I really hate Twilight

Because I refuse on principle to do a blog on Michael Jackson; I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, this week’s blog comes to you in the form of a link to another blog by someone else entirely, in which is embedded a video made by yet another person. This video is made of win.

Here it is. It’s worth noting if you didn’t already realise that the guy is from Twilight and the chick is Buffy, in case that wasn’t obvious.

Those of you who know me will know all about my complete distain for Twilight, which is why I find this video so satisfying. If you haven’t seen (or read) Twilight then congratulations, you have so far managed to escape that appalling pile of bile. To fill you in, it’s about a girl who moves to live with her father in a small town in the north east USA. There she quickly befriends a variety of rather cliché and uninspiring characters that make up the teenage population of this overly blue town (as you can see from the video the film makers had some sort of blue fetish) She also encounters and is inexplicably attracted to a dark brooding asshole called Edward, who is also a vampire. Well he sparkles in the sunlight, and can run very fast, and can read people’s mind for some reason, and doesn’t kill people… he’s not a very good vampire; mostly he just broods because that’s supposed to be attractive in a guy. You can tell the target audience has low self-esteem. Anyway, somehow these two eventually hook up because nonchalance, stalking and borderline domestic abuse are all great ingredients for a functional and healthy relationship. The two emo lovebirds then start getting hunted by some real vampires (in that they kill people, although they still sparkle in the sunlight and tend to brood a fair bit) and we finally get some action rather than all the horrible, pointless drama which dominated the rest of the film.

Ok, so now you don’t need to watch it. As you can probably tell I really don’t like this film, mostly because it felt like it was written by a 14 year old girl. The characters are cliché, the plot is predictable, the setting is corny and the dialogue is painfully forced. The pacing is terrible; it’s over 2 hours long and you don’t even meet the antagonists until about half an hour until the end. Even then the action is rushed so we can get back to more soppy and terribly written teen drama and pathetic romance. It’s worrying that there are writers getting paid to churn out this crap and even more worrying that the film was a massive success.

Even the CGI and stunts were done badly. Normally bad films are slightly redeemed by the fact that they’re really well made; the recent Bond film had awesome special effects for example. However Twilight does even have this to fall back on; the stunts are obviously faked and the film is flooded with blue all the time. I literally can think of no redeeming features of the film apart from the occasional piece of nice scenery, but when I’m searching this hard I know I should just give up and accept that there is nothing good of any note about the film.

Which is why I found that video so entertaining; it took the piss out of a film I disliked intensely. There is a sequel coming out later this year, I may even watch it just so I can rant about how bad that was… or I may use that time doing something less painful like drilling holes in my fingertips with an electric drill. I hope you liked the video as much as I did, which you probably would have done had you seen the film, if you hadn’t then I hope you can appreciate it anyway.

Loosing my Marbles

This week the Acropolis Museum was unveiled in Athens, just below the site of the world famous Parthenon; one of the most famous buildings to survive from the Classical World. The museum cost £110 million and was built to provide Athens with a place the display the city’s rich history. It is no accident then that it is placed next to the Acropolis, the centrepiece of Ancient Athens. The main motivation for building the museum was to provide a place to display the Elgin Marbles and other statues which formerly adorned the Parthenon. These statues are currently held in the British Museum, having been brought there from Athens in the early 19^th century.

The Elgin Marbles, named after the person who removed them from Athens and brought them to the British Museum, make up about 75 metres of the 160 metre frieze that decorated the interior of the Parthenon. This frieze has been recreated as the centre piece of the Acropolis Museum partly with the pieces which remained in Athens and partly with copies made of the pieces currently in London. It is the hope of the Greek authorities that the Elgin Marbles will be returned to Athens to be reunited with the rest of the frieze. They argue that it is a vital part of the Athenian heritage and was wrongful removed from the Parthenon. They believe that they have a right to possess them.

On the face of it this claim is simple enough; the marbles were originally made in Athens so they belong there. However by making this claim the Athenians make a claim about their own culture and heritage which is far bold than first appears. While Athens in name and geography is the same city as it was in the 4^th century BC, it is very different culturally and socially; modern Athens is in no way the same city as Classical Athens. For a start modern Athens is the capital of a Greek state then never existed in the 4^th century BC. At this time Greece was made up of a series of city-states more likely to fight each other than to cooperate. Even when threatened from outside they only cooperated for reasons of mutual self-interest, rather than any sense of national identity. The idea of a culturally and politically united Greek state was not even considered by the people’s of the day; it was a world of small city-states and large empires or leagues, not nation-states and united coalitions. Secondly the religion of ancient Athens was a polytheistic, anthropomorphic religion of sacrifices and frequent festivals. The gods were ever-present and took a concerted interest in the life of the citizens. This is far removed from the Orthodox Christian religion of Modern Athens, which can trace its roots back to a combination of Judaism and the philosophy of Plato. These two religions are so different that it is impossible to say that one is in any way the successor of the other. Finally Ancient Athens was the intellectual and cultural centre of the Mediterranean world for centuries, whereas modern Athens is the culturally and political capital of a poor, unimportant state in the south of the Balkans, one of the poorest areas of Europe. Modern Athenians can claim to link to ancient Athens beyond the geography. They are two completely different cities situated in the same place.

There is no reason therefore for the authorities at the Parthenon Museum to demand that the Marbles be returned to them because they simply don’t belong to them. They belong to a city and a culture far removed from the modern city. Given that the Parthenon was build by an imperialist power from the money taken from subject states, mostly unwillingly, ostensibly for their defence, London may be the more appropriate place for the Marbles. Beyond this cynicism the Parthenon represents the wider ideals of democracy and freedom embraced in 4^th century Athens in what was comparatively one of the most progressive societies in history. These are ideals embraced the world over and as such the Marbles do not belong to anyone, but everyone. They represent the expressive freedom which allowed the artistic excellence which designed and build them to flourish. As such there is no doubt that they should be on display in their most accessible and complete form.

Regardless the current state of affair is unsatisfactory; the frieze exists in several different parts across the world. They should be complete, no matter where they are on display. Given that it is the birthplace of democracy, despite the sad and insignificant pretence of a city with delusions of grandeur which now squats in its place, the frieze should be on display in Athens, next to the Parthenon; the building which is and will always be the enduring symbol of democracy.

The Not-So-British National Party

Earlier this week the results of the European elections were published and amid the utter collapse of the Labour vote countrywide the British National Party (BNP) managed to grab two seats in Yorkshire and the North East. The BNP are a political party which claims to represent the indigenous population of Britain and to that end wants no-one but these indigenous Britons to live here. This means that all ethnic minorities will have to go, no matter how long they have lived here and no immigrants will be allowed entry to the country. They claim that these non-Britons are stealing jobs which should go to British people and blame any unemployment on these foreigners.

Essentially the BNP appeals to the sense of a British National Identity in order to conceal what is little more than racism; they believe that certain people, based on their race, should have exclusive access to an island simply be virtue of the fact that people of the same race have lived their for centuries. Not only is this an absurd belief, it is also built on a complete misconception of the history of Britain. Britain is not and never has had one indigenous race of ‘Britons’. Even in prehistoric times when the country was populated by Celtic tribes, these tribes were not united politically or racial. There was no country of ‘Britain’; just a whole host of different tribes competing for dominance of small areas of the island. Under the Roman occupation Britain was just part of the greater empire which spanned Western Europe and most of the Mediterranean. Romans were integrating with the tribesmen whom they had conquered. After the Romans had left Britain, the island was occupied by again competing tribes of Germans which only united under Alfred the Great after the Viking invasion. This is seen as the founding of Britain as a nation, and even then it was a hodgepodge of Celts, Saxons, Romans, Angles and various other smaller yet still distinctive groups. The Norman invasion made the makeup of Britain Even more different given that it was now occupied by a foreign power. For a long time after the invasion the aristocracy of Britain all spoke French and indeed much of north east France was part of Britain, or rather Britain was part of north east France. Britain was not ‘united by a common language’ until long into its history. In fact it is hard to say when this happened given that it was more of a gradual integration than a cosmic shift. ‘Britons’ are a peculiar racial mix of Germans, Vikings, Romans, Celts and Normans. This ill defined boiling pot is wrongly perceived as ‘Britishness’; there is no such thing as a British Race.

Using this misconception of what it is to be ‘British’ leads the BNP to believe that this small group of islands belongs to this ‘British’ race. The entire history of the British Isles is one of invasion and integration; new peoples have invaded or settled and become part of the populace. They have become part of the ‘British’ race by virtue of the fact that they have lived here and integrated with the populace, sharing their culture and shaping our history. I see no difference between German tribesmen settling this island and Indian or Polish or African families moving here and settling. The BNP misconstrue the facts to help conceal their blatant racism. The reason they want to expel people who do not fit their ill defined conception of British is basic and irrational fear of foreigners. They alter their conception of history to justify this absurdity.

Not only is the pillar of their beliefs completely unfounded, their leader and many of its members are completely insane. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP is quoted as calling a holocaust a ‘holohoax’, most of its members seem to think that Hitler was actually a pretty decent bloke and we could learn a lot from his policies. Some members even think that we would be better off living in Nazi Germany. This from a party which claims to fight for civil liberties. They don’t seem to have an issue with rape, but think that homosexuality is wrong. They believe in Corporal Punishment for petty criminals, they’re opposed to globalisation and believe in governmental control of large swaths of the economy. Is this starting to sounds at all like Iran to you? The BNP wants to reduce Britain to the level a fascist state which has one of the worst human rights records of any country on the planet. This goes contrary to the beliefs of almost all great British thinkers through time; like John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Adam Smith. So much for British values, but we’ve already established that the BNP ignored historical facts which do not sit with their racist bullshit.

Fortunately the BNP’s election success was not actually a result of many more people voting for the BNP; they only managed to gain 1.4% of the vote on the last European Election. However their success does mean that Nick Griffin and co will represent, at least in part, British interests in the European Parliament. Given that only 6.3% of us voted for them this is a disgrace. The BNP are a sorry part of British politics for whom only a small number of racist bigots vote. It is a sad reflection of the state of politics in this country that they are able to win seats to represent the people of Britain, whatever the colour. If you too think that the BNP are a disgrace to this country then I urge you in the strongest terms to sign this petition. It is to be delivered to the European parliament when Nick Griffin sits in his first parliament on 14^th July. You can and should also join the facebook group 1,000,000 united against the BNP.

The BNP are a blight on the face of British politics. The best thing you can do to stop them from gaining any power is to vote at the next election (which will probably be next summer). Racist bigots will always be in the minority – less than 6.3% of the country actually agrees with Nick Griffin, but it was the fact that people did not vote that allowed them to enter the European Parliament. Do not let the loud mouthed minority of racists overpower the vast majority of reasonable, tolerant people. One vote every few years is all the say we get in our ‘democracy’ so use your vote wisely. While I have my own preferences, I do not mind of you vote for Labour, or the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats or any other party, but I strongly urge you, when Gordon Brown does call an election, to use your vote wisely and don’t allow the travesty of this weeks European Election repeat itself.

Post-Natal

This week saw the world’s biggest nerd-fest; E3 take place in Los Angeles. E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) is, as the name suggests, an exhibition for video game designers to launch their upcoming projects to the world. After last year’s disappointing series of sequels, E3 returned to form with some very juicy announcements from all three of the major console makers that are sure to give every video game nerd across the globe raging erections. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all announced new controllers for their respective consoles.

Given how much money the Wii has been raking in for Nintendo it was inevitable that the other console developers would want to tap into the market and they have taken the opportunity presented at E3 to do that. Sony announced a motion sensing camera, which seems to be rather limited compared to Microsoft’s Project Natal; a motion sensing device more accurate than anything produced previously. Microsoft claims that it can do voice and face recognition, and register movement to an accuracy that does to require a controller and allows the player to interact with characters on screen in a completely revolutionary way.

Of course Nintendo made claims about the Wii’s motion sensing capabilities which proved to be rather overoptimistic and because of that they’ve announced yet another accessory for the Wii that makes the control actually do what it’s supposed to do. We are now a few years down the line and the promotional videos show Project Natal working very well, but I can’t help but fear that the motion sensor will not live up to expectations.

I am also sceptical that the motion sensor will work with more hardcore games like Shooters and RPG’s. Clearly motion sensors make for a more realistic experience, which is great for sports games and such, but the whole point about video games is that you can take on the attributes of someone or something else and do things that you would not normally be able to do. There is no way that a game which centres on motion sensors can provide this experience. The hand-held controller remains the best way of playing hardcore games, so removing it can only really condemn Project Natal to a casual gamer’s gimmick. From an economic perspective this is no bad thing; the Wii has made massive profit for Nintendo by appealing to the casual gamer and Microsoft understandably wants to muscle in on that market. However Project Natal seems to be a break from the hardcore gaming demographic that has made the Xbox 360 so successful. Hopefully Microsoft will recognise that controllers are still the best way of playing most video games and continue to release games that do not depend solely on the motion sensor.

You would hope that the novelty of motion sensing will wear off eventually (although the continued success of the Wii demonstrates it’s continued popularity) and people will stop making ever more gimmicky games that have arbitrary features which are only there to make use of the motion sensor. Until then I guess we’ll continue to be bombarded with ever more realistic sports games. Inevitably people want games which effectively emulate how the sport is really played and this is probably where Project Natal’s real potential lies, until people start thinking outside the box and just going outside to play the sport in question for real. Rather than standing in front of your television posing like a sportsman you could just be outside doing the same thing, looked less ridiculous, burning more calories and getting more direct sunlight.

It remains to be seen just how effective Microsoft’s foray into motion sensor based video games will be. I can see Project Natal selling very well (although it will have to in order to make up all the money Microsoft and no doubt spend developing it), but I don’t think that full motion sensor based gaming without any controller is the way it will go. I can see better and better takes on what the Wii has already don’t being successful with both casual and hardcore gamers, but Project Natal really represents more of a gimmick which will work in the short term rather than that next generation of video game consoles. Nevertheless, with consoles now living in every household and videogames no longer being the reserve of nerd living in their parent’s basement, the casual gaming demographic will only grow, meaning that the major developers will have to pander to their desires to continue to compete. Fortunately that hardcore gaming market continues to be large enough that the major developers cannot ignore it; the increase in popularity of casual games will not spell the end of the hardcore gamer.

A good old rant

Sorry about the total no-show last week, I just didn’t have anything worth saying and not even any filler to distract you from the lack of content. However this past week I have been doing interesting things, if you count listening to music that I hadn’t heard before interesting, which I do. Anyway one of the bands that I’ve discovered recently is called Porcupine Tree, if you like Pink Floyd you should check them out, especially their early stuff which is beautifully psychedelic, if you don’t like Pink Floyd you should go find a beach at low tide, bury yourself up to the neck and wait for the tide to come in. The second band that I have discovered is called The Flaming Lips, whose music is basically just happiness condensed into musical form. You should definitely check out Soft Bulletin because it’s one of the most joy inducing albums I have heard in a while.

So those are the two bands that I’ve discovered and actually liked. While exploring I also decided to check out some of the better known and notoriously awesome indie bands that every indie music fan from here to the moon obsess over. I had a look at some My Bloody Valentine and Broken Social Scene, both of whom I will probably check out more of later because I got a bit distracted by unhealthy amounts of Porcupine Tree. Anyway the one band that I did check out in a big way was The Arcade Fire. I have been hearing for a good while now from everything associated with indie music that The Arcade Fire are god’s gift to indie music and that I should listen to them and then proceed to thrown adoration and unquestioning love at their feet. I downloaded their second album, Neon Bible and to be honest I am distinctly unimpressed. It’s just a bunch of dreary, emotionally devoid mediocrity. It’s not that it’s bad in the same way that rap music is bad; it’s just not that good. There seems to be no musical ingenuity at all and most of the songs lack melody to the extent that it really hard to listen to them for any length of time. I have to concede that there are some quite good songs on the album, like No Cars Go and Antichrist Television Blues, but frankly I have heard nothing that leads me to think that The Arcade Fire deserve any of the absurd amount of acclaim they get from literally everyone. Even bands like Coldplay and David fucking Bowie love these guys; they get perfect scores from every music reviewer on the planet. I just don’t get why, they are nothing more that decent.

Exploring all this new music made me think a little about the culture and trends associated with different types of music. I’ve always found it really bizarre how some people feel the need to identify solely with one distinct group of people to the extent that they neglect all other forms of social interaction outside the specific group. These groups are often associated with music tastes; people group together because they all like the same music, but their music tastes, like their entire lives become single tracked; they listen to one type of music and one type only, refusing to diversify for fear of betraying their group. The most infuriating of these are the ones who claim to be being ‘independent’. They think that somehow being in a group of people who all reject the same social norms like dressing is a way that doesn’t make you look like a have just been dragged through a charity shop or shaving more than once a decade, in exactly the same way is somehow being independent, it’s not; it’s just being different.

Being independent is doing what you want to do, listening to music that you want to listen to, dressing in a way that you want to, believing what you think is right, not jumping on a slightly smaller bandwagon going in a different direction from the rest of us. The problem is that any attempt to be independent by rejecting what the majority do is ultimately doomed to failure because you confine yourself to avoiding certain things because they’re popular, rather than doing things regardless of what other people think about them.

The same is the case for music taste. People get into bands that are unsigned simply because they’re unsigned and not popular. They become attached to this band simply because of what they represent; independence from the popular music industry. When that band gets recognised and finally signed up to a record label so that they can distribute their music to a wider audience they suddenly get accused of ‘selling-out’, as though becoming part of the popular music scene, getting a recording contract and finally getting the credit they deserve for being good musicians is a bad thing and it would have been better if they had just remained unsigned so only you and a few other people know about them. It seems to me that these people don’t actually listen to the music because they think it’s good music, rather because they want to be different, to be independent from everyone else. If they can quote bands that no-one has ever heard of and boast about how many times they’ve seen them live they think that somehow they’re better then everyone else.

The problem is that this happens with all kinds of music, not just unsigned music. People listen to music because they buy into the image that the music represents instead of listening to music because they like how it sounds. People buy into one genre of music to the extent that they only listen to that one style of music, not because they think that that style is immeasurably better than any other type of music, but because it fits with whatever bullshit image that they have unquestioningly accepted because they think it makes them look different.

Obviously I am looking at extremes here and almost everyone I know, and hopefully all of the people reading this, don’t buy into one specific style to the exclusion of everything else. However most people do regard music with a certain amount of snobbery, I know I have done in the past. People regard music solely as an art form designed to convey some sort of message that they can either accept or reject according to personal preference, and the best music will have an element of this, however most music is just there to entertain. Music doesn’t need to have some deeper meaning to be good music; primarily music needs to be aesthetically enjoyable. This is why I found The Arcade Fire to be so overrated; it simply was not interesting or overtly enjoyable to listen to. You can bang on all day about the deeper meanings or the serious and intelligent lyrics but that is all irrelevant if the music is drab and uninteresting. People are far too willing to dismiss music as being generic, manufactured and samey and often I don’t disagree I just contest that this makes it bad music. A catchy tune can be just that, a catchy tune and you should let yourself enjoy it without worrying about the message that the band is trying to convey or the technical quality of the music. Some songs are just designed to make you happy, not to make you think.

This is not of course to say that songs which are thought provoking and do have a better technical quality to them are no better than catchy, manufactured pop songs, that would be absurd; Dark Side of the Moon is far better than anything the Killers could ever hope to write. What we need to remember is that we can appreciate both type of music and everything in between for different reasons. We don’t need to limit ourselves to a small subsection of the music industry for pretentious artistic reasons when there is perfectly good music doing exactly what it is intended to do waiting to be enjoyed by us. Sure sometimes you may be in mood for something deeper and more meaningful, or something slightly less generic, but occasionally pop songs can bed fun to listen to.

So I suggest that next time you happen to hear a song on the radio, don’t worry about who the artists is, or what image is associated with the music. Don’t search for deeper meanings or complicated musical subtleties. Just shut your eyes and listen to the song for what it is. It may be a generic, manufactured pile of crap, but if it isn’t a damn catchy generic, manufactured pile of crap. It might just make you happy.

House of Common Criminals

For the first time in a long time this week a news story has really got under my skin, not just made me slightly peeved as with some news stories recently, I mean really genuinely made be furious. This is of course the documentation in the Daily Telegraph of the expenses claimed by Members of Parliament. These expenses included, if you didn’t know, paying for a swimming pool, refurbishing and reselling a home and most out-standing of all; paying for maintenance on a moat. You can view the expenses in detail here if you have nothing better to do. 

Inevitably MPs have graciously apologised and the prospective party leaders have demanded that their MPs pay the money claimed for illegitimate reasons. I applaud the party leaders for doing this and indeed can find no real fault with the expenses claims that they themselves made. However I don’t think than a meaningless apology and begrudgingly giving back the money goes far enough; apart from being slightly out of pocket (and let’s face it when you own a country estate complete with a fucking moat that is hardly going to be a issue) the MPs will get away scot-free. No doubt there will be changes to the system so that this appalling mass fraud will be much harder to commit in future and the reputation of MPs will be somewhat worsened from lying, cheating, unprincipled, cold-hearted, manipulative crooks with no integrity, to, well slightly worse lying, cheating, unprincipled, cold-hearted, manipulative crooks with even less integrity.

What the MPs have done essentially amounts to fraud on a massive scale. They have stolen from the taxpayer and abused a system which is legitimately there to allow them to do their jobs; serve the people who elected them. This scandal is a complete abuse of the trust which we put in our politicians to serve the interests of the country as a whole, rather than their own pocket. They are public servants elected by the public (those that can be arsed to vote that it) to govern the country and protect our individual rights, not to milk the system for personal profit. It is a complete betrayal of trust and an affront to the integrity of democracy. MPs have acted with complete disregard for the responsibilities that they assumed when they took office. They have acted more like petty criminals than political leaders and that is why repaying the money with a red-faced apology is not enough.

It is not enough for a petty thief to give back the stolen goods and solemnly swear not to do it again; they should be punished for their crime and that is exactly what should happen to the crooks in parliament. Not only should they be stripped of the responsibility of office, they should be taken to court and be held accountable for their disgraceful acts. They have broken the law and should face the consequences. MPs cannot be allowed to get away with this with little more than a slap on the wrist. MPs are not above the law; anyone who defrauds someone out of thousands of pounds should face the full force of the law, no matter their occupation or their reputation. It is a vital principle of a civilised society that the lawmakers must adhere to the laws they make; to allow MPs to get away with this theft would be to subscribe the fallacy that MPs are above the law. They are not.

Not only should politicians be held accountable, they should be forced to make public any expenses claim they make in the future and any other financial transaction they might make while in office which is even tangentially relevant to their job. The Houses of Parliament are not some gentleman’s club whereby shady, under-the-table dealing can go on unnoticed; they are the place from where the country is governed, not in the interests solely of those governing it, but in the interests of those they serve. MPs represent our interests in the House of Commons, not their own. We should blow open the affairs of parliament for all to see; for it to serve public interests is must be open to public scrutiny, not the private scrutiny of those already in on the act. Politics should not be a shady exchange, carried out behind closed doors by self-serving, shallow, unprincipled crooks intent only on personal gain; it should be an honest dealing, carried out in public by integral, public-minded, unscrupulous people intent only on serving the interests of the public. No doubt they will make mistakes; that is inevitable, but they should have the courage to stand up and admit that they did wrong, rather than hiding behind excuses and smokescreens.

In short politics needs a damn good clear out. I don’t know how it will happen, but I hope that this latest scandal will make this truth apparent and any politician with a shred of integrity left in him will have the courage to stand up and make it happen. I do not expect this to happen by the way, but I would dearly love to be proven wrong.

Right to die?

This week in Bournemouth almost 100 people attended a suicide workshop run by an Australian doctor called Philip Nitschke, which is really hard to spell.  Dr Nitschke is the founder of the right-to-die organisation, Exit and is famous for helping four people to die Northern Territory, Australia in 1996. He recently came to the UK to run a series of suicide workshops so that anyone who is particularly bored with life can go along and find out the most efficient way of ridding the world of their depressed existence. Actually the workshops are only open to the seriously ill or elderly, so the Emos will have to work it out for themselves, which is unfortunate because most of them lack the basic initiative to hurl themselves from a suitably high building.

Inevitably the arrival of the doctor with the hard-to-spell name has caused some controversy; he was initially barred from entering the country under the Immigration and Asylum Act until the blundering morons at the Home Office realised that he was neither an immigrant, nor seeking asylum, nor did he pose a serious through to our safety, and allowed him entry into the country. Nonetheless fears still remain over the effect he may have on people who attend his workshops; someone might end up committing suicide, which is exactly the point of the exercise. I guess people like Alex Russell, the vicar of Pennington and chaplain of Oak Haven Hospice in Lymington, Hampshire forgot that the workshops are voluntary, so they’re only going to effect people who would consider suicide anyway and want to know the best way to do it. (By the way Alex Russell, the vicar of Pennington and chaplain of Oak Haven Hospice in Lymington, Hampshire is quoted on the BBC website and I couldn’t be arsed to find someone more noteworthy to quote at you.)

It’s hardly surprising that Doctor Nitschke has caused such controversy given people’s misgivings about assisted suicide. It seems that, although killing yourself is just rather sad, helping someone else kill themselves is some strangely sadistic act of murder. Apparently someone who is able to kill himself has more of a right to die that someone who can’t, simply by virtue of the fact that they don’t need any help. It seems very odd to me that people do not accept that people with a serious and extremely painful illness cannot have any help in ending their lives when they want to, rather than waiting for death to slowly and painfully arrive. Fortunately we seem to be in the middle of a u-turn in public opinion; a few months ago the parents of a man were acquitted of assisted suicide after taking their son, who had been crippled in a rugby accident and was paralyzed from the neck downwards, to Dignitas in Switzerland to commit suicide. Given this and the decision to allow Doctor Nitschke to run his suicide workshops, it seems apparent to me that people are warming to the idea that, just because you are unable to kill yourself, you should be forced to live a life of pain and suffering until you finally snuff it of natural causes.

It is absurd to me that the law essentially forces people to continue living when they just don’t want to, simply because they are unable to kill themselves. The law is there solely to protect our basic human rights, it is not there to dictate what we can and cannot do with our lives. While some restrictions must be placed on our action when they infringe upon other’s rights, what we do with out private lives is not the prerogative of some busy-body government official. Euthanasia is usually committed with the consent of the person who is being killed; they have chosen to end their lives, they just need help doing it. By illegalising Euthanasia the government is essentially infringing on our basic human right to choose; in this case to choose when to die.

It is the case with far too many of our laws that they try to dictate to us what we can and cannot do in our private lives. The role of law is not to set a moral code of society; it is to allow all members of society to live by their own moral code. This necessarily means that the government must protect each individual’s right to live as they will by stopping people from impinging on this right, but this is the extent to which the government should be able to dictate our behaviour. It should not be able to stop people from committing suicide. It should not be able to stop people from helping loved ones to die in dignity. It should not be able to stop people from giving workshops on how to kill oneself and it should not stop people from attending them.