Just what is the gay test?

So the Gulf states are to conduct medical tests to detect gay men from entering their countries. Just how are they going to detect gay men?

They are going to introduce routine clinical screenings of expatriates as a way to detect gay men they say. I'm just wondering how this is possible? My blood is undetectable from that of any straight man. As for sexually transmitted diseases none of these are particular to one sexual orientation. So is it possible that anyone who is HIV+ will be prevented from entering irregardless of their sexual orientation or how they contracted the disease (even if they were born with it from an infected mother). Straight people may well be branded gay based on outmoded assumptions about such things like calling HIV 'the gay disease'.

You see there is no test that will unequivocally detect a man who has sex with other men. Some gay men are top class athletes, some straight men have skinny, skeletal frames. There is no body type that will give away who is who.

Then there is the fact that human sexuality isn't a binary system, there are various degrees of bisexuality. So even carrying out some sort of test to see the reaction of someone to sexual images is not going to be 100% fool proof. But of course to be able to detect such a reaction you are going to have to carry out very intrusive examinations of everyone, there will be public outcry if they try to do this to too many straight men.

That is unless the Gulf states are planning to only pinpoint certain people who they think are gay for such tests. In which case they will be relying on profiling that is based on stereotypes. which are hardly proven medical tests. But you know who also used profiling to prevent certain groups of people from getting on in life, 1930s Germany introduced such a system of profiling  and we know where that ended up.

Then there is also the assumption that all LGBT people in the Gulf States are expatriates. Or course they are not! There are gay people who are born and raised in these nations. What happens if they leave for a holiday, or education, or work and return? Will they also be blocked from returning to their homeland, will they also be subjected to such testing.

The Army Says No!

Well as I wrote yesterday the US Army said the situation in Iraq is too unstable to foresee a withdrawal of troops before 2010. Well British Army Cheif General Sir Richard Dannatt can tell them why. It's because we are there!.

This is most forthright statement from inside the allied forces military which says that far from being the peace makers in Iraq our troops are seen as occupiers and a cause of the tension, which will only continue the longer we stay.

So not only has he called for an immediate plan for an exit strategy, but he has also hinted that the way we went into Iraq, i.e. not invited, may be affecting how we are viewed in certain parts of the world.

President Bush wants us to stay until 2010. The British Army says no.

2010 and All That

So now we know something about the withdrawal strategy from Iraq, 'It ain't gonna happen before 2010. The US Army have announced that new indications show the situation is too unstable to foresee an end to the 'war' (yes they used the word war) in the next four years, so they are going to have to maintain troop levels at least until them.

So Iraq War 2003-2010+? will mean that the US/UK alliance are gearing up to occupy Iraq for longer than Germany occupied Europe from 1939-1945. Strange that this new intelligence must come from the same sources that told Bush and Blair that the Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction. Well at least the country has them now even if they are in the hands of the occupying forces.

Beckett in Half Way Half Hearted Appeal

So Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is protesting about the use of Prestwick Airport as a layover for arms on route from the USA to Isreal. However, she is prpepared to call for an immediate ceasefire in the region to allow agencies to get supplies through to the civilians who have been struggling since the Isreali attacks on Lebanon started over 2 weeks ago.

This government appears to be trying to play it both ways not wanting to help add to the destruction of Lebanon and Gaza yet at the same time not standing up to the disproportionate attacks Isreal has made on two of its neighbours. The whole area is threatening to implode and the King Abdullah has sent out a warning that the entire region may be on the brink of war.

Strangely Tony Blair's government claim they wanted to get UN backing before esending troops into Iraq but now do not seem to be prepared to listen and back the UN when it calls for a ceasefire.

The question has to be asked does Tony Blair respect the authority of the UN? On the eveidence of the last few years the answer would appear to be no. Unfortunately a sad, tragic and scarey conclusion for our country.

UN Observers Killed in South Lebanon

Isreal and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are at odd following the death of 4 military observers when their observation post was hit by a Isreali air strike.

Apparently the observation post had already been shelled 14 times before the final destruction killed the UN officials from Austria, Canada, China and Finland. The rescue team that tried to clear the rubble were also shelled. This lead Kofi Annan to claim that the Isrealis had been deliberately targetting this observation post, something that the Isrealis have denied.

However, seeing as Unifil have been operating in the area since 1978 surely the location of their observation posts should have been well know to the Isreali military. So to have 16 attacks on the same location must either be down to very poor armaments or poor intelligence or a deliberate attack.

The first looks unlikely. If it is the second then there should be a immediate cessation of all military action from Isreal as they have been taking out other civilian targets. If it is the last and a deliberate attack against the UN and the resolutions which control action in the region Isreal have stepped over the line and can expect to be hauled back forcible. The language used by Mr Annan suggests that is not too far away.

All the while our Prime Minister seems more concerned about junk foodies and smokers at home than making a statement on the latest international crisis.

If You Believed...

They put a man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool

REM Man on the Moon

Well 37 years ago today Neil Armstrong took his one small step and 12 years ago the man who is running out of tricks up his sleeve once known as Teflon Tony was elected leader of the Labour Party.

The last line of the REM song before the repeat of the refrain is 'Hey baby, are we losing touch?'. Or in today's language of choice on the world stage 'Yo Tony, are we losing touch?'.

The response will probably go something like. 'Well George. You and me are in constant touch and at least the UN haven't been accusing us of War Crimes unlike elsewhere so we must be in touch with reality.'

Well actually Tony and George one thing the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, is saying about the situation in Isreal, Gaza and Lebanon is that is responsibilty on all parties to respect the "principle of proportionality" and the need to protect civilians. Applying the same strenuous measures to Afghanistan and Iraq would be interesting, however still we have silence or lack of condemnation from the US and UK governments for the disproportionate killings of civilians by Isreal in both Gaza and Lebanon.

Ming on the Middle East

Sir Menzies Campbell in today's Guardian offers a voice of reason to George W. Bush's posturing.

How can the leader of the free world say that OK you can carry on for a week but after that we'll need to look at it again, when he himself is weilding his might in Iraq, Afghanistan and threathening others with force? Looks like Syria is now on Bush's radar along with Iran and North Korea.

In added his voice to UN Calls for a ceasefire Ming is evenhanded in apportioning blame for the latest eruption of violence:

The indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hezbollah is wholly unacceptable, as is the targeted destruction of the infrastructure of Lebanon by the Israeli Government.

Yet while he recognises that Isreal has a right 'to live in peace within recognised and secure borders' he is saying that people in authority including the Foriegn Secretary are not doing enough to condone the disproportionate action being taken.

While Isreal has taken illegal military action, Hamas and Hezbollah equally are detailing Isrealis without authority. Ming also quite rightly points out that all this unrest in the region is liable only to strengthen the militants which in the long term will only make Isreal feel even more insecure.

Sadly neither Bush nor the UK Government seem prepared to point out to Isreal that if they are looking for peace they have to be actively seeking it rather than hoping for it to emmerge from the embers and rubble. Ming sums this up in his conclusion:

The priority must be to ensure an immediate ceasefire. It is only once a ceasefire has been delivered that we can look towards solutions. Long-term solutions should be delivered through a regional conference...that engages all the states in the region.

More Misery for Gaza

Another Air strike on Gaza.

While the aim of the Isrealis was to stop militants firing rockets across the border something they actually acheived (apparently Islamic Jihad have confirmed that Hamoud Wadiya their top record launcher and a colleague were two of the nine dead) there was also heavy civilian casualties.

Amongst the seven dead civilians it is reported that Hisham al-Mugrabi aged 4 his brother Shaher aged 8 and their father Ashraf are the latest victims leaving one family heavily in grieve.

Isreal may be working at stamping out the rocket attackers but are doing little to sort out the root cause of the people motivated to do this, or launch suicide attacks on the country. The oppression, the walling in of Palestinians all add to the tensions in the area. Isreal and Palestine need to get back together and discuss their joint future it is the only way to sort out this problem, collateral damage and killing of innocents is only going to intensify this sort of situation.

10 Other Confessions That Tony Might Consider Making

Ok as Tony is getting all confessional how about some other thing he might want to get off his chest.

10. I'm not English after all and will be supporting Trindad and Tobago at the World Cup in Germany. (Don't know why Dave got invited to David and Vicky's bash but not me.)

9. I thought when Cherie first said she would introduce me to C. Chaplin she was talking about the famous film star tramp.

8. My last cabinet reshuffle was made by throwing darts at the usual suspects. I almost had Keyser Soze replace Gordon at the Exchequer.

7. I wish I'm made Robin Cook's resignation speech, people might like me more. But then George wouldn't so maybe not.

6. I am fallible. Just everyone else around me is more so and people don't notice.

5. I voted for Thatcher in 1979.

4. John Prescott gave me a Chinese burn when I threatened to take his priveleges away from him.

3. I wish Cherie had won a Parliamentary seat before me, then I could have followed my dream and become an internationally recognised lawy...rock guitarist.

2. I was really upset that Al Gore didn't become president, but also relieved as he would have hounded me about Kyoto targets all this time and George isn't bothered.

1. Yes Gordon it is unfair me making you pay the Granita bill and not letting you become leader.

Is it Terrorism or War?

In the recent Palestinian elections Hamas were returned as the largest party and therefore form the new Government. Therefore the attack in Tel Aviv today takes on a whole new meaning, this being the first Hamas attack on Israel since the election result was declared.

When a terrorist group seeks a political mandate there is a hard choice to make. It has to be either the bomb or the ballot box. Both leads to confusion as to motive and who is in control.

Sein Fein are one of the closest examples to what Hamas has achieved but even they had confusion over the two roles. Also although they became part of the power sharing Executive they have not been returned as the largest party unlike Hamas. Therefore Hamas are different in the fact that as the Government they are in charge of the Palestinian security forces but they still appear to have a terrorist wing. Both started out as terrorist opposing what they saw as an occupying force.

With Hamas's new heightened place in the Middle East their claims that today's attack on a falafel Restaurant in Tel Aviv, during lunchtime were in 'self-defence' doesn't hold much water. Having eaten a fair amount of falafel in my time I do not see how it can possibly cause a national security risk, especially not with civilians milling around it. This is an act of terrorism not an attack against a military target.

One thing is certain the way Isreal are treating their Palestinian neighbours is abhorant. Isreal needs to be realistic seeing that the more they make unilateral decision to repress their neighbors the more they will kick back. However, the elected government of Palestine must also now seek to open diplomatic channels to enable change rather than carry on a terroist regime, as this can now be miusconstrued as open warfare. The leaders in the World with power and influence, especially Messers. Blair and Bush, should stop taking, or appear to take sides, in this issue and act as mediators or facilitators for others to act as mediators (especially as their own standing in the region with Arab nations is low).

We live in interesting times.