Apologies for the lack of updates recently; I’ve been busy enjoying a veritable cornucopia of symptoms for the past couple of weeks, and haven’t really been up to writing about much, even though there’s been plenty going on:

• The Texas Education Agency has fired Chris Comer, a staff member of nine years, for sending an email announcing a talk by a Barbara Forrest, a prominent critic of ID. The internet has been buzzing, and Forrest herself has written on how this proves her point that ID, rather than being a scientific position, is an attempt to force the religious right’s agenda into the classroom (and the public consciousness) through power-politics and outright bullying. Just remember kids; it’s the Darwinists who have a shady global conspiracy to suppress the opposition and get people fired just for supporting ID.

• The British government has given up all pretense at seeking consensus and is forcing through legislation that will increase the time “suspected terrorists” can be held without charge. If you’re a UK citizen, you can register your displeasure by signing this petition. Please take the time; this is a hugely important issue that bears directly on our most important human rights.

• Some poor teacher was arrested, tried, jailed and then deported for calling a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Local people took exception to the fact that she wasn’t executed and took to the streets in protest. Governments the world over seem not to notice that whenever a group of people go batshit insane and start demanding innocent people are beheaded for some utterly trivial slight to their culture, those people always seem to be Muslim. The British public seems not to notice that the laws Gillian Gibbons were arrested under bear a striking resemblance to the laws our government put in place a few years back with the express purpose of arresting Muslims for making utterly trivial slights against our culture.

That’s probably enough for tonight. I should be back to a more reasonable posting-schedule now, so if I think of anything else I missed, I’ll sneak it into a future post.

The recent ordeal (which I’ve blogged about here and here,) of a young woman who was sentenced to state-sponsored brutality after being gang-raped is just one example of the shocking barbarity of the Saudi regime. It is unacceptable that the UK counts any nation with such a poor human-rights record as an ally, so please take a couple of minutes to sign this petition urging our government to sever friendly ties with Saudi Arabia until such a time as they join us in the 21st Century.

The actual text you’ll be putting your name to is:

The government have rolled out the Red carpet to the Saudi Royal Family yet the government of Saudi Arabia is an autocratic regime with an appalling human rights record. Executions, flogging and amputations are imposed and carried out with disregard for the most basic international fair trial standards. ‘Offences’ include being gay or being a woman unaccompanied by a man or driving a car. Yet with utter hypocrisy the UK government condemns similar regimes such as Burma and has very minimal ties with countries like Libya. The UK has turned a blind eye to this for its own selfish economic interests to the extent that we will break international law on corruption to avoid upsetting the Saudi Royal Family. As a consequence of this relationship we are perceived as supporters and backers of this repressive regime. We have seen the consequences of these injustices on the security of our country. It is now the opportunity to restore Britain’s dignity and end this stain on our country’s reputation.

Last year I blogged about a Saudi woman who’d been gang raped, and then charged by the authorities for being in the same car as a male friend who was not her husband (before the rape.) Initially, she was sentenced to 90 lashes (yes, corporal punishment.) She appealed that sentence (as well as the lenient sentences handed down on the rape gang.) Well, the appeal court has increased all the sentences. Not only have the rapists had their sentenced increased (as they should,) but so has their victim.

200 lashes and two years in prison for meeting a male friend. It’s backwards, it’s barbaric, and it’s a violation of her human rights. And our government tacitly supports it because the bigoted despots in charge are our allies and supply us with oil.

This hasn’t had much news coverage here, but the Georgian government is in the process of violently cracking down on anti-government protests. The president, Mikhail Saakashvili, has declared a state of emergency and issued a declaration banning demonstrations and protests of all kinds. Riot police have been deployed and used tear-gas, water cannons and rubber bullets to disperse demonstrations, leaving at least a hundred hospitalised.

The independent TV station, Imedi, broadcast images of the crackdown, prompting riot police to storm the building and take the channel off the air. The station’s final minutes are available on YouTube, although the clip is (obviously) in Georgian.

So, the British government wants to extend the length of time they’re allowed to hold terror suspects without charge from 28 to “about 50” days. When questioned, the Security Minister, Lord West, acknowledged that a previous attempt to increase the limit to 90 days was “far too long”.

Apparently we’re to believe that three months is way over the top, but two months? Well, that’s probably OK. You have to hand it to the government; they’re audacious. They know this isn’t going to be popular, but they’re trying to muscle it through anyway.

Anyone who knows me at all, already know what I think about this, but I’m going to be unequivocal here: there is no OK length of time for the Government to lock people up without charge. We are talking about the government granting itself the right to pull people off the street and lock them away for anything up to two months without even having to accuse them of anything. I’m sorry Lord West, but the reason you’re “not sure” how to convince critics that this is the right thing to do, is because you can’t. Because it isn’t. This is wrong, pure and simple; you know it; we know it. Of course you’d like to be able to lock potentially dangerous people up without having to go through all that pesky due process, but that’s not the way it works in a civilized, free society; you actually have to show that someone is a threat before you lock them away. It is most profoundly not OK to slap someone behind bars on the off-chance and then apologise later if you were wrong. This is not Soviet Russia, it’s not Iran and it’s not China; it’s Britain, and while we may be called subjects, we live in a free society and we have rights.

Well, we used to, anyway.

The other two major parties have both made the usual opposition statements that they don’t think it’s a good idea unless there’s new evidence to support it. Well, that’s not good enough either. This isn’t about evidence, it’s not about balancing the merits of a couple of competing ideas; it’s about principles. At it’s most basic level, it’s about one fundamental question: “Do we control the government, or do they control us?” Because if you think a government is beholden to an electorate they’re able to lock up without reason, I’ve got some Burmese monks I’d like to introduce you to.

OK - so here it is. I’m stating publicly, here and now, that I, as a subject – and member of the electorate – of Great Britain, do not support any measures resulting in the peacetime detention without charge of any human being. Furthermore, the first political party to come out and state, on the record and credibly, that they would never support such measures, for any reason, is guaranteed my vote at the next general election.