear we will live in a society where everything written on the internet is not only taken seriously, but often taken as being a credible threat to decency. 99% of the time it is just a case of someone acting like an internet hard-man.

The Haar Is Coming!

This is the view from my flat's window. Instead of the normal view of the impressive Fettes College (Tony Blair's School don't you know, the Eton of the North) all I can see is the start of some trees and an incoming gray mist, looking like it is preparing to swallow my fair city whole.

'Haar' is a Scottish Term for the sea mist which envelops towns and cities near the coast. Because of this it always reminds me of the sea, and as depressing as grey clouds can be, there is something romantic and almost pretty about the incoming haar. I think it may just remind me of living in Aberdeen when I was young.

Unfortunately the picture does not show the haar properly. The greyish building at the front of the photo is slightly shrouded in mist in reality, yet in this picture it looks pretty clear. Tomorrow I might post a normal picture of the view so you can see how much of it is being obscured.

Celtic Fans Already Mourning Lennon's Death?

In the wake (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) of Neil Lennon's attempted murder from a parcel bomb the Scottish public have reacted in a few different ways. Most of us have condemned the actions, some have ignorantly shown support for the letter bombing, some have used this as evidence that the Old Firm game on Sunday should be played behind closed doors.

A certain group of Celtic fans, however, seem to have already decided that Neil Lennon is dead, by holding a Candlelight Vigil in Neil Lennon's name. Now to clarify not all candlelight vigils are done in memorial to lost ones. Some are done in order to show support or to protest the suffering of marginalised groups. Groups like Muslims living in Croatia under Milosevic, or a vigil to honour those who died protesting at Tiananmen Square. Groups who stood up and faced persecution and massacre from government and from the society they lived in.

Oh, and now Celtic fans. Apparently fans of a football team are now a marginalised group, suffering unduly because of the football team they support. Really? Now I condemn any death threats or any attempts at the murder of Neil Lennon or anyone else but a couple of absolute idiots sending parcel bombs is not exactly akin to all Celtic fans being persecuted. The vast majority of people in Scotland are not persecuted by anyone, no matter what football team someone supports. To suggest that they are is absolutely ridiculous.

Looking on Celtic supporters forums however you would think they are the most marginalised people in our society. They talk of their suffering at the hands of the rest of us. The claim that they, by holding this vigil, are the best fans in the world. In reality they just come across as absolute idiots. Not exactly the greatest fans in the world (Who, after the recent 4-0 win against my team Aberdeen where not only out-sung by a losing Aberdeen side but also many left early! Yes, seriously, the greatest fans in the world leave early from matches that they are winning 4-0, greatest fans in the world indeed.)

The most amusing comment came from a poster who claimed he loved Celtic because they where a football team who stood up against sectarianism in Scotland. Yes. One of the two football teams which has a sectarian problem is apparently standing up against sectarianism...somehow. He then went on to say that he loved Celtic and "everything represents."

Please tell me, what does Celtic FC represent? They are a football team, all they represent is a soccer team from a certain part of Glasgow. Nothing more, nothing else.

Whilst they stand their with their candles thinking that they are fighting some unknown enemy, standing up against persecution (whilst donating to the IRA on the sly) and congratulating themselves as being the greatest fans in the world they don't realise how much the rest of us are laughing at them and their stupid antics.

Football is about a game, nothing else nothing more.

Totally Addicted to Porn

According to a recent study one in four 18-24 year old males fear they may be addicted, or are at risk of becoming addicted, to pornography. Insiders in the UK Pornography industry claim they are not surprised by this statistic as the internet makes free pornography so easily accessible too many people from a young age. They claim that pornography on pay-per-view television, from magazines and from professional paid sites are not contributing to the rise in pornography addiction.

Unlike substance misuse, or a smoking addiction or even a caffeine addiction being addicted to accessing online pornography seems unlikely to physically harm someone, but it is the psychological damage which is worrying.

According to a certain strain of feminist thought pornography warps the male image of women. I doubt that a little bit of pornography would make the vast majority of male consumers believe women are inferior, or merely sexual objects, but I think this argument is an increasingly valid one. As more and more pornography is accessed by more and more people from an increasingly young age it is clear that society is becoming more used to the ideas that are seen in porn. Pornography is getting increasingly extreme, increasingly violent and increasingly normal.

I would be lying if I said I never looked at porn. On occasion I have done so, and it has not changed my view of women. I still respect women, treat women equally and still consider myself to be a feminist. However I am firmly in the three quarters of men who do not have a porn addiction. What can be said for the increasingly large minority?

If one is accessing porn on a regular basis then it does seem likely that what they view on these videos may become increasingly normalised in their minds.

Now with some porn I've seen this is probably not a problem, much of it is just sex, similar to sex I've had (albeit with far more attractive participants), but some pornography I find absolutely disgusting. Women are often abused and there seems to be a trend of sexual activities which could be said to be negative towards the female participant. If people can watch a video where all the participants are over age and consensual then perhaps this isn't a problem. But what if people watch these videos before they have sex themselves? Perhaps these extreme sexual activities and simulated abuses of women will be normal?

Or perhaps not. Perhaps the vast majority of us would be as likely to be influenced by pornography as we are influenced by rap music. Maybe equating pornography to sexist views or even sexual violence is as far off the point as equating Marilyn Manson records to Columbine.

A lot of porn I think is fine and perhaps even healthy, but when watching certain types of pornography (particularly Japanese pornography, I've never felt so sorry for someone in my life as the woman featured in a Japanese porn video I once stumbled upon) I think it is possible, just possible, that it is presenting negative ideas of sex and negative ideas of what women are to a large demographic of people, this worries me.

Neil Lennon Letter Bomb

Neil Lennon and two high profile Celtic supporters have received bombs which the police suggest had the potential to kill or seriously injure the intended victims.

Voltaire famously said with regards to the Scottish Enlightenment "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation." We are a nation that produced some of the worlds most enduring and enlightened legal and educational systems. Economist Adam Smith single-handedly revolutionised the economic outlook for centuries and philosopher David Hume is widely considered to be one of the most profound philosophers to ever put pen to paper.

Yet somehow we still live in a country where sectarianism is rife and people can get killed for being the wrong religion or supporting the wrong soccer team. We do not have a racism problem here, we are notably more left-wing and liberal than our British counterparts yet we have a problem that people outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland probably couldn't get their heads around.

Should we be shocked at the attack on Neil Lennon? Of course, yet somehow we are not. I am not going to suggest that everyone who sings offensive songs at football games want to kill Catholics or Protestants, but when we have football stadia which are breeding grounds for sectarian singing and songs which call for the deaths of people like Neil Lennon can we really be surprised that someone or some group of people have taken it too literally and too seriously and gone far too far?

Thankfully most Rangers and Celtic fans I know condemn any of these actions, posted bellow are songs I've heard at Pittodrie over the last few years. Listening to them and reading them, can we really be that shocked that the sectarian problem we have in Scotland can and does lead to the deaths of innocent people?

From Rangers Fans:

Hang Neil Lennon

Hang Him High

(How Fucking High?)

So I Can See The Bastard Die

From Celtic Fans:

I Hope You Die in your sleep Nacho Novo,

I Hope You Die in your sleep I pray,

I Hope You Die in your sleep Nacho Novo,

With a Bullet from the I.R.A

Of course if we listen to the party line these sorts of songs are only sung by 90 minute bigots. There is not a real sectarian problem here eh? Just a bit of fun singing at a football ground. I do not want to blame what has happened with regards to the letter bombs on bigots shouting stupid offensive songs at football grounds, and I doubt the vast majority of them would actually want to see Nacho Novo or Neil Lennon killed, but with songs like that being sung regularly and a multitude of threats and now a bomb sent to Neil Lennon and other high profile Celtic supporters it does make one wonder whether we are taking the sectarian element of the Old Firm seriously enough.

The Right to Protest

On the 29th of April Prince William and Kate Middleton will be getting married in London. What is likely to be a grand occasion will undoubtedly be met by a range of different reactions from the British public. Some will be jubilant in celebration, whilst others apathetic and some outright opposed to the notion of their marriage even being televised.

There is one group, however, who want to hold a protest outside Westminster Abby. This protest, one which by all accounts is expected to be peaceful and outside the direct line of the wedding and extremely unlikely to disrupt the wedding itself, has been blocked by the police.

Under UK law to protest it is a legal requirement to gain permission from the police. In all likelihood the police will grant permission and the protest will go as planned, however in certain situations the police can deny permission, as they have done on Royal Wedding Day.

My question is, is it just for the police to prevent members of the British public from protesting simply because of an overpriced wedding?

Delving deeper into the issue it is perhaps prudent to divulge what the protest is actually about. The proposed demonstration is organised by a group called 'Muslims against Crusades'. They are Islamist extremists who believe that the Royal Wedding is an affront to all the Muslims around the world suffering due to British colonialism. They believe that Prince William is a representation of the British army, an army which they feel is a destructive force towards Islam and Muslim countries. They are extremists, and there website is illuminating if rather extreme reading. For anyone interested here it is: http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

If you think you might have heard of them before they are the group famous for burning poppies on Armistice day.

Another thing worth noting is when Muslims against Crusades announced their intentions to protest, the right-wing extremist group the English Defence League (EDL) announced they planned to organise a counter-demonstration. The EDL are a group of people who claim to be opposed to extremist Islam but are considered to be a far-right, racist group who oppose all Islam and Muslim immigration.

This counter-protest organised by the EDL has also been refused permission.

Unless you are an extremist Muslim or a far-right lunatic then I am assuming that you, like me, have absolutely no time for either group. The EDL are a nasty piece of work and Muslims Against Crusades seem deluded and represent an aspect of Islam which is offensive and potentially dangerous.

But is that reason enough to deny them permission to protest? I am not sure. On the one hand I think the right to protest and the further right to freedom of speech, are very important. Yet at the same time it seems that nothing positive can be gained from these protests. Perhaps the harm to the British public we experience from not being allowed to protest at any given time at any given place is less harmful than the offense caused by these two extremist groups. Perhaps not.

I am apathetic towards the Royal Wedding, but is it fair that two people should have their wedding hijacked by opportunist, extremist groups?

Who's liberty is more important?