grahambinns.com

Well, it doesn't entirely surprise me that someone lumps us atheists into that category, but still. Birmingham City Council has put in place software that blocks people from looking at atheist websites whilst allowing some other belief systems through (link, via Pharyngula:

The authority's Bluecoat Software computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

The irony of atheism being categorised with mysticisms of any kind nonwithstanding, this is plain, old fashioned discrimination, which I hope will be dealt with in due course:

National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.

He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.

... when it really isn't.

So, finally, someone in a position of influence is doing a bit of stomping about over the recent trend towards the Police (or, worse, people who think they have the same authority as the Police) stopping people from taking photographs, having them deleted or even seizing equipment from photographers whom they deem to be breaking some non-existant law.

Austin Mitchell, MP for Grimsby, has tabled a motion in Parliament to have the law clarified, if not strengthened in favour of the innocent photographer. The BBC has a story about it here.

Please, please, please write to your MP about this and ask them to support the motion. It's ridiculous that we, in a country that's so full of things that are fantastic to photograph, are letting hysteria over terrorism and paedophilila, mostly whipped up by the media, to turn us into the kind of suspicious society that finds even an innocent artistic pastime to be sinister.

I've already written to my MP about this, though I've yet to have a response. If you're wondering where to find your MP's details you can write to them using writetothem.com.

From BBC news (link):

A British teacher has been found guilty in Sudan of insulting religion after she allowed her primary school class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison and will then be deported.

Which is bad enough. I mean it's a teddy bear for heaven's sake. And it was named by children. But oh no, no, this woman deserves to go to jail.

That's not the best bit though. Read on and you'll find:

But Sudan's top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

Now, before someone starts telling me how I'm being anti Islamic or failing to understand the religion or some other such nonsense, I'll point out that (again according to the BBC) Sudanese bloggers have roundly condemned the whole business:

Other comments on the site (sudanesethinker.com) criticised Sudanese Islamists: "Once more, Islamic hard-liners are making their religion look ridiculous. How sad."

"Astonishing backwardness, oh people!" said another posting, in Arabic.

"I hate the stupidity of this," one entry on the forum said. "More attention will hopefully mean the release of Ms Gibbons without getting jailed or lashed so bring it please!"

Pretty much everyone who reads this will know that I have little truck with religion, though I've often expressed my envy of those who do believe in supernatural things. But tolerant as I'd like to think I am I have nothing but contempt for people who use their religion as an excuse to mete out unnecessary punishments for crimes that nobody apart from them - and by that I mean nobody in their own religious group, never mind us Godless heathens - recognises as a crime in the first place.

Stephen Law made a good point the other day when he said:

Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm.

But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have an extremely toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.

This isn't quite that bad. Maybe it's more of a religious-fire-at-Buncefield than a Chernobyl, but even so.

Religion can be a wonderful thing and for a lot of people can bring meaning and hope to their lives that they may have struggled to find elsewhere, I'm not denying that. But wherever you find a religion you find someone willing to twist it, even if they're just twisting it into something ludicrous (as in this case) rather than something terrifying (like, say, 7/7 or 9/11).

People, as always, are a problem. 

Well, that's sort of what it boils down to (link , via):

He got on the Internet by tapping into the local coffee shop's wireless network, but instead of going inside the shop to use the free Wi-Fi offered to paying customers, he chose to remain in his car and piggyback off the network, which he said didn't require a password.

The interesting part of the story, to me at least, is the alleged age of the law in question:

The law, introduced in 1979 to protect Internet and private-network users from hackers, and amended in 2000 to include wireless systems, makes piggybacking off of Wi-Fi networks, even those without a password, illegal

Emphasis mine there. I'll let you figure out why that seems a little odd for yourselves.

This doesn't actually surprise me and to an extent I can understand why he's been prosecuted: as far as the prosecutors and police are concerned that access point was for paying customers of the cafe, not for any old Joe on the street. I suppose in their eyes it's like using one of the tables in the cafe itself - you'd expect to have to pay for the right to sit there, though once you'd bought your latte or whatever you could stay for as long as you like. On the other hand you can still go into a cafe and use the bathroom without paying for a drink first, can't you?

Morally it's a grey area. I'd love to be able to say "it was open, so therefore he should just be allowed to use it," but on the other hand I can see the argument that says that someone's door being open doesn't give you the right to go inside and watch their TV for half an hour.