Hate Crimes

Full props go to More Inches for the thought-provoking blog An Army of Lovers Cannot Loose, an account of trans- and homophobic hate violence in Scandinavia. It astonishes me, because I always thought those Scandinavian countries were more liberal, more tolerant. I suppose not.

But it did make me wonder, what are the various statistics for the UK and the US?

Hate Crime in the UK:

Hatred is a strong term that goes beyond simply causing offence or hostility. Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:

-disability
-race
-religion or belief
-sexual orientation
-transgender.

Hate crime can take many forms including:

-physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
-threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
-verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.

Our definition of a hate crime:

any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

Hate Crime in the US:

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

Major differences include that the UK includes "transgender" (is this different than sexual orientation?) and the US includes ethicity/national origin (which covers more than just race).

Various statistics are available from the US' FBI publication Hate Crime Statistics. The 2004 report breaks down the hate crimes by motivation: 1197 out of 7649 incidents (15.6%)were motivated by sexual orientation. They further break down those incidents by specific type.

Transgender is not included, perhaps justifying the British addition of the term.

While the UK Home Office does count hate crimes, in their statistics, they only reveal "racially or religiously aggravated" crimes (in their England and Wales statistics). I do not know how many sexual orientation hate crimes are carried out per year in the UK. They claim that "most homophobic offenders are aged 16-20", but information backing this data up is difficult to locate. Even Galop, a group working to stop homophobic hate crime in London, does not readily have available statistics on incidents. The entire point of groups such as Galop is to point out the difference between the crimes that happen (what Galop studies) and the crimes that are reported/convicted (what the Home Office reports). If the Home Office does not provide the statistics necessary for comparison, then Galop is basically making things up. Which doesn't do a lot of good. More work needs to be done to get these statistics out into the open in the UK.

Unions

Perhaps that's too big a title for one blog.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about unions. She works in HR, and is against them. She argued that they're an anachronism, out of date and unnecessary with today's employment laws. It should be said that she's American, and is functioning in an American employment environment.

In Britain, back in February they predicted a "Summer of Rage", an echo of "The Winter of Discontent". News reports predicted protests across Britain of levels unseen since the winter of 1978-79 which saw corpses pile up in the streets (Note: reporting on this series of strikes may have been hampered by the various journalist and reporter strikes going on at about the same time.) These predictions of a "Summer of Rage" may have been exaggerated, but it can still be seen with the extended postal and binmen strikes seen here, following the enormous G20 protest in March.

Have these strikes and protests accomplished anything? Experience seems to teach that protests from ordinary people trying to affect the government's policies don't work. They didn't work in 2003, they seem to have accomplished fuck all since then. (In contrast to the highly successful, yet highly violent 1990 Poll Tax riots in Britiain -- the Poll Tax was changed into the Countil Tax.) Even now, there are scattered reports that Americans are boycotting Scotland because they're releasing the Lockerbie bomber. But do union strikes work?

One must remember that sometimes governments take extreme measures to end strikes. Nationwide protests in France in Jan 09 seemed to have influenced the government there to act. In that instance the entire country basically shut down for a day. But it hasn't always been that way. In the early 1980's, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher chose to end the long painful (and violent) mining strikes by closing mines across the country. Her defense for this may have been that the unions were too powerful, having completed successful strikes in the 70's.

Unions have their uses. The movie "Cradle Will Rock" is an excellent song of praise that will turn anyone into a union fan. Unions traditionally fight for better pay and working conditions of the employees, but are equally important in simple management ideas, translating the policies between the aristocratic management and the working class employees. My friend argued that unions are often corrupt, and while this may have been true, I question whether it still is. It's perhaps easier to just say "power corrupts". But do strikes work? Non-violent protest is quickly becoming a fruitless guesture, and violent protest is mocked in its desperation.

Perhaps in the future, all we'll have left is live broadcast call-in votes in our own idiocracy.

Get a job, ya filthy bum!

I take great offense at Mary Dejevsky's assertion that Americans are mean.

For there is a mean and merciless streak in mainstream US attitudes, which tolerates much more in the way of inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here, while incorporating a large and often sanctimonious quotient of blame.

And the British don't tolerate inequality, deprivation and suffering? Frankly, I don't see any noticable difference in quality of life between the US and the UK. Ok, sure, with council houses, we have fewer beggars and children living on the streets, and with national health care people don't have to worry about going bankrupt from doctors' bills, but is that really increasing the quality of life? And if so, at what cost?

What Mary Dejevsky calls "mean", I call "self-responsibility". When people see a homeless person in the US, they think a number of things, perhaps feel pity, perhaps wonder where their family is, perhaps wonder how they got there, and of course, the "get a job, ya filthy bum!" response. But an American will rarely say "it is my fault that person is homeless", and only a small minority will say "it is the government's fault that person is homeless".

In the UK, when people see a homeless person, they merely shake their heads at the council not getting that person a house quick enough. Or wonder why they don't have a council house. Rarely will they blame the individual.

In the US, I see cold-hearted calculated selfishness, focussing entirely upon the individual. If you fail, it's your fault; if you suceed, it's on your hands. While it may be a myth that hard work will get you further, it is certainly a truth that blaming others gets you nowhere.

In the UK, I see a complete lack of self-responsibility, blaming everything upon outside factors. It's the council's job to do this, so why should I? It's because of the class system or prejudices that I can't get a job/promotion. But worst of all, this belief that outside factors control one's destiny has led to resignation and acceptance instead of a desire to change things for the better.

Perhaps in the US, things don't always work out for the best, but at least there's a gambling chance that change might happen. In the UK, you almost guarentee maintenance of the status quo.

Fascism and Anti-Fascism

The entire world has moved a little towards the right, in the Middle East with women's rights, in the US with the various Christian movements "healing" homosexuals or promoting abstinance over condoms. In the recent European Union Parilament election, a number of far-right groups were voted in, including the British National Party, the BNP.

On paper, the BNP opposes immigration, yet is known throughout the UK as being racist. While the BNP rejects the term racist, it has not stopped people from applying the word to them.

Britain seems to think that they have Freedom of Speech. Ask any everyday Briton if they have freedom of speech, and they'll say yes. On bulliten boards and newspaper editorial pages expect to see it brandied about like a bronze star in a room full of vets. What with state-run BBC and the proliferation of "red-top" tabloid "newspapers", this can be debated in the first. The BNP, however, brings out an entirely different side.

The BNP recently had a national conference in Derbyshire (the middle of England, symbolic as Kansas is). This made people mad. And when people get mad, apparently they protest.

"We will not be intimidated" says Red White and Blue Organisers (Belper News)

Arrests as BNP Protesters Gather (Press Association)

Handful of protesters arrested at 1,500-strong rally against annual Red, White and Blue gathering in Derbyshire village (Guardian)

Protesters arrested at BNP rally: A total of 19 people have been arrested after around 1,500 anti-fascist demonstrators joined a protest march near the site of a BNP festival. (Telegraph)

They've even stopped an American from entering the UK to join in the "festivities". They called him "extremist" and "white supremcist".

An extreme group is voted into office, and then holds a national conference exercising their "freedom of speech" which attracts a large number of violent people protesting against fascism, defined as "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship". Sounds like the General Characteristics of Fascism seem to apply to many people.

Pre-occupation with Class

I couldn't have said it better myself. Terence Blacker in the Independent looks very sharply at the truest and worst sterotype of the British: their snobbery. He lists a plethora of examples, which I shall not name here, and he does not address why class should be so close to the forefront of British thinking, but it is interesting.

In response to the section lower down in his article, I have not noticed "a plague of ladybirds" (ladybugs, for you Americans) in my Scottish garden. Two years ago, when our garden was a jungle, we had plenty. But since we've cleaned up the garden, re-laid the turf and started mowing the lawn on a regular basis, the ladybirds have been missing. I bought 25 online earlier this summer, May perhaps? to feast on an actual plague of aphids I had in my border. It was like putting a fat person in the middle of an all you can eat buffet. They stuck around for a while, while the aphids disappeared. Then they vanished. Lack of food? Found another source? I don't know. But I saw one yesterday on a leaf, a little red bead in the sun, so they can't have all gone.

Adam: Differences in TransAtlantic Reactions

The movie Adam has recently hit theaters. Though I haven't seen it (and really don't plan to), this movie appears to be a standard rom-com only the male lead has Aspergers. This has, of course, led to some debate as to whether this sort of media exposure is a good thing for people with Asbergers.

For exhibit A, I present the New York Times article from August 3rd: Asperger’s Syndrome, on Screen and in Life. The overall gist of the article is that this movie raises awareness about Aspergers and is thus a good thing.

But all three revolve around Asperger’s syndrome, the complex and mysterious neurological disorder linked to autism. Their nearly simultaneous appearance — two open this summer, and the third is planned for next year — underscores how much Asperger’s and high-functioning autism have expanded in the public consciousness since Dustin Hoffman’s portrayal of an autistic savant in “Rain Man” 21 years ago.

For exhibit B, I present the BBC's article from 10th August: Autistic Impressions. The overall gist of this article is that Hollywood should stop thinking autistic people are different/overly intelligent/savants, and this sort of movie is a bad thing.

Hollywood movies rarely deal with disability - except for autism, when characters are typically shown as having special intelligence. Why do we like to think everyone with autism is especially gifted?

So is it true that Americans are more likely to say "Adam" has noble intentions and is thus good while Britons are more likely to say "Adam" is patronising and gives false info? Let's find out.

US articles:
NPR - Director Max Mayer on 'Adam' and Aspergers (Aug 10)
Chicago Sun Times - Unusual diagnosis for a new movie romance (Aug 9)
Philadelphia Inquirer - The wong guy for 'Adam' was right, after all (Aug 9)

Apart from his college stint in Philly, Mayer has been a lifelong New Yorker, and Adam is the kind of New York movie that feels authentic, right down to the accents.

Which is an accomplishment, given that Dancy hails from the United Kingdom, and Byrne from Australia.

"That's the most popular comment at the Q & As, after the screenings," says Byrne. " 'Oh my god I can't believe it! How do you do it?' Which is understandable.

The Boston Globe - Asperger's community takes 'Adam' to heart (Aug 8)

“Awareness is one of our missions and there’s nothing like a movie that does well for awareness,’’ said Dania Jekel, Asperger’s Association of New England’s executive director.

Washington Times - Asperger's syndrome takes spotlight (Aug 7)
Movies and television have done little to illuminate these disorders for the public.

With the exception of Dustin Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn in "Rain Man," exposure to autism and its related disorders has been limited to smaller parts, such as the seldom-seen autistic offspring of corrupt policeman Vic Mackey in the FX cop drama "The Shield."

Max Mayer's new movie, "Adam," might help change that.

Summary: Most reviews very positive, praising the accuracy of the portrayal of Aspergers, and the sensitivity of the director not to make it the butt of all jokes.

UK articles:
BBC News (review by Asperger's councillor) - Asperger's on the big screen (10 Aug)

Portrayals of people with autism are always difficult because everyone is different but I thought Hugh Dancy, who plays Adam, did a great job.

Most of all he was human and showed a spectrum of emotions, that many people stereotypically assume people with autism don't have.

To me it felt three dimensional: it was sweet…but not too much!

The Chester Chronicle - Interview with Adam star Hugh Dancy (Aug 10)

"I just really like to take roles that scare me and this scared the pants off of me."

Telegraph - Adam, review (7 Aug)

There’s something fatally glossy about this well-meant Asperger’s romance... The film has pretty snowfall and a de rigueur plinky xylophone score, but it’s not really on our planet.

The Sun - Sneak reveals truth about love story Adam (7 Aug)
Daily Mail (Online) - Adam: Good intentions, but a weak narrative (6 Aug)

Only when Peter Gallagher comes on screen as the heroine's flamboyantly feckless father does the movie spark into life, with an edge that goes some way, but not far enough, to balancing the overall impression of cutesiness.

Scotsman - Film review: Adam (7 Aug)

The problem is that given the amount of idiot's guide information worked into the script, writer-director Max Meyer clearly believes he's stumbled upon a unique topic for a film

Summary: Little praise for having recognisable high aspirations/good intentions, except, of course, for the woman who had Aspergers and the paper that interviewed the actor.

My theories:

1) The British don't like people telling them what to care about (Aspergers! It's hard!).
2) The British saw through good intentions and saw a mediocre rom-com.
3) The British look down on both "idiots guide" education and more implicit education as both are patronising and/or condescending.
4) Americans have been subjected to so much stereotyped and bad media that they think Rainman was a good portrayal of austism, and welcome ANYTHING that isn't crass.
5) Americans are more optimistic and respect intentions in and of themselves.
6) Americans have low expectations for what releasing a movie about a topic will bring.

Take your pick.

The Pros and Cons of Having Teeth

We are all familiar with the British stereotype of bad teeth. But apparently one reason for this is because many people are strongly against fluoridation of the drinking water.

Suppose you're in New York or Los Angeles reading this, and you feel like a glass of tap water. It will be fluoridated: 70% of America's water supplies – including all the big city ones – are treated thus. Thirsty down under? Australia is nearly 70% fluoridated, too – just like Ireland, where the average number of decayed or filled teeth per child is 1.3, against 2.3 in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. But the same glass of water in Britain has only a one in 10 chance of stopping such rot.

Oddly enough, I can't confirm his figures: This graph shows UK with 0.7 bad teeth per 12-year-old child, and the US with 1.19 bad teeth per child. (He probably got the figures from an earlier Times article on the subject.)

So basically we have a group of people denying the science that says that fluoride can prevent tooth decay - this is akin to the intelligent design fans in the US. We also have a group saying that adding fluoride to the water is a political control move as it makes people more docile - these are conspiracy theorists. Other argue that fluoride infringes upon their human rights to decide how to treat their own teeth - these people are at least honest, their argument amounts to little more than "I don't want it, so you shouldn't make me."

The oddest thing is that even though they keep trying to put fluoride in the water, it hasn't worked yet! Is this a win for civil liberties and the British thought of "my home is my castle"? Or is this a failure to educate the public and ignore the panic-spreading media? At any rate, the end result is the same: bad teeth.

Gender Bias in Child Abduction?

Recent articles in both the Guardian and the Telegraph highlight a rise inparental child abuctions. A parental child abduction is when one parent makes off with the child or children without the other parent's consent. While this is most common with a parent who is unhappy with the custody arrangements after a divorce,

It can occur whether or not the parents are separated or divorced and sometimes even regardless of the existence of court orders.

(Channel 4)
Other sources state that it is only an illegal kidnapping if the person taking the child does not have parental or custodial right.

I was slightly irked when I read the Guardian article, as it had a picture of a man at an airport with a child, as if to imply that the child was being kidnapped by the man (the father). It is said that in the UK mothers get custody of the children 93% of the time. This would make it highly likely that the kidnapper was the father. However, this statistic would only apply to parents taking the child AFTER the courts had awarded custody. I do not beleive they include parents who run off in the middle of the night with the children before or without a divorce.

I have directly known three people affected by child abduction. In one case, the father kidnapped the child, neglected her, and caused brain damage. I do not think the father and mother were married. The police were involved, and the child returned to the mother. In another case, the mother escaped with/abducted (depending on your perspective) the child to a foreign country that was not on the list of countries that recognise child abduction. The father followed the mother to the country. In a third case, the mother took the children to a UK location "to visit family" and never returned. He later moved to be closer to the children following the formal separation. The first case is clearly child abduction. The second perhaps, as the father in question did have mental stability issues. The third, you could just say it was a poorly planned divorce. Yet notice that the woman always retained the child in all three cases, even though in two of them the woman was the one who left without the father's knowledge.

For more information on International Child Abduction, please see Reunite.

The Aristocracy is Back

The Independent newspaper online reports that debutante balls are back. Like the US equivalent, these are those extravagant dances where young socialite women are put into pretty dresses and paraded around like pure-bred hounds at the Westminster Kennel Club. They are only for the rich, and not even for the nouveau riche, this is old money; you won't find Madonna's children here.

Interestingly, the Debutante Ball seems to have followed a slightly different path in the UK than in the US. Debutante Balls have been noted in US newspapers from as early as 1899. Yet they have been going strong among the upper classes in the US, with appearances in Town and Country magazine and even appearing in recent US film and television. While quite traditional in the South (the "Southern Belle") with their wealthy plantation owners, it hasn't died with slavery and is still going strong in various parts of the country.

The UK Debutante Ball has travelled a slightly different path. The most well-known of the balls (I'm assuming there are many in the season), is the Queen Charlotte's Ball, which (as the Independent reports)

The monarchy stopped attending the ball – where girls in white wedding dresses signifying their virginity would curtsy in front of the Queen – in 1958, at a time when Britain's imperial pomp had taken a hammering with the loss of the colonies and the disastrous Suez Crisis.
But thanks largely to Peter Townend, the tireless social editor of Tatler whose memory for debutantes past and present was legendary, the ball and the season's dances, fashion shows and garden parties soldiered on with varying degrees of success.
But in 1997, the Queen Charlotte's Ball folded and once Townend died four years later, the season seemed to be little more than a pale reflection of its former glory days.

The monarchy always bows to social pressures (does anyone remember now that the Royal family is German??), and the increasing socialism, calls for more political independence and the rise of the proletariat in the UK seems to have coincided with the monarch's exit from the upper class parties. Yet, just like the rest of the country, even though the Queen may not have a presence, things still go on without her. It wasn't until 1997 that the ball died.

Yet it's back.

Here the UK sits under a Labour government, ostensibly arguing for the working class, the trade unions and the socialists, and yet the aristocracy is enjoying a re-newed level of pleasure while the rest of the country suffers from the recession brought on by millionaire bankers and business-influenced politicians. Like it or not, the aristocrat is back. Is a return to feudalism nigh?

The Bird Man of West Pilton

My part-time job finishes at 12:30pm. If I take the bus home, I usually get in around 1 or 1:15pm; if I walk, I get home around 2pm. When I arrive home, I feed the cat and then open the curtains to our patio door and then sit myself on the sofa for my afternoon of leisure. (Or, at the very least, lunch and a chance to catch up on my social networking.)

At roughly 2pm, the Bird Man of West Pilton turns up the street that runs past our patio door. I call him the Bird Man of West Pilton because I only notice him because of the noisy flock of seagulls that follow him, periodically swooping down onto the street to eat something I can't see from the sofa.

He's an older man, with long gray hair, usually wearing a denim jacket, and walks a little hunched over, as if the denim was just a bit too thin for the Scottish winds that blow over the Forth. He usually carries a bag from Lidl or that Frozen Food a few blocks away. It used to be that I could tell the time from hearing the birds.

He doesn't come by so often anymore. I've never spoken to him, so I'm not really sure why the birds follow him. I suppose he feeds them. Not many people would feed the seagulls over here - they're considered rats with wings who aggressively invade rubbish and even shoplift and have raised the anger of the local councils. Yet this fellow seems to be loved by seagulls. I suppose he's just one of the local colour.