A Little Comment On A Right-Wing Post...

So I'm not a fan of right wing groups...

So, I saw this today on my Facebook. It was about how Islam is being "forced" onto school children via "indoctrination". Which is all well and good, (well it isn't really let's face it), but it's just scaremongering, racist and frankly not true. It's a part of the curriculum because it's good to understand many religions in order to, ironically, prevent prejudice and fight any misconceptions that might be presented in the mainstream tabloid media. (+ the Daily Mail of course).

So here's what I wrote. I felt the need to give some balance. But if anyone would like to add to what I've written, then please feel free to comment and contribute.

"To play devil's advocate, and as someone who currently works in education, why would you want to? I can understand why some parents are uneasy about their kids participating in sex education but, frankly, this is insanely ridiculous. 

If you take your child out of a lesson in which Islam is taught, then that child could potentially miss out some key facts about Islam that will help them understand who they are, what they believe, and how they choose to present their beliefs. That child could then grow up, meet a group of Muslims and believe that all of them are terrorists or something! (Or worse, become a member of a far right group...)

People like Britain First are very quick to point out things related to terrorism and security but, as this suggests, fail to understand that the key to understanding the terrorists and working with the Islamic community to fight them is by educating our children that not all Muslims want to kill you. Islam is no more violent or prone to terrorism than Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion worldwide. 

If you're going to take Islam off the curriculum, then take off Buddhism, Christianity and every other religion learnt in school because if you take just Islam off then that's just picking on Muslims in a different way than shouting abuse in the street or writing stuff on social media. 

RE is on the curriculum with the intention of educating, expanding understanding and helping children understand that, just because someone might be a different religion or skin colour, they're still a human deep down. Doing something like this only teaches your children that it's ok to de-humanise a certain group of people just because they look different or because a small minority are dirtying the name of that religion by killing in its name.

You have every right to do this should you wish to, but you'll be doing your children, your community and your country a great disservice in the long run. Stuff like this post and subsequent act only fuels religious intolerance further. Just look at (rather recent) history to see what happens if you let things like this happen."

Feel free to comment below if you'd like to add things.

The British Government and the Return of the Double Standard

[WARNING: CONTAINS *SOME* LEGAL JARGON]

So I've just seen something which is absolutely disgraceful. But, the topic also has two sides.

This headline from the Independent sums it up:

"Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official"

Now. Before we go into this, let's look at what the article has to say.

"The mass interception and surveillance of UK citizens’ activity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google is legal, the government’s top anti-terror chief has said. In the first detailed defence of the UK’s surveillance policies since the Snowden revelations, Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, has said that the surveillance of such popular sites is legal because their US origins means they count as “external communications”*.

The basics of this is, following the revelations from Edward Snowden last year, it appears that the Government can legally access your Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google Searches WITHOUT  a warrant in the name of counter-terrorism.

Now. In this day and age, Counter-Terrorism is a big thing that is now part of life and designed to keep the people of a certain country (and/or area) safe. This I understand, accept and admire. However, as far as this is concerned, this is double standards.

I was under the impression that certain search terms online we red flagged and if someone looked up these terms a number of times, the authorities could apply for a warrant to track the IP address and THEN access Facebook, Google searches and other social network messages etc. But if this article is to be believed, this is evidently not the case. It appears that, in the name of counter-terrorism, GCHQ and other organisations can just look at our Facebook and things willy-nilly without a warrant. 

To me, this amounts to hacking. Now, I understand that hacking is an umbrella term. However: 

"hack. VERB. Gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer:

they hacked into the bank’s computer[WITH OBJECT]: someone hacked his computer from another location(as noun hacking) outlawing hacking has not stopped it"
Now, for the moment, let's concentrate at the "unauthorized access" part. The article from the Independent says that:
"In a 48-page statement issued in response to a legal challenge brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty international and seven other civil liberties groups, Farr admits that the government allows the interception of a massive range of online activities without a warrant"*.
With this in mind: 

"warrant. NOUN. A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice:

magistrates issued a warrant for his arrestan extradition warrant"
If you remember these two things, you start to realise that the fact that Governments and Security Firms are accessing your personal information WITHOUT A WARRANT, is illegal. Police cannot pursue a suspect in a case without a warrant for their arrest or to search their dwellings. This is a similar case. The authorities in question should be able to access your personal information and social network pages as long as they have a warrant. 
The fact that they do and don't have a warrant is technically illegal and you could, potentially, sue them for invasion of privacy and for hacking.
So why can't we?
Counter-Terrorism. And a major legal loophole that Britain is exploiting in order to do this unchallenged.
"By defining these web services as “external communications," they fall under the general warrants of section 8(4) of RIPA. This means that a range of activities – from emails to Facebook messages to Google searches – can all be intercepted even when the police have no grounds to suspect the individuals of wrongdoing"*.
Basically, because most of the websites they can access were made and based in America, Britain don't have to follow the same rules as the Americans. So they can search through your internet history without challenge in the name of counter-terrorism.
But what would happen if I, for example, were to hack GCHQ?
According to US Law: "This crime is a class B misdemeanor but if the person causes over $2,500 in property damage it is a class A misdemeanor if the person acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of his or her actions and class D felony if the person acted maliciously"**. Otherwise, I get a hefty fine and a possible prison sentence of many years. Possibly even a Treason charge.
Double standards? Well, it depends on how you look at it. I personally believe it is because it's a case of punishing the many for the actions of the few. Not everyone in the UK is a terrorist. Nor is everyone who's a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh etc so why not stick with the red flag? OR actually find some conventional evidence that someone is participating in terrorism activities?
I know some people might say to this "Well if you're complaining about this then you obviously have something to hide". That as the case maybe, how people like being hacked and watched by their Government, Big Brother stylee?
That's just my opinion anyway...

*James Vincent, The Independent, "Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official", http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mass-surveillance-of-uk-citizens-on-facebook-youtube-and-google-is-legal-says-official-9543455.html** Christopher Reinhart, Office of Legislative Research, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm

Apple-Ogies

Believe it or not, I still have a blog! Which I haven't actually attended to for some time!

For this I apologise. But please allow me to explain why I have not attended this part of my life for some time.

1. Uni Exams: I had revision and things so any and all non-social focus was place in that endeavour. I got a good result on one of the exams so obviously a wise move!

2. Music: Cardiopath (my music project) is taking off! I have an EP ready to be recorded, a video in the works and a 12+ track album ready to be recorded also. So music's also been taking up a lot of my time recently. (As well as live gig prep too!)

3. Work: I have a job! I'm working 8:30-3:45 5 days a week now so I'm also concerning myself with that and all this entails.

4. Lack of things to write: My Swedish friend, Marion, has asked me when Ducks By The Lake will return. It will at some stage but the fact is that I don't really have that much to write right now. So, if I do write anything, it's likely to be this. DBTL will be finished. I promise!

Anyway, until that time, I hope you're all ok and well!

Speak soon!

Joshua x