The News on Friday

In a bit of light Friday banter (and get me, I'm writing a blog on a Friday, that almost never happens!) I saw a couple of news stories earlier that I felt were just dying to be written about....

First up - Russian abducted by Aliens? MP demands investigation....

Is it just me, or does this feel like the beginning of a science fiction blockbuster? Eccentric man (who happens to be a local Russian president, the leader of the southern region of Kalmykia) claims in TV interview to have been abducted by aliens. MP demands investigation...

If it was a blockbuster film then the story would progress as follows. The local president would be questioned, just as the aliens invade, and the MP would lead the people in fighting them off. (Also, if it was a blockbuster film, it wouldn't be set in Russia...)

But what's great about this is that it's real, and the MP has some very real concerns.

"MP Andre Lebedev is not just asking whether Mr Ilyumzhinov is fit to govern. He is also concerned that, if he was abducted, he may have revealed details about his job and state secrets...(he) asks if there are official guidelines for what government officials should do if contacted by aliens, especially if those officials have access to state secrets."

Yeah, because aliens are interested in Russia's state secrets, obviously. You'd understand his point if it was a very sensible person claiming to have been abducted, but let's look at Mr Ilyumzhinov's credentials...

"He has been president of Kalmykia, a small Buddhist region of Russia which lies on the shores of the Caspian Sea, for 17 years. The millionaire former businessman has a reputation as an eccentric character. As president of the World Chess Federation, he has spent tens of millions of dollars turning the impoverished republic into a mecca for chess players - building an entire village to host international tournaments. "

So basically, he's the president of Chessville, Russia??? I'm fairly sure that, what with him being a weirdo to start with, the aliens probably didn't exist...

Or they have some mechanism to only target people that the rest of the world won't believe, and they are right now monitoring the internet, reading this blog, and smiling because they know their secret remains safe....

OK. I'm not gonna believe it, unless the aliens invade, in which case I'm heading for Chessvile, anyone else coming? You're all invited. Except this guy.

Yes, this is Brawny's second crazy news story of the day (did you like my exceedingly unsubtle link between the two? It's the best I could do, I'm tired...) and I can't possibly describe it in a funnier way than the opening two paragraphs of the Sun article, so I'm just going to paste that here :

"Greying Peter Trigger, 60, was given a five year ASBO in December 2008 after loitering outside a primary school wearing a Britney Spears-style outfit of grey skirt, white blouse, burgundy tie, grey ankle socks and a blue cap.

He is banned from wearing a skirt or showing bare legs on a school day between 8.30am and 10am and 2.45pm and 4pm. "

That's right. A 60 year old man is banned from wearing a skirt or showing his bare legs on a schoolday. I'm not sure what else I need to write here to make it funny. I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need a lot of comments from me...although, what with it being the Sun, and the article being about him breaching the ASBO, shouldn't the headline have been "Oops, he did it again!"?

Except he didn't do it again. The article itself says "He paraded in front of Mary and Philip Copping, who live opposite, while wearing a mini-skirt before repeatedly bending over in front them with his back turned. "

*Shudders* Ignore that mental image and read the next sentence...

"The couple were getting into Mr Copping's van to go to work at 7.25am when he approached, the court was told. "

7.25am. That's before 8.30am. Therefore surely he's not in breach of his ASBO? Especially since it was initially put into place due to him freaking out schoolchildren, hence the timings and schoolday specifications. When it was initially imposed "Northampton Borough Council said he was entitled to wear whatever he wanted, but not if it caused "alarm or distress" to the public."

So we're allowed to express ourselves freely, as long as we don't alarm or distress people? Is it just me, or are our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression slowly being whittled away, made so that we can do whatever we want as long as it is determined to be "normal"?

Serious thoughts there, from a ridiculous story, but they lead to this third and much more serious story that genuinely splits my opinion, as it's a case of my personal principles and dislikes clashing.

This is the story of Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, who was arrested for saying that homosexuality was a sin in a public place. (I realise that sentence is unclear, I mean he said it in a public place, not that he was saying homosexuality is only a sin in public...) And this is where my conflicting opinions come into play.

On the one hand, I think it's disgraceful in this day and age that people should believe that any form of sexuality is wrong.

However, I also don't agree with the arresting of someone for expressing an opinion.

I believe in free speech and tolerance for all religious and personal beliefs, no matter how stupid or idiotic I personally think they are. And as the article itself says "The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God. "

That to me sounds like a private conversation between two people. Did the passing shopper feel harassed? Did Mr McAlpine yell the information? Well.. not really.

"Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.(..) Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith. During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van. "

My biggest problem with this is that, if he said it loudly enough to be charged under the Public Order act then why on earth didn't the PCSO attempt to arrest him before his sermon, or prevent him from giving the sermon whilst waiting for backup? It does seem that the PCSO may have pushed harder for the man to be arrested, due to his own sexuality.

Which I can understand. If I was a policeman and someone told me that it was a sin to be fat (That's not anyone's religious belief as far as I know, but just an example that could apply to me) then I'd be annoyed and I'd take it personally. But I'd like to think I wouldn't abuse my powers to then arrest the offending man.

Now if, in his sermon, he'd started preaching about how we should kill all the gays, then they'd have a point. But he didn't.

In conclusion, I think I'd much rather that we had complete freedom of speech, and we have to occasionally listen to religious nutjobs, than allowing the Police to arrest us over quietly discussing our opinions.

That's all for now. Brawny signing off.