The Funny Farm

Scrolling across the screen of the Slimp3 player this morning was the news that our venerable Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, thinks that Canada's ethnic diversity would protect her from terrorism. It doesn't even need any comment really does it? But I can't help myself. Britain is ethnically diverse Stephen and we have lived with terrorism and later the threat of it for years and years. And...where exactly is the logic in that statement anyway? When Britain was attacked last year on the 7th of July, the terrorists were our own people, ethnically diverse if you please.

Now last year, I do remember a case which was reported in the paper of a Sikh boy who was fighting for the right to wear his ceremonial dagger to school. He promised he wouldn't hurt anyone, and then some argy-bargy about whether the ceremonial dagger was really a blunt instrument or was in fact a fully functioning dagger for killing people. Anyway, what everyone was reminded of was the the Sikhs are the warrior offshoot, some say caste, of the Hindu faith. So maybe Stephen means that should terrorists strike, the Sikhs would rise up and do the right thing. Interesting idea Stephen, even if it was mine not yours.

Meanwhile, in Britain, in some kind of completely Frodo-unrelated mouth-frothing insanity, parents, granted not that many, are squinnying because their little darlings are being denied the right to wear their purity pledge rings to school. *Voice of Golum*
'Your precious won't protect your precious's precious.'
You got it, you apply to go to a particular school, you agree to the rules, including the school uniform and then you want to change them. I applaud the schools for upholding common sense against these idiots. Research in the US has already shown that the behaviour of those that take this 'pledge' is much more likely to result in unsafe sex than that of pupils who have experienced the now long-established sex education programmes in schools which attempt to teach young people that when they are legally old enough to have sex, they must feel comfortable about it and all that goes with that.

The people at the front of this discussion have an underage daughter anyway. All she needs to do is let the Marks and Sparks age label hang out of her jumper. She's not abstaining from sex because of some loony purity promise, it's because she's 15 and the law doesn't allow it. Of course I'm not suggesting that no-one under 16 has sex, just saying that there is no need to make a song and dance about it, otherwise we'd all be wearing huge great T-shirts with every law of the country we're living in printed on them to show that these are the laws we're not breaking.

On the other hand, Britain is also re-thinking its policies about IVF treatment. It has discovered that it needs new people to sustain the economy, probably from reading my blog I would think, and that maybe IVF should be offered free to everyone who wants it.

So...later today, Sven's men meet Sven's neighbours - I'm assuming Sven is Danish, if he's actually Swedish then I suppose that Sven's men meet Sven's countrymen. We live in interesting times.

Now, it was kayaking that Lori said we were doing today wasn't it? Not karaoke......