lying about the European Humans Rights Act

I wrote yesterday of Theresa May's dodgy reasoning for pulling us out of the European Human Rights Act. That reasoning was simply that politicians felt there were some problems with the way it has been applied, and the lengths people have gone to to avoid falling foul of it. Now, she has been caught in what very strongly appears to be a lie.

"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act... about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."

When someone says "I am not making this up", it is meant to imply that the person has done at least due diligence in assuring that what is being said is factually correct. Unfortunately for May, it appears that something has been made up. The case it appears she is referring to does not seem to have been decided on the basis of ownership of a cat. The Judicial Communications Office has released a statement that said:

"This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy - applying at that time to that appellant - for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK,...That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision - the cat had nothing to do with the decision."

Politicians lying about easily checkable facts as a means to argue citizens out of hard fought for rights? Seems like business as usual. Maybe she was referring to some other case, but she has not clarified her comments but has simply reiterated that she stands by them. The funny part of the story is that another Conservative politician, Ken Clarke, has put a small wager down that she will be unable to provide a single documented case where the ownership of a cat was the reason given for refusing deportation. She is confident that Ken Clarke will owe her a meal at the end of all this.

The BBC has kindly provided a link so that we can see the judgement that appears to be in question. The cat is mentioned, but I see nowhere where it is pivotal in the decision to not deport.

So either she was misleading us about having done due dilligence in checking her facts, or she was misleading us about the case, or both. My vote is both, and there can be no excuse for the xenophobic fear she is peddling in any rational discourse.

European Humans Rights Act in question

"I’d personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it,"

says Theresa May. (the Home Secretary) On its own this seems absolutely crazy. It sounds even crazier when the justification is given:

I’d personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it

So because the government has had some problems with the Human Rights Act, this is a reason to to 'let it go'! This is the worst justification for abolishing guarantees of human rights I've ever heard. Of course, it isn't quite as crazy as it sounds because David Cameron does at least propose to "replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights". The primary problem they seem to have with it is that it protects some foreign criminals from being deported. This usually comes under section 8 of the Act:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

They are concerned because some criminals have used this act to avoid being deported because it interferes with their right to have a family life. Of course, the second section says "except such as is in accordance with the law...for the prevention of disorder etc.". This is like the Americans who have a right to 'life, liberty and happiness' which can be undermined by the due process of law (imprisonment, for example, denies a person's right to liberty). Therefore the problem isn't with the European Human Rights Act, but in the way it has been interpreted/put into practice. The solution to the problem is in clearer guidelines for the Justice system acting within the Act.

Even more shocking is that some of the arguments for doing away with the Act are because it means people behave in fear of being in breach of it. As David Cameron says:

The Human Rights Act doesn't say that's what you have to do. It's the sort of chilling effect of people thinking 'I will be found guilty under it'

The example given of this fear is of a prisoner being driven 100miles on a roundtrip rather than walking a short distance to court. This seems to have been done because the company doing the prisoner transport was contractually obliged not to walk prisoners down the road in handcuffs. This is presumably to avoid getting mobbed by the press, or other members of the public. I'm not sure if this was out of concern of falling foul of the Act or if it was just common decency to not frogmarch people up the road in cuffs. Either a person has the right to avoid this or they don't, and once this has been established the relevant parties (the contractors in this case) can act appropriately.

In the US, teachers are not allowed to hold prayers but pupils are free to pray. Sometimes a principal might be overzealous or acting out of fear of the establishement clause and forbid a pupil from praying or expressing their religious views. The solution is not to abandon the Constitution, but to educate the relevant parties in the proper way to act.

Furthermore - if you are planning to replace it with a Bill of Rights, there will be the same fear of being in breach of that which will lead to the same strange circumstances that Cameron is complaining about now...his position seems entirely self-defeating.

Hearing voices

A mother, suffering from psychosis has murdered her child to exercise the djinn from them at the request of Allah.

Shayma Ali, 36, who was suffering from psychosis, stabbed the four-year-old up to 40 times and took out her liver...."...a voice told me 'if you love Allah you should sacrifice your daughter."'

I'm not going to jump on this as an example of the religious causing harm, as I'm sure many critics of atheists might think we'd do.

Instead, this is the primarily danger of psychosis. I don't think I'd do this, but I can understand. perhaps better than others, the motivation for doing it.. One possible issue, in my opinion, is that this woman didn't adequately defend herself against erroneous thought patterns ahead of time. She believed in Allah based on no evidence, she believed in Djinn on no evidence (probably, like other Muslims I have spoken to, she relied on stories about a neighbour of an Uncle who met a Djinn or some such. I've not met a Muslim who did not believe in Djinn).

Believing in things without evidence doesn't necessarily lead to harm, but dropping critical thinking in areas where the stakes are as high as they often are in religion, you open yourself up to doing terrible things under the influence of sudden onset mental health issues. 5% of people will suffer a psychotic episode in their lives. That sounds small, but when we realize that this means 1 in 20 of us, it may well drive it home as quite a common thing.

So much of the evidence in favour of Allah, Yahweh and Jesus etc is based around 'personal relationships', 'personal religious experiences' and so on. Is it any wonder that people that hear voices sometimes attribute them to these characters. After all, what else are people that say they have experienced the loving presence of God doing?

And this is why I have adopted a skeptical position. I know I occasionally believe weird things, but if any belief that I hold that is life-and-death important, I run through the skeptical mill before acting. Any belief, I insist to myself, is subject to change based on further information.

Does this render me immune from committing a terrible act? To be honest, I don't know. How could I know? I suspect that a powerful psychotic break could occur and my critical reasoning will be irrelevant for that time. That said, I've heard voices and they have told me to do terrible things. Fortunately I know the human mind can play tricks on you and this is always the evidentially supported hypothesis and thus the preferred one over unverifiable theories about commands from supreme beings.

Happy blasphemy day!

The Holy spirit is a stinking shitbag of puss and Mary was a lying whore (but she's dead now).

Mohammed was a child abusing warlord with a small dick and bad breath and his imaginary friend Allah is a sociopathic bloodthirsty tyrant with bad taste in fashion.

Lord Ganesha is a big-nosed wanker.


Happy Blasphemy Day International! Apologies to those of faiths that I didn't blaspheme, maybe somebody else will have you covered, keep looking - you can be offended if you try hard enough. Jain is a girls name.

David Mabus/Dennis Markuze (aka GOATS ON FIRE!)

In some ways, David Mabus was my inspiration to start a blog. Perhaps as a way to combat the negative stereotypes that psychotic people have to deal with. You see, if you weren't aware of Mr Mabus, he gives us crazy people a bad name. He was recently the subject of a legal intervention after years of posting increasing incomprehensible gibberish (including various things which could be construed as death threats or other threats of violence: CLOBBERING TIME!!) to forums, blogs, on twitter and email in Herculean volumes. Here is some of later work

why would anyone tolerate you intolerant sh&theads? the REAL WORLD!

____________________________________-

for lying intolerant sh*thead "wiseman" - we even use YOU!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJs9GCvKQwQ

WHACKANATHEIST

______________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY

MORE THAN A MILLIONS DOLLARS!

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628639-new-items-in-the-rdf-store-giant-evolution-playmat-poster-activity-guide?page=1

even Goebbels would not dare use such techniques to brainwash children....

______________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_J2o9Jkvkw

METAPHYSICAL GHOSTS

And so on. This would interspersed with surreal pictures like



It didn't used to be so incomprehensible. Just a few years ago it was practically Shakespeare in comparison:

For over 40 years James Randi Zwigert (is this even a REAL NAME?) has
had total control over who and how the testing was conducted, yet
despite all this he has terminated the challenge.

The ONLY REASON why the challenge was stopped is because he lost and
refused to pay.

Apparently, Randi likes to break the rules when it serves him

...

where is my MILLION DOLLARS, you LITTLE *NO-NAME* FRAUD

PS: Almost Forgot: Love the IRONY of the *BULLSHIT* sign over Randi's
ugly head...

Who knows, maybe I'm already on the downhill slide into gibbering mania like DM, in which case this blog might serve as an interesting case study for someone. For the curious, more information can be found strewn about the interwebs, but I'll link over to PZ Myers for convenience. After thousands upon thousands of complaints he was arrested and given a psych evaluation. The results of this evaluation have been reported as saying he suffers from bipolar disorder, compounded by substance abuse. The actual report says 'alcohol and substance abuse' I know, but I am fairly sure that alcohol is a substance.

And that's where DM had at least one advantage over me. His manic episodes meant he got a lot of work done. Unfortunately, it was all crazy work, but nobody doubts that he was prolific. For now he is receiving treatment, and the atheist blogger community is happy with that outcome.

Skinner's Dilemma

Also: Pascal's Wager rehashed.

Frank Skinner is a comedian and a one hit wonder, and he's recently expressed his opinions to the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Atheists we might see as people like those who deny global warming. You might celebrate their right, and defend their freedom of speech, to deny global warming – but if they're wrong, and millions of other people have taken their view, then it could end in a terrible, terrible disaster for a lot of people.
...
At a time when secularism is a threat to the salvation of millions, believers should get together, find what we have in common, and sell that

OF course, there is a bit of problem here Mr Skinner. The problem is that you could substitute any belief-position for atheism and the argument would be as exactly correct as Skinner's. Imagine, for example, a Muslim Imam saying:

if Catholics are wrong, and millions of other people have taken their view, then it could end in a terrible, terrible disaster for a lot of people.

And since the argument applies equally to Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and well...everybody, it actually applies to nobody. It's just Pascal's wager re-worded and suffers the same flaws. If it turns out that there is a God but that God punishes us for believing in him without sufficient evidence, then it is the believers that are in for terrible disaster. Indeed, if there is a God and his demands are in anyway contrary to the practices of Catholics or specifically to Skinner - then a lot of people are going to be screwed. No matter which way you put it, someone is going to be screwed if a God exists.

And if God doesn't exist, then people are just screwing themselves by wasting their time and efforts right now. And worse, they are often screwing others over since religious beliefs tend to exact moral demands on the followers which necessarily impacts the lives of other people. Surely, if we are going to try and prevent a 'terrible disaster' we should only make guesses that are in line with the corroborated evidence that we have (or perhaps guesses that go slightly beyond the corroborated evidence, in ways that might be possibly corroborated in the near future).

I agree with Skinner's larger point, however: Comedians are nowadays more regularly taking potshots at religious views. But they can do this in increasing numbers because it is become increasingly safe to do it. More importantly, the audiences find jokes mocking religion to be funny. And comedians are nothing if not opportunists for extracting laughs.

Skinner might lament anti-religion routines becoming the 'in thing', but that's because religion is so absurd just about anyone can say something funny about it.

At any rate, even if the Catholics and the Protestants ganged up against atheism and even if they won - they'd be back to bickering over which fuddy-duddy is in charge of the church and what opinions we should hold about Mary in no time. And then, eventually, people would start taking the piss again.

The enemy of motivation

Of course, one of the dilemmas of having a blog and being psychotic is the tendency towards not making regular updates.  In psychosis there are positive and negative symptoms.  Most people are aware of the positive ones (delusions, hallucinations etc), but the negative ones are the ones that are more regularly present.  Except in some cases like schizophrenia, the positive symptoms are occasional or minor.  The negative symptoms include avolition. From www.schizophrenia.com

Avolition is the reduction, difficulty, or inability to initiate and persist in goal-directed behavior; it is often mistaken for apparent disinterest. (examples of avolition include: no longer interested in going out and meeting with friends, no longer interested in activities that the person used to show enthusiasm for, no longer interested in much of anything, sitting in the house for many hours a day doing nothing.)

 Nevertheless I will attempt to press on and continue writing. Even if  it appears I am addressing naught but the aether.