Rape attitude problems aren’t limited to India

At the moment in India, attitudes towards rape and its victims have been dragged unceremoniously into the public forum after the death of a young woman who was gang-raped on a bus. There’s plenty of discussion and philosophising about it in all corners of the internet, and not without a somewhat sanctimonious air of moral superiority from some quarters in the first world.

But, sadly, such problems are not confined to poorer parts of the world. Granted, they are undoubtedly worse there, magnified and amplified by an absence of routine human rights and properly enforced criminal laws. But before we in the UK get on our high horse, it’s worth remembering that we aren’t speaking from a perfect position.

The New Statesman‘s Laurie Penny (someone with whom I have much history of disagreement) has written a blindingly good article in which she neatly sums up the state of British society, in which:

“…women should take responsibility for “protecting” themselves from sexual assault because sexual assault is just a fact of life.”

Take the above photo, for example. It depicts, so far as I can tell, a public information poster from Thames Valley Police. I have been unable to verify it, but equally have seen nothing to cast doubt on it, and it feels genuine.

At first glance it’s just a warning for parents not to give their children alcohol. Very noble, and hard to disagree with. But looking closer, the message is a lot closer to “if you give your daughter alcohol, she will get raped”. And from there, the obvious corollary is “a girl gets raped because she’s drunk”.

Erm…no. She gets raped because someone rapes her.

In fact, there is only one person to blame for rape, and that is the rapist. Enlightened though we may consider ourselves, our society still contains the same latent prejudices which until recently made rape a fact of life on the streets of India.

It’s doubly worrying to see these attitudes shown by the police. My local police. Rape prosecution and conviction rates in the UK are still woefully low, with many cases going unreported. I can’t help but feel that messages like this will only damage the faith of victims in the police.

I wonder what our newly-elected Police and Crime Commissioner thinks of this?

Farewell 2012

Well, what do we make of 2012? It came, it stayed a while, and now it’s off on its way again.

I can’t help but feel slightly disappointed with it, standing at the precipice of 2013 and looking back. Part of it is, as Julian Ware-Lane said, that we have had another twelve months of fairly disasterous Conservative governance — including a double-dip recession and probably putting us on track for a triple-dip.

There was also the profound disappointment of the, ahem, “end of the world“. T.S. Eliot’s prophetic line turned out to be a bit off, as rather than a whimper it came with a cynical spasm of bad jokes.

There were good points, naturally. Most notably, after over a damned year of searching I am now gainfully employed. It’s such a relief to actually a) have something to do all day, and b) have money coming in and being able to plan ahead. I know I’m one of the lucky ones, and for that I am grateful.

I have also become a parish councillor, which sounds a whole lot more important than it is. But it gives me a say over local planning applications, and I am already resolving to take a hard line on building on the floodplain. This year has been beset with flooding, and paving over more drainage areas will only make the situation worse.

This is usually the part where I make pledges for what I’m going to do in the new year. Whilst I have some ideas of what I want to achieve, I’m not going to lay them out here. Simply, I’ll only say that I want to be happy. A noble aim, I think.

So have a good new years, my readers. And I sincerely hope that your 2013 will be even better than your 2012.

Star Trek Into Darkness – Theories and Speculation [Contains potential spoilers]

So today saw the release of the first trailer for the next film in the rebooted Star Trek franchise, entitled Star Trek Into Darkness. Speculation about it has been rife for months, but has hit a particular fever pitch with it. Primarily this has been around what character Benedict Cumberbatch (Yes, he’s in this, as well as every other film of the moment) will be playing.

And, after watching the trailer on my lunch break (as a true geek should) I’m ready to make my prediction, and to stake it on line for prosperity to be either vindicated or humiliated in time to come.

I think that Benedict Cumberbatch will be playing Gary Mitchell.

Gary Mitchell, for the uninitiated, featured in the first proper episode of Star Trek: The Original Series as Captain Kirk’s best friend from the academy. I won’t give specifics, but it doesn’t end well for Mitchell. Mitchell is a name which has been mentioned a fair bit amongst fans, along with Khan Noonien Singh (of Star Trek II – The Wrath of Khan fame). There are a few reasons why I think Mitchell is more likely than Khan:

1. Khan would be just too predictable. When Abrams and co rebooted the franchise, they made a special point of turning the concept upside down. To then, for their second film, to follow the track of the orginal second film… It just feels too easy.
2. There isn’t time for Khan. Khan’s appearance in The Wrath of Khan was actually a follow-up to an episode of the TV series. Cumberbatch specifically says in the trailer “I have returned, to have my vengeance.” There doesn’t seem — to me — to be enough time in a film to do the two storylines justice. He could be taking revenge on humanity, rather than Kirk, but still…
3. Cumberbatch is wearing a Starfleet uniform. Mitchell, in the original story, was at the Academy with Kirk. Of course, Kirk attended the academy later in the new timeline, so its likely that he wouldn’t have been at the Academy with Mitchell. Hence, Mitchell’s backstory could be told during the film itself.
4. Benedict Cumberbatch is white. This might seem a silly point, but the character of Khan was not a white character. At the first suggestion that it might be Khan, there were rumblings about why Abrams would cast a white actor in a (rare) minority ethnic role. I think there’s potential for it to seriously piss off people in the “how dare you mess with the cannon?” camp as well as non-white audiences.

So there we have it. I’m by no means certain that it will be Mitchell rather than Khan. And, indeed, it could potentially be neither and we’re just all being led down the garden path. But I’m leaning ever closer to Gary Mitchell.

Of course, the most exciting image of the film wasn’t Cumberbatch flipping around like a slimline Bane, but rather this:

This frame (only appearing in the longer Japanese version of the trailer) will be familiar to anyone who remembers The Wrath of Khan. It is, of course, Spock’s death scene. It’s a bit of a hint towards Cumberbatch being Khan, but again it runs up against the first point I made. I don’t believe that JJ Abrams would be content to rehash the originals.

Of course, if I was writing the film (which, as you may have noticed, I’m not), I’d reverse it. I’d have it as Kirk’s death scene, rather than Spock’s, especially as the first film moved towards a more emotional Spock. I’m not sure that’s what will happen, especially since you don’t kill off your lead character so early into your new franchise (well, unless he’s played by Sean Bean).

But still, the net result of this trailer is that I’m now very much looking forward to 17th May 2013.

A bad day for the Church of England, and for equality

Religion rarely seems to get a look in on this blog. Primarily, that’s because it’s one of the few topics which can be depended on to be more incendiary than politics. It’s also because I believe that religion — or lack thereof — is the most personal of matters, and this is something for the individual and their conscience. But I am a Christian. I am an Anglican. And I have never been afraid of speaking out when I disagree with the Church.

Like today.

For those who haven’t seen the news, the Church’s governing body — the Synod — today voted against the ordination of female bishops. It is, in my opinion, nothing short of a disgrace.

It’s been an issue that’s been bouncing around in the two decades since women were first ordained as priests, except this time the Synod made the wrong decision. All of the same arguments which were wheeled out against women priests have been rehashed, and yet despite being proved utterly wrong the last time (proof: the sky hasn’t in fact fallen in) they have inexplicably won over now.

A lot of the theological argument that women should not be ordained revolves around passages of scripture such as 1 Timothy 2:12:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.“

I’m not a theologian. I’m just a loudmouth with a keyboard and and internet connection. But personally, I’ve never gone in for the deification of people. The Catholics do it with Mary, and the whole pantheon of saints. But if you take that God is God, and that Jesus was/is God in human form, then everyone else is just a flawed human being.

Which, valuable though his insights may be, surely includes Saint Paul?

I don’t know, I just don’t see any rational argument for why women can’t do the job every bit as good as men. Unless of course you’re so conservative (small-c) and afraid of change that the idea of women at the pulpit scares you.

The church like the BBC gets  a lot of criticism. As far as I’m concerned, it should do, since it should be holding itself to a higher standard. But like the BBC, it is one of our finest institutions and at its best has done fantastic things. Defeating the slave trade, for instance.

So I was both surprised and disappointed to hear that the change — which the Church badly needs — was not rejected by the bishops or clergy, but by the lay (ordinary) members. Both the outgoing and incoming Archbishops of Canterbury supported the measure, so this was not an establishment block.

This won’t be the end of the matter. Women will become bishops, but sadly after this it won’t be for another few decades. Those who have sulked and thrown their toys out of the pram have allowed a deeply unfair situation to persist, which robs the church of some of its finest talents.

Today has not been a good day for either the Church of England or equality.

Lest We Forget

For the Fallen

By Laurence Binyon

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England’s foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Dear cinema, we need to talk…

Dear cinema

I like you. I like you a lot, and have done for a long time. I don’t think this will come as a surprise to you, I haven’t exactly been coy about it.

I do, however, think that our relationship has been in many ways one sided. I feel like I’ve forgiven you for a lot. Not just the bad films, or the experiments gone wrong (I actually sorry of like those; your capacity and willingness is one of my favourite things about you), but the endless reboots and remakes, and the continual chances you keep giving to the likes of Michael Bay and Quentin Tarantino. I even came back after the disgracefully limited run you gave The Awakening.

Despite all of this, I always end up back queuing at your box office, walking down your sticky aisles, and sitting in your uncomfortable standard seats (not for the likes of me, the luxury of premier).

But I think your latest obsessive fad may be staining our relationship too far. I am, of course, talking about 3D.

Oh, it was exciting when it first appeared. Thick-rimmed indie glasses, the niggling headache as I staggered out into the cool air after the credits had tolled. And it even managed to put enough if a gloss onto Avatar that for a moment we didn’t notice what a shallow remake of Pocohontus it was.

But it’s three years later, and like three dry rot you try to ignore, it hasn’t gone away. In fact, it’s got worse.

3D cinema is like hoverboards and jetpacks. The future continually promises them to is, yet every attempt ends in disappointing failure, and the idea is put back into the science-fiction box only to be brought out and obliviously tried again a few years later.

It was okay whilst you were offering 2D alternative showings. I could watch and enjoy your films without the headaches, and others could do as they chose.

I first noticed your attitude change with Dredd 3D. I should probably have guessed from the title, but I didn’t think it would be 3D only. I was hurt. I was disappointed. But I told myself it was a one-off.

And now it’s that time of year when we all like to watch a good horror film. No, not Paranormal Activity 4. I said a good horror film. Though whether Silent Hill Revelation will be any better is uncertain.

But that doesn’t really matter, because you’ve done it to me again. Yes, you’re only showing Silent Hill Revelation in 3D. I could cry.

So tonight, in order to enjoy (maybe) some psychological horror I’ll have to wear those uncomfortable spectacles, and have the paracetamol standing by. Oh I’ll do it. We both know that. It’s how abusive relationships like this work.

But I won’t be happy, cinema. Not like I used to be with you. Because it’s become clear to me that this isn’t some passing phase, it’s not something you’ll get over. You care more about 3D than you do about me, the audience.

Cinema, I’m sorry, but I think we need to see other people.

What’s Worse than Page 3?

Whether it’s Kate Middleton or anyone else, no woman deserves her privacy being violated like this.

When the pictures are printed without the woman’s permission.

I didn’t really want to wade into the debate on the Kate Middleton topless photos, but as often happens I’ve been forced into commenting. I’m sure many people have said what I am about to say, and much more eloquently, but here goes anyway.

I haven’t seen the now-infamous photos. I have no desire to. It’s not that I’m against breasts — in fact, I’m quite a fan. What I’m against, is the massive violation of privacy that they represent. I’ve spent the last few days listening to various arguments of why there’s nothing wrong with the taking and publishing of the photos, and how the royal family are fair game.

Frankly, as well as being utterly unconvinced, I’m a little disgusted.

Let’s review the facts for a moment: Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge and future Queen of United Kingdom, was sunbathing topless at a private location, on holiday. She was snapped by a paparazzi with a massive zoom lens. Those photos were then printed by a French magazine, after being refused by the entire British press.

They have since been republished by an Italian magazine, whose editor Alfonso Signorini justified his decision saying:

“The pictures are completely natural, they are not morbid and in no way harm the dignity or the morality of the people portrayed … Plus, while the terrace was in a private residence, it overlooked a street from where anyone passing by with a good lens could have snapped them.“

Let’s address that here. Firstly, he says that the pictures are completely natural. Which is an opinion, but also irrelevant. The fact is that the woman in question gave no permission for those photos to be taken or printed. Her privacy was violated, and for no journalistic merit. The only reason that anyone seems to have for these photos is profit.

So a young woman has been violated, so that magazines can sell a few more copies. They must be very proud of themselves. The British press comes in for a lot of criticism, and deservedly so, but here they’ve gotten it right. Put yourself in the shoes of Kate for a moment, and think how mortified and ashamed she must feel. And think how her husband, Prince William, must feel. His mother was hounded to her death by paparazzi, and now that same industry is targeting his wife.

Freedom of expression — and thus of the press — is an important right in any civilised and democratic country, and is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But that has to be balanced with the right to privacy under Article 8.

His second point, is that the site was freely visible to anyone on the road. So thus the image was fair game. So where was the photographer in relation to the royal holidayers?

You’re kidding me, right? “Anyone passing by with a good lens“? Utter nonsense.

This whole affair is grubby and grotesque. There are reasons for the privacy of individuals to come second to the press, but only in matters of extreme public interest. Whilst there is almost certainly a public interest in Kate Middleton’s breasts, publishing pictures of them are not in the public interest.

There are plenty of problems that can be had with the Royal Family, and I can respect the arguments against monarchy. But the argument that her royal role forgoes any privacy Kate Middleton has doesn’t hold a drop of water. If you bumped into her in the street, would you demand she undress for you?

I am not a fan of Page 3. I think it’s inappropriate as a part of national newspapers, available to all ages. But compared to the grotesquery of an innocent woman being violated like this, it’s positively saintly. Forget, for a moment, that this is the Duchess of Cambridge. Imagine it’s any ordinary woman. Would splashing topless photos of her, taken without her knowledge or consent, across the pages of major magazines be acceptable? No. No it wouldn’t. And it isn’t here.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr President

In the wake of Neil Armstrong’s passing away yesterday, it seems that most of the world is in mourning. It was, to me, extremely touching to see you using your Twitter feed to pay your own tribute to him. I agree with you, that Neil Armstrong was a hero of all time.

I think Neil, and both what he did and what he represented, showed the very best of the human spirit. Through Neil, we reached out from this world and touched the universe beyond the sky. In all of our achievements to date, that has to rank most highly.

It inspired generations down the line, all the way to me. Even though it was long before my time, the names Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, as well as Armstrong’s words as he took those first momentous steps, have always resonated deeply with me.

So what better tribute could you, America, and the world make to such a great man, than to carry on in that spirit? Apollo 11 showed us how much mankind could achieve, when we put our mind to it. That hasn’t changed. We can still dream big, and make those dreams come true.

I believe that we can put a man on Mars. I believe we can do it easily within my lifetime. And though I will never see dawn on the Red Planet with my own eyes, I know that my children, my grandchildren and my descendent down the line can do so.

The USA leads the world, and in space travel particularly. Few institutions have as much respect around the world as does NASA. Whilst I believe that any manned mission to Mars should and must be international, it is foolishness to thing that there is anyone better suited or better able to lead it than the USA and NASA.

You are frequently referred to as the most powerful man in the world. If that is true, what better way to show it than to make the announcement and pledge the money to put a human being on the surface of Mars in the next twenty years. It can be done, and in doing so we can inspire generations to come to be their best and accomplish all that they can. What better way to lift the people of planet Earth out of their petty troubles and disagreements, and realise the extent of their abilities?

As I said, I wasn’t able to see Neil Armstrong land on the moon. My parents were, and have spoken of it to me many times. But I know that I can have the same experience, watching an astronaut taking the first steps on Mars. And, Mr President, you have the power to make this dream of billions a reality.

Yours hopefully

Matthew S. Dent

SF writer and lifelong dreamer

Anticipating Silent Hill Revelations

Yesterday, I watched the above video. It is the first I have seen of the upcoming Silent Hill film, so I was quite interested to see what it heralded.

As a bit of background, I’m a huge Silent Hill fan. For the most part, this consists of replaying the second and third games over and over, and wincing every time a new game is released. It’s a hard life, being a fan.

To me, the video games Silent Hill 2 and Silent Hill 3 are two of the best examples of horror I know. They are, to me and to a great many others, genuinely scary. Playing them as a kid, I was always scared out of my mind and it was that feeling to which I became addicted, and which led me into the horror world proper.

I still don’t know what it is about them that does it so perfectly for me. Something in the atmosphere, the pace, the way it doesn’t rush in and go for the jugular. In both, you spend a good deal of time wandering around before jumping at shadows before you even see a slaving nasty. It creates an incredibly effective sense of being lost and alone with something that doesn’t like you much, and is toying with you.

Like I said, two of the best examples of horror I know.

And then there’s the film. I don’t know what to think of it really. If it wasn’t billed as Silent Hill then it would probably have been a good horror film. But the title to me carries higher responsibilities. And whilst it wasn’t bad as horror films go, it was a bit of a mess. Particularly Sean Bean’s scenes, where he was basically tasked with twiddling his thumbs as a side plot.

But, and I’m a little wary of saying this, but the trailer for its sequel Silent Hill Revelations. Yes, Pyramid Head and the zombie nurses make their usual seemingly-obligatory incongruous appearances, but Sean Bean appears to have a bigger role. And it looks like it’s heavily based on the plot of Silent Hill 3. Which is always good.

I never underestimate the potential for Hollywood to cock up a good thing, but I’m sort of looking forward to this. After the mess when I wanted to watch a horror film last Autumn, I think I’ll take this.

Why I can’t agree with the Church of England on Gay Marriage

This somewhat witty infographic puts, I feel, the whole debate on gay marriage into perspective.

I am a Christian. Specifically, an Anglican. I was raised in a Church of England family, attending a Church of England church, and was baptised and confirmed into the Church of England.

I’m also in favour of legalising gay marriage. I never really saw any great problem or contradiction with this, but apparently I was wrong. Last week the CofE released a response to the government’s consultation on legalising gay marriage, and my view seems to have been decided for me:

“The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ‘all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony’.“

Which is odd, because I don’t agree with that, and I was under the impression I was part of the Church of England. But whatever, it’s far from the only contradiction in the thirteen page document, so perhaps I should let that one slide in favour of moving onto some of the other problems.

For starters, this particular assertion:

“We have supported various legal changes in recent years to remove unjustified discrimination and create greater legal rights for same sex couples and we welcome that fact that previous legal and material inequities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed.“

Which sound lovely. Except it’s not true. For one, the Guardian have already pointed out that the church didn’t support the Civil Partnerships Act — in fact, six bishops in the House of Lords voted against the act, whilst one voted in favour.

I also cry falsehood on the idea that inequalities have been “satisfactorily addressed”. The church may be satisfied, but there are a whole lot of gay couples who aren’t. You see, despite claims to the contrary, civil partnerships aren’t marriages in all but name. There are a number of key differences, which include:

• No requirement of consummation of a civil partnership (which, actually, was a compromise to placate the Church…).
• Consequently, a civil partnership can’t be dissolved on the basis of adultery, whereas a divorce could be granted to a married couple.
• Civil partnerships cannot be conducted as a religious ceremony. Regardless of whether the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever in question wants to provide such a ceremony or not.

And besides that, the terminology matters. The way it is phrased gives an impression that they are different, and unequal. How, precisely, can that be said to have solved inequalities?

The document goes on to say that:

“Marriage benefits society…by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.“

Which, in itself, is true. But the alternative side of the coin is that for others it does not include the possibility of procreation. For example, those who do not want children, or are unable to have them. For them, presumably, marriage is a celebration and public declaration of love. Will the Church also be pursuing banning of such childless couples from marrying? Or will their marriages be retrospectively annulled?

Moving on, the CofE document makes clear that it thinks the motivations behind the proposed changes are ideological, saying:

“We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.“

Equal marriage is ideological. But then, so is keeping gay couples excluded from marriage. And, to be honest, as ideologies go I think equality has to be the safest one to go with.

The whole thing builds to a rhetorical climax built around the assertion that:

“We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone…“

The church has already established that marriage as it currently stands is a force for good in society. The impression gathered from their argument is that this is primarily because of the ability to produce children. This is the only material difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and honestly I find the idea that the church thinks this is more important to marriage than love utterly laughable.

I’ve already said that I support gay marriage, based upon an underlying principle of inequality. It’s clear that the person (people?) who wrote document already had a view to the contrary to mine. This, presumably, is based around Leviticus 18:22, which forbids homosexual relations. But if I was to go through everything that Leviticus forbids (including shellfish and tattoos) we’d be here all day. Far more important to the country’s premier Christian institution, I would have thought, would be Matthew 7:12:

“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.“

Which seems, to me, like a pretty strong endorsement of equality.

One thing that I do agree with the Church on is their assertion that a situation where marriage is available to all, but civil partnerships restricted to gay couples, would be legally unsustainable. My preferred solution would be to open both institutions up to anyone. Let people choose which they want. But don’t block their choices based on predjudice on such arbitrary grounds as sexuality.

I would have more sympathy with the church’s opposition, I expect, if there was any chance of churches being forced to marry gay couples. But that isn’t on the cards. That has never been on the cards.

Lastly, I couldn’t leave this alone. One of the reasons the Church of England present in opposition to the proposed legalisation of gay marriage is:

“We also note that by no means all LGBT people are in favour of redefining marriage in this way.“

The words “pot” “kettle” and “black” spring to mind, given that as I’ve already said, this consultation has been presented as the united view of the Anglican congregation, when it is anything but.

UPDATE: Subsequently to posting this blog this morning, I ran across this poll from YouGov, dated last week. Conducted for Stonewall, it seems to show that actually more religious people in Britain support gay marriage than oppose it. By a ratio of three to two. Yet more evidence suggesting that the Church of England’s response to the consultation does not represent the majority, let alone the settled, view of its members.