Big Brother

So Big Brother is well under way and it started on my birthday a few weeks ago, what wonderful timing! I must admit in the very early years I did enjoy Big Brother but I was young when it started so I didn’t fully understand it. Now however I find it repulsive. I really don’t understand how people find it entertaining, the nerd in me can find psychological aspects to it, looking at behaviour patterns and the way in which social groups form and so on, but other than that what is the need for Big Brother?

This past week two people were removed for inappropriate behaviour. Does this not show what has become of a once lively and innocent enough programme? One quite clearly made threats of violence against people’s friends and family and the other spat in someone’s face for what I believe to be no real reason. He spat in someone’s face! That’s vile! It’s disgusting!

I would have slapped him into next week. How can you think it’s okay to spit in someone’s face. Someone who you’ve been living with for three weeks. Would you not sort of think actually no, that’s a horrible thing to do; aggresive as I may seem i can completely understand why people hit people. I’ve come close in the past myself to hitting people because some people have been so horrible and just got me so angry something else really does take over (I never have hit anybody, I’m saying I’ve wanted to or I’ve come close to). But I really can’t imagine something taking over and making you spit. That’s weird.

Big Brother used to be a gameshow. Plain and simple, a gameshow. But that isn’t what it’s become. It’s become a way of gaining fame for having no talent instead of completing tasks to win the prize money. It’s become an easy way to humiliate the nation by showing all other nations what an awful group of people we have in our society. Think about it, these people are representing us to people all over the world. Is this really what Channel 4 wants people to see as an example of the British population? I’m ashamed to say I’m from a society that has these kinds of people within it. It’s like bear-baiting. It’s become sick and twisted, a way of embarassing people in the most outlandish way imaginable and I don’t think it’s entertainment.

Do you?

Best Thing Ever

So since I’m 18 I can now vote, I am really into politics so I was keen to register to vote anyway but even if i didn’t, the post I got today would have made me vote anyway. The person who came up with this idea is genius personified!

It looks like a newspaper, basically it’s a mock-up of one. The headline says “UK AWAITS DECISION FROM ‘my full name’”. It generally said that it’s important that I vote as this is how I have my say in important matters, but what an amazing way to grab my attention. When I saw it on the kitchen counter at first I just thought it was weird that someone important had the same name as me. That’s just how silly I am!

I don’t know anyone else that got one so I feel quite special having received something from the House of Commons (or so it wants me to believe) telling me specifically that they want my vote. Nobody else’s…

p.s. this idea was totally stolen from Dave’s blog, I don’t know the guy but he is rather amusing! Can’t remember his blog name thing but on youtube he’s musicfromblueskies, should go see him, he’s lovely! Well I think he is, again I don’t know him but I assume he is.

=D

Now I know I bitched about exams and everything, but now my exams are over.

J’ai fini!

Start Uni Sept/Oct…

What now?

Hmmm…

Was reading a magazine today and one of those annoying scratchcard things fell out which you always scratch and it always tells you you’ve won something but you never bother to send it off. Well you have to be 18 to sort of, ask for your prize, and since I am now 18 I want to do things just because I can! So I wasted far too much credit finding out what I had won.

A digital camera and a Mediterranean cruise for 4 people.

I am actually quite happy, really wanna send it off. Not that bothered about the cruise but I want the camera, even though I’ve only just got a new one, I want the one I’ve won!!

But I’ve thought more about the cruise and I’m assuming it to be the biggest pile of crap holiday I would ever have, but, I could take my friends with me before we all separate because of uni. Lets face it it’s the people you’re with not the place that determines whether or not you have fun. If the cruise is before October I could take them, well September I suppose. It’s quite scary to think that I am moving three hours away from my comfort zone in October. If I don’t get into my first choice I’m going to London, always wanted to live in London for a bit, not permanently, but that’s scarier than Durham Uni! I have lived in this house all my life and now I have to leave it to spend my days with strange new people in halls.

Still, excited to be a fresher!

I’m 18 today!!!!!

Today is my 18th birthday, par-tay!

Been a well good day, went to Sainsburys to get some booze and when the woman asked for my ID I showed it her, all proud that I was ‘of age’ and she was well moody with me! I mean come on, be pleased I’m not some 15 year old wasting your time, and you could at least say happy birthday! The waitress at TGI Fridays was lovely, she made me some balloons into flowers, so sweet, thank you Katie, you were a lovely waitress!

I use exclamation marks far too often

!

Nick Griffin and David Irving at the Oxford Union

           

            Two figures that have always been at the centre of controversy, David Irving and Nick Griffin were invited to speak in a debate at Oxford Union. David Irving has caused mass controversy by publicly denying the Holocaust, going as far to plead guilty in a court in Austria to being a Holocaust denier. Whilst Nick Griffin is the leader of the British National Party, which has previously being accused of being too nationalist and inciting racial hatred. The current issue concerns a debate including the two men that took place at Oxford Union on Freedom of Speech, not the Holocaust or the BNP.

            To discuss whether or not Griffin and Irving had the right to publicly speak at the debate, we must put the situation into context. While it is hard to forget the views held by Griffin and Irving, would there have been an issue if we did not know their opinions? Had the two simply been a historian and an MP, would we have allowed them to speak with no questions asked? It seems hard to give a justified reason as to why we would not allow them to speak, were they ordinary people. Why then, does a separate view they both hold cause such controversy in speaking about Freedom of Speech? They are not after all, speaking about the BNP or the Holocaust. There seems little justification for preventing them from speaking in a debate about free speech. Put simply, why shouldn’t they speak?

            To bring in Mill’s Harm Principle, the topic of Freedom of Speech can bring about no harm whatsoever. We must remember that the Harm Principle states that if an opinion incites violence or will cause physical harm to another person, that opinion/expression of thought should be suppressed. To speak of free speech cannot bring about harm in either of these ways. So according to Mill, we have no grounds to prevent Griffin and Irving from taking part in the debate.

            The second part of the discussion asks, had the men in question been speaking about their ‘field of interest’, would the issue be significantly different? Many people hold the view that Nick Griffin and David Irving are very controversial and offensive men. Many also believe as a result of their personal opinions (concerning the BNP and the denial of the Holocaust) their right to speak freely should be removed. So it would appear that modern man thinks that offence is enough to suppress an opinion.

            However, Mills Harm Principle states that mere offence is not enough to stop someone freely speaking. Mill would say even if it was a debate on their ‘field of interest’, they still have a right to speak. This would be true as long as they did not incite violence in any way. It is questionable whether the (possible) racial hatred stemming from the BNP’s policies would fall under the Harm Principle or not. It depends how far Griffin went in his nationalist campaign.

            To develop this point we can discuss whether or not the circumstances would be different if the Harm Principle were ‘updated’ in a way. If psychological harm was added to the Harm Principle, then Griffin and Irving may be justifiably silenced in speaking about their views (all according to Mill and the newly developed Harm Principle). The BNP may be psychologically damaging for ethnic minorities by any racist comments that may be spoken by Nick Griffin. Therefore in this updated Harm Principle, Griffin should be silenced. Denying the Holocaust may be deeply scarring for those affected by the Holocaust (victims/survivors or people who lost loved ones etc). It may lead to traumatic memories being brought back by publicly denying the event altogether, if this link could be proved, the newer version of Mills Harm Principle would be justification for suppressing the view of David Irving.

            The key issue that seems to arise from this discussion is the idea that if we stop a debate on Freedom of Speech, surely there is no longer a need to debate it? If we prevent/protest against a debate on Freedom of Speech, the logical conclusion seems to be that we don’t believe in Freedom of Speech. Either this or the ability to speak freely is very subjective, and all other outside views you may hold can be the deciding factor in whether or not you can debate a completely different topic. Mill advocates Freedom of Speech in his essay On Liberty, unless it is inciting violence (which it wasn’t in this case). The protestors obviously disagree, seen as apparently Freedom of Speech cannot be freely debated!