Tag: blockheaded

How does one prove lesbianism?

The Daily Mail reports on probably one of the most bizarre deportation hearings I’ve ever read about.

An anonymous woman referred to in court only as “A” has been threatened with extradition because of a dispute over her sexual identity. In essence, the Home Office (a UK government agency which oversees immigration, the rough equivalent of the US ICE) does not believe the woman is really a lesbian.

The complicating issues are that A appears to have become a lesbian while imprisoned on drug charges, and she faces persecution in Jamaica as a lesbian if deported.

A quote from the article:

Overturning that ruling today, Lord Justice Goldring said: ‘A has now been in a series of exclusively lesbian sexual relationships over some four years. That is, on its face, cogent evidence that she is a lesbian, or predominantly a lesbian, by sexual identity.

‘What might have begun as sexual experimentation with lesbianism could have ended with it being her sole or predominant sexual orientation. That does not appear to have been adequately considered or, at least, explained by the tribunal’.

Goldring goes on to order a fresh consideration of A’s case by another tribunal.

My take on the whole thing:

First, I think it’s ridiculously invasive and rather silly to expect someone to attempt to prove, in court, a matter as sensitive and private as sexual preference. I further consider the fact that A’s deportation to Jamaica carries the consequences it does rather tragic.

Second, how can four years of exclusively lesbian relationships not be enough to establish that maybe, just maybe, A is now exclusively batting for the other team? If not, what does the Home Office expect? I would certainly hope that the Home Office comes to their senses about this.

Third, whatever happened in prison happened, and once one has completed the sentence assessed by the courts, one is still a human being. If the responsibility of the rest of society to someone like A to treat her like a human being ended upon her conviction of whatever crime, then there really is no sense in handing out anything but life sentences without possibility of parole (“throw away the key”) or the death penalty. The fact that A has been released says she has been sanctioned enough for her crimes.

Even if A wasn’t a lesbian before, she should probably be considered one now, and to just ship her back to Jamaica is at best negligent and at worst downright reckless and a flagrant violation of the standards by which decent people live. I’m not saying necessarily that she should be allowed to stay in the UK; maybe another country will let her live there.

The comments, not surprisingly, blast the Home Office and mostly say “ship her back already.” To which I respond: I’m so glad I don’t live in the UK.

Squashing Shakespeare: silly entertainment permit rules

According to this story in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, a zoning-related entertainment permit rule intended to limit disorderly drunken conduct has had the odd and unintended consequence of squashing a monthly Shakespeare reading that has been going on for years at a bar in the Old Port section of Portland. From the article:

The bar does not have an entertainment license and cannot get one because a bar next door already has one. A city ordinance prohibits any bar from having an entertainment license if another bar within 100 feet has one.

It appears to me that the city has done a rather unfair job enforcing this incredibly quirky zoning ordinance. One of the owners of the bar appears to agree:

“It’s interesting that they grapple with this versus grappling with a
place that wants to have more dancing girls in short-shorts and cowboy boots dancing on the bar,” he said.

Another quote from the story says the odd rule is “working as intended – for the most part.” While that may be true, I think it’s a terribly written and terribly enforced rule which sweeps too broadly. I’m certain Maine has laws regulating alcohol service in bars and the standard criminal mischief and public intoxication laws. I don’t see why those laws can be enforced, and let those who want their Shakespeare have it, even if the venue is next door to, say, a rock/heavy metal bar.

(Story originally found from a Laughing Stalk post.)

“Sue first, ask questions later”

Mashable reports on what at first glance appears to be a run-of-the-mill libel lawsuit. Horizon Realty is suing a former tenant, Amanda Bonnen, for US$50,000 over the one line:

Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.

The alarming thing is that, according to the story, Amanda had maybe 20 followers at the time of the account’s deletion. The most alarming part of this story, however, is this statement from a Horizon employee named Jeffrey Michael:

Bonnen wasn’t contacted before the suit was filed or asked to remove the Tweet, [Michael] said: “We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization”.

If Horizon does have a reputation to protect, aggressively filing lawsuits of dubious merit and making statements to that effect are not the way to uphold it. Actions speak far louder than words; I think Horizon’s reaction to the whole incident will do a lot more to scare tenants away than anything Amanda might have said or done in response to the incident.

To Amanda, if you’re out there reading this: You’ve got the right to trial by jury. Use it.

To Horizon: You need to hire a PR firm that knows what they are doing, and not try to do it yourself.

“Counterterrorism” in the UK

The Guardian reports on yet more counterterrorism idiocy, regarding a woman who was merely trying to document what the police were doing:

Lawyers for Gemma Atkinson, a 27-year-old who was detained after filming police officers conduct a routine stop and search on her boyfriend, believe her case is the latest example of how police are misusing counterterrorism powers to restrict photography.

The article goes on to detail the incident and the High Court case resulting from same.

This is yet another example of law–and law enforcement–run amok. There is really no legitimate need to censor the recording of police activities; in fact one would think that honest cops would not mind at all. I know of a case where a deputy would intentionally take inmates of a jail to one hallway not monitored by a security camera just so what he said and did was “off the record.” That is just one example of what dishonest cops can do.

Also of note:

The Met’s guidance is different to that issued by the National Policing Improvement Agency, which specifically advises that “officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film”, and suggests that, while digital images might be viewed during a search, officers “should not normally attempt to examine them”.

If you remember one thing from this blog, remember this (and this is true in at least the US as well): Cops never have the right to delete images or destroy film.

A taxing experience in Sweden

And we Americans thought the IRS was clueless sometimes.

This story from Sweden details the account of a couple versus what I dare call a recklessly obtuse Swedish Tax Agency:

When their daughter Celina was born, Morten Schneider and Christina Cruz dutifully filled out the appropriate forms with their daughters name – Celina Cruz Schneider – and sent them off to have her registered with Sweden’s tax authorities, the Skånska Dagbladet newspaper reports.

But the agency rejected the name they chose for their daughter because it did not comply with a rule specifying that the child must take the mother’s surname if the parents have different surnames.

According to the rule, when parents are unmarried, and have not taken a common name, it is not possible to give the child a middle name.

The father’s surname instead becomes the child’s middle name.

Thus, in the eyes of the Tax Agency, the toddler must be called Celina Schneider Cruz.

This bizarre rule about naming children in Sweden is not only weird, but it is also outdated. It dates from an older era during which naming conventions were the only way to trace ancestry in the event of a child born out of wedlock.

Now, of course, everything has changed. Recordkeeping is now done on computers and has been for at least a decade if not a quarter-century or longer. (I’m making an educated guess here. It’s hard to imagine any major government still doing paper-based data processing as late as 1999; it’s possible but unlikely very remote areas of Sweden weren’t yet using computers by then.)

Most of the commenters on the news article seem to agree; some have used some quite unsavory names to refer to the tax office. I hope this fine (SEK 2000, or about US$268) is overturned on appeal. And, that the IRS doesn’t start taking hints from Sweden.