Dear Daily Mail #2

Let's get the awkward paragraph out of the way first, so we all know where we stand.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. I'm on board with the idea organised religion is the opiate of the masses. I have inherent disagreements with most of the holy books, regarding their views on violence, women, and homosexuality. People can believe what they want to believe in their own homes. You can wear your crucifixes and it really doesn't bother me. I'm slightly envious of the spiritual comfort you have, if anything, and I know a number of beautiful, accepting, and loving believers of different faiths. I think religion is at it's best when it is loving, accepting, and forgiving, and not about judging people or pressing your beliefs upon them.

But this article (unsurprisingly from the Daily Mail) really gets on my nerves.

Melanie Phillips argues that preaching Christianity should not a crime. And no, it shouldn't. But I'll tell you what is a crime. Hate speech. The 1994 amendment to the Public Order Act 1986 forbids "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress"

And I think standing in the middle of a shopping centre shouting that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination pretty much harasses, alarms and distresses gay people.

What really pisses me off is Phillips' blatant hypocrisy. If an Imam had been standing in the middle of the shopping centre, repeating the same speech, word for word, I doubt she'd have been leaping to their defence, because apparently "Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people". Well true, it does, as does Christian fundamentalism.

The last time I checked England wasn't a Christian country. The Bible is not "the moral code that underpins our civilisation". Hence the fact we don't have laws dictating you should marry your brother's widow, or that you should beat disrespectful children. We're a multi-faith society, and let's keep it that way.

The Tories electoral reform and why it smells dodgy

We all knew it was going to be a hung parliament. And once again, the exit poll got it pretty much bang on, despite initial scepticism because of the Lib Dem losses.

So what happened for Clegg? Did he peak too early? Actually, the answer is pretty simple. While the Lib Dems lost seats, they gained votes.

In the last general election, 2005, the Lib Dems won 5,985,414 votes. This time around, they won 6,827,938 votes. That's about a million more. But sadly, due to our electoral process, they didn't translate into seats. You can see why the Lib Dems are crying for electoral reform, and why they're supported in this by at least 20,000 Britons.

As we all know, David Cameron, having fallen short of an overall majority, has extended a thinly veiled hand of desperation to the Liberal Democrats, who worryingly might accept. Despite Nick Clegg's pre-election pledge to not form a coalition with anyone who opposed electoral reform, he's been busy in meetings all day with his MPs and peers to discuss an alliance.

And the Tories, graciously, have said they will "consider" possible election reforms.
Here's Cameron's idea.
And here's why it's bullshit.
If he manages to sell this to anyone as fair, he deserves a medal. Albeit a 'conniving bastard of the year' medal.

The Big Idea: Every constituency will have the same number of voters in. Therefore, all your votes will count for one (if you live in Hertfordshire, as I do, your votes will count for 0.1 at the moment). Sounds ideal, right? Wrong. Think carefully about what he's proposing.

Think of a constituency, which has for conveniences sake, 300 voters. Now imagine three candidates are standing - Candidates A, B, and C. They all get an exactly equal share, 100 votes each. It's a tie. Now, imagine one prospective Candidate A voter changes his mind, and votes for Candidate B. So our votes read 29, 31, 30. This means that Candidate B wins the seat. Even though effectively two thirds of the constituency has voted against him. He then goes onto the House of Commons.

Sound familiar? That's because this is basically our current voting system.

Cameron is trying to decieve voters in the most underhand, outright, manipulative way, and it disgusts me.

Four Days To Go

I'm so excited. I really want to see what this hung parliament's going to turn out - a LibLab pact? I'd like to think the Liberal Democrats wouldn't form a coalition with the Tories. I think that's what Cameron would like, just so it can go ahead for sixth months, blame the Liberals for all shortcomings and say they're blocking him, cripple their party and then call another general election, having ensured they'll lose.

We wait in hope.