alexist

We headed down to Devon for Neil's sister's 30th birthday. It was a quick trip down (we got to Stonehenge in under 2 hours, including a stop at Fleet services).

It was fun, and it was nice to get some decent clothes and make-up on for a change. :) Even if I was forced to watch the FA Cup Final. It did have a rather good 90th minute goal from Stephen Gerrard, but I don't find televised football particularly interesting.

We slept at Neil's parents, got fed Sunday lunch and headed back up. Zoe is fine. :)

I wish it had been sunny today--there's a great view of Tor Bay from the edge of Neil's parents' village, and I would have liked to get a photo of it. The view the other way isn't half bad either; it looks out over the South Hams. It's a lovely part of the country, especially this time of year, and my in-laws have the luck to live in a great spot, between Tor Bay and the Dart. Agatha Christie's house is at the Dart end of the village, and there's a tiny ferry to Dittisham over the river (second home heaven--a topic that can get me annoyed. So many properties in the area sell for hundreds of thousands of pounds, and locals haven't a hope.)

The news had me fuming on Friday--it was the whole human rights row. 2 quotes in particular got me seeing red:

First, there was Lord Falconer speaking slightingly of a "human rights culture" that had developed. I should bloody hope we have one and it's a damn good thing too!

Second, he said that public safety should always come before human rights. No, it shouldn't. Take that statement to its logical conclusion and any civil or human rights could be suppressed in the name of "public safety".

The government has blamed the Human Rights Act and excessive concern for the rights of criminals. Is the act to blame, or are people mis-interpreting it? It reminds me of those playgrounds that get closed because councils are afraid of lawsuits. It doesn't matter whether such lawsuits would happen or if they would succeed--people act on the basis of fear. It was wrong that Naomi Bryant's killer was released from prison. But by all accounts, a mis-recommendation was made to the probation service. They received over-optimistic reports of his progress and acted on that basis. Yes, he had counsel and was able to argue to the Parole Board that he should be released. However, the Parole Board and Probation Service could have rejected his argument. Human rights mean the right to due process. It is not about some upside-down logic that criminals have more rights than the rest of the public or their victims. Don't blame the Human Rights Act for a civil service that fails to do its job with due diligence.

As for the Afghan hijackers, again, they had the right to due process and the court quite rightly found that no matter how abominable you may be, the government may not send you back if there is a substantial risk of danger. The government had every right to order their deportation, and on the face of it, it seems absurd that someone can hijack a plane to get into the UK and get to stay. Nonetheless they can't be sent back: that's the law and it doesn't change for people we don't like. It's unfortunate that they're not in jail for the hijack, but that's a separate issue.

And John Reid said it was important to challenge any ruling which may "appear inexplicable or bizarre to the general public". Oh dear lord. No, just because something is counterintuitive does not make it wrong.

All in all, it's just another example of this government's cavalier attitude towards human rights. Time for me to join Liberty. (I'm already an ACLU member, which often horrifies or baffles religious people. I tell them that it's precisely because I am religious that I'm a member.)

Health Secretary says women should be advised to give birth at home

First, I feel it's not the government's business to tell women where to give birth (the more cynical side of me wonders if they want to save money). Second, I would never, ever give birth at home. It's not that I think something will go wrong, and I don't believe women should choose to give birth in hospital out of fear. I would give birth in hospital because if, G-d forbid, something happened, I would want a doctor to be present and I wouldn't want to waste a second. It would actually make me more relaxed. If something does happen at a home birth there might not be enough time to get to hospital.

The natural birth advocates don't particularly impress me either when they argue about "medicalisation" and how natural it is to give birth at home. Yes, women did it for millennia. Women and babies also died from it! So that argument does nothing for me. I appreciate that some women find it more comfortable and less stressful, and I can at least sympathise with that, but the "natural" aspect is nonsense. Progress for its own sake isn't something to argue for, but in this case, progress has also meant a better outcome for many women. Rejecting hospital births, or anaesthesia, or a Caesarian section, simply because it's unnatural, is foolish.

ETA: Actually, not so sure about the money argument. The Indy's leader mentioned midwives, which made me realise we haven't got enough for home births--that's the reason so many PCTs and hospitals make it so difficult! The home-birth mother has a whole midwife to herself, and can go through more than one. Every home birth means even fewer midwives available at hospitals. Thinking about it from that angle, I'm surprised the NHS hasn't come out against home births on the grounds of staff availability.

My fingers have been tingling all evening. I can't work out why.... also some odd cramps. hmm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/nyregion/14king.html?pagewanted=all

(Anti-immigrant Republican congressman has immigrants, 1 of whom came in illegally, doing his yard work.)

(I always hated Pete King, the anti-abortion IRA supporter.)