So I was shocked the other day to read that the mother of a murder victim wants capital punishment reinstated. In case you haven't heard about this, look here: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/874313-mother-of-rebecca-aylward-calls-for-reinstatement-of-death-penalty
Now, of course it's tragic that this girl was killed, and I feel really sorry for her mother, but what will killing the killer achieve? Another wasted life, more mourners. He's done something very wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean all the people who love him will suddenly stop caring about him. If he died, that would just cause yet more people to suffer the way this woman clearly is.
I think this woman's statement is reactionary and emotional, not logical. She's in pain. But I have never been able to understand people who are for the death penalty. I mean, why should anyone have the right to decide who deserves to live and who doesn't? This boy made a mistake: he's a human being with friends and family, thoughts and feelings.
Killing because killing is wrong? What sense does that make? If a murderer had murdered another murderer, it would still be murder. So why should the state be allowed to murder people? What kind of sick, brutal message would that send to the public? In general, we need much more love and compassion in this world, and less hatred and violence.
This boy is not evil. No-one is all bad: no-one is born to be a criminal. Something must've gone wrong in his life to make him do that. There must be a deeper issue. People need to try and understand that.
I admit that our prison system could do with some reforming, but what we need is more compassion. We need to concentrate on rehabilitation, not just lock people up and then let them back out into the world with no way to cope. And we definitely shouldn't bring back the death penalty. I truly believe that as long as a person's alive, there is still a chance for them to become a good citizen, and we should never give up on them. What a waste to just kill off the people we decide have made too big a mistake.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Holidays Get Old Fast
You know, I made a big list of plans for the summer, and I haven't been following through with most of them very well. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, after a while, the summer holidays just feel really dull and I wish they were over. I just have so much time on my hands, and maybe doing more of my plans would help that, but I lose motivation.
I also really miss school. That might sound crazy, but I really like my school. It's very small and just about everyone knows each other: I consider most people in my class to be my unofficial family. There are only a few people from school who I don't miss, and only one of them is in my class.
That said, my official family and I are going away soon, so I think I'll enjoy that. That is not something I'd want to skip so I could go back to school. All in all, it's good to have a break, but summer feels too long sometimes.
I also really miss school. That might sound crazy, but I really like my school. It's very small and just about everyone knows each other: I consider most people in my class to be my unofficial family. There are only a few people from school who I don't miss, and only one of them is in my class.
That said, my official family and I are going away soon, so I think I'll enjoy that. That is not something I'd want to skip so I could go back to school. All in all, it's good to have a break, but summer feels too long sometimes.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Equal Love
There is a campaign that I feel very strongly about: the Equal Love campaign. http://equallove.org.uk/
This campaign is about marriage equality in the UK. In the UK, marriage is exclusive to heterosexual couples, and civil unions are exclusive to homosexual couples. They contain almost identical benefits, but Equal Love believes that it is still discriminatory, that it's like a form of segregation. The website explains it more thoroughly, but I would like to explain to you my feelings on their cause.
I am a lesbian, and I want to get married someday. In fact, I seem to have more positive feelings about marriage than a lot of my straight friends, not to mention stronger maternal urges. I sometimes daydream about my wedding day, and about having a family with my wife when I'm older. I have NEVER daydreamed about having a civil ceremony.
You may argue that it's basically just a name change, but that really does matter. Because when you think about it, WHY did they give it a seperate name for same-sex couples? What's the point of that? Well, let's look at the connotations of the two names.
When people say the word marriage, certain images come to mind. White dresses, rings, roses, but more importantly, a loving couple who promise to be together forever. The concept of marriage is seared into the public conscioussness as being very romantic and beautiful.
The phrase civil union, on the other hand, has a very different feeling to it. It's very legal and formal: you'll probably think of a courthouse before a church or any other place. Actually, just saying that, same-sex couples in the UK can't have their civil ceremonies in places of worship, which is unfair for more concrete reasons, but that's more in the public eye, and may change soon. It seems like the issue I'm discussing isn't seen as important because it's "just a name".
But the only reason I can see for that name difference is homophobia. It's an attempt to support the idea that homosexual couples are somehow not as loving, monogamous or real as heterosexual couples, and that we don't deserve to be part of a tradition that has come to represent true love in so many people's minds the world over. It's a symbol of our oppresion and inferiority in society.
But we are not inferior. Love between two men or two women is just as good as love between a man and a woman. I don't care what anyone says, outright or discretely: I will never stop believing that. Sometimes I feel like I'm inferior to straight people, but logically, I know I'm not. Sometimes I feel so very lonely, because I'm surrounded every day by straight people. Sometimes the days just pass by as I sit wishing I was someone else. And this distinction between marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homsosexuals is only encouraging that. Words hurt. They can hurt more than the biggest bleeding wound. If you agree with me, and you're a UK resident (sorry, just the rules), sign the petition at the Equal Love website.
This campaign is about marriage equality in the UK. In the UK, marriage is exclusive to heterosexual couples, and civil unions are exclusive to homosexual couples. They contain almost identical benefits, but Equal Love believes that it is still discriminatory, that it's like a form of segregation. The website explains it more thoroughly, but I would like to explain to you my feelings on their cause.
I am a lesbian, and I want to get married someday. In fact, I seem to have more positive feelings about marriage than a lot of my straight friends, not to mention stronger maternal urges. I sometimes daydream about my wedding day, and about having a family with my wife when I'm older. I have NEVER daydreamed about having a civil ceremony.
You may argue that it's basically just a name change, but that really does matter. Because when you think about it, WHY did they give it a seperate name for same-sex couples? What's the point of that? Well, let's look at the connotations of the two names.
When people say the word marriage, certain images come to mind. White dresses, rings, roses, but more importantly, a loving couple who promise to be together forever. The concept of marriage is seared into the public conscioussness as being very romantic and beautiful.
The phrase civil union, on the other hand, has a very different feeling to it. It's very legal and formal: you'll probably think of a courthouse before a church or any other place. Actually, just saying that, same-sex couples in the UK can't have their civil ceremonies in places of worship, which is unfair for more concrete reasons, but that's more in the public eye, and may change soon. It seems like the issue I'm discussing isn't seen as important because it's "just a name".
But the only reason I can see for that name difference is homophobia. It's an attempt to support the idea that homosexual couples are somehow not as loving, monogamous or real as heterosexual couples, and that we don't deserve to be part of a tradition that has come to represent true love in so many people's minds the world over. It's a symbol of our oppresion and inferiority in society.
But we are not inferior. Love between two men or two women is just as good as love between a man and a woman. I don't care what anyone says, outright or discretely: I will never stop believing that. Sometimes I feel like I'm inferior to straight people, but logically, I know I'm not. Sometimes I feel so very lonely, because I'm surrounded every day by straight people. Sometimes the days just pass by as I sit wishing I was someone else. And this distinction between marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homsosexuals is only encouraging that. Words hurt. They can hurt more than the biggest bleeding wound. If you agree with me, and you're a UK resident (sorry, just the rules), sign the petition at the Equal Love website.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Second Chances?
Hi, this is my first blog post here, and I'm afraid it will have to be about something quite controversial: the UK riots.
Now, I live in the UK, so I've been surrounded by news about this for several days. Of course, I do not condone the actions of the rioters; I am against violence in all its forms; however, I do feel that most politicians and the general public seem to lack understanding towards these people, which I find very sad. As most people will know, the many of these rioters were teenagers and sometimes even younger than that. Some are really just children. And there are real issues at work here, causing things like this to happen.
As a teenager myself, I do not believe that most youths in the UK are content at the moment. I am certainly not. I have never been very trusting of politicians, and I am even less so now. I realise that the economy is in a bad state, but the cuts are hitting the most vulnerable people the hardest: the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, etc. Money is being denied to people who need it most, while it is common knowledge, but rarely considered, that there are many people in this country and all around the world who have much more money than they could ever need. Famous people, CEOs, that type of person.
We have a minimum wage. Why can't we have a maximum wage? I believe that would make things fairer. Also, I don't think that it's actually very healthy to have too much money. It will dissassociate people from the reality of the average person's life. I think the politicians are generally quite far removed from the average person's life. Most of them seem to be middle-aged, well off men. I think it's fair to say that most politicians certainly cannot connect with the average teenager's life.
They do not have to worry about whether they have a future, whether they'll get the right education, whether they can be supported by the state if they cannot support themselves. You know, I'm a teenager in a family on benefits. I am so sick of worrying both that I don't have a future, and about what people think of my family. There is a lot of hostility towards people on benefits at the moment: some people seem to think that my parents are lazy, that it's an easy way out. It's definitely not like that.
These people have no idea how hard my father tried to get back into work. He has very genuine disabilities, and it came to a point where he just couldn't handle it anymore. My mum is his official carer, as well as mine: I have Asperger's Syndrome with anxiety issues.
That may have seemed a bit off-topic, but it's very important to me, and I think these issues have all contributed to feelings of alienation amongst young people, which may have played a part in the riots. I'm not saying these issues affected all the rioters, and I am definitely not saying they cover all the reasons. I think it is very complicated, and it will vary from person to person.
But I think people are often forgetting that all thise started with a peaceful protest against the shooting of a man by the police. And I don't think enough people actually know that this protest started to turn violent after a 16-year-old girl was beaten by the police. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UK+riots+girl+beaten&aq=f This link is just to search results for this issue on YouTube, because the first option said that viewer discretion is advised, and I want people who click to have the choice to watch a less graphic video if they want more information.
I already said I didn't trust politicians, but this police issue really shocked me. The police are in charge of our safety, our very lives at times: if we can't trust them, what are we to do? Of course, many of the police would never do anything like this, and are very much worth trusting, but this does still shake me quite a bit. I'm 17, only one year older than that girl. It's a scary thought.
Sorry for going off on tangents, but I felt they were important and fairly relevant tangents. Back to my original point. I am angered by this suggestion for treatment of the rioters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14527402
These are clearly troubled people. Sometimes society can get too much for just about everyone. If you don't have a positive outlet, you will find a negative outlet. I know, I've done it myself. I have self-harmed before. Sometimes, you lash out at people. I lashed out at myself. Sometimes, people get violent with others. Taking away their benefits will solve nothing. It will simply diminish their chances for a good, healthy, non-violent life, and let's be honest, if someone's been looting already, and then you remove their source of money, that will just encourage more looting.
Maybe people are right when they say that some of these people were simply having fun. Even then, if you can take pleasure in harming people and their property, you must have a problem. I don't believe anyone is fully good or bad, and I don't believe people are born to be criminals. There must be something in their lives that's affecting them to make them react in this way. What they need is help. Benefits aren't taken away from criminals usually, and denying them just in this one case is simply reactionary. Serious criminals should be given a chance to be rehabilitated, and that applies to anyone, not just the rioters. I truly believe that everyone deserves a second chance, and that society should never just give up on an individual.
Now, I live in the UK, so I've been surrounded by news about this for several days. Of course, I do not condone the actions of the rioters; I am against violence in all its forms; however, I do feel that most politicians and the general public seem to lack understanding towards these people, which I find very sad. As most people will know, the many of these rioters were teenagers and sometimes even younger than that. Some are really just children. And there are real issues at work here, causing things like this to happen.
As a teenager myself, I do not believe that most youths in the UK are content at the moment. I am certainly not. I have never been very trusting of politicians, and I am even less so now. I realise that the economy is in a bad state, but the cuts are hitting the most vulnerable people the hardest: the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, etc. Money is being denied to people who need it most, while it is common knowledge, but rarely considered, that there are many people in this country and all around the world who have much more money than they could ever need. Famous people, CEOs, that type of person.
We have a minimum wage. Why can't we have a maximum wage? I believe that would make things fairer. Also, I don't think that it's actually very healthy to have too much money. It will dissassociate people from the reality of the average person's life. I think the politicians are generally quite far removed from the average person's life. Most of them seem to be middle-aged, well off men. I think it's fair to say that most politicians certainly cannot connect with the average teenager's life.
They do not have to worry about whether they have a future, whether they'll get the right education, whether they can be supported by the state if they cannot support themselves. You know, I'm a teenager in a family on benefits. I am so sick of worrying both that I don't have a future, and about what people think of my family. There is a lot of hostility towards people on benefits at the moment: some people seem to think that my parents are lazy, that it's an easy way out. It's definitely not like that.
These people have no idea how hard my father tried to get back into work. He has very genuine disabilities, and it came to a point where he just couldn't handle it anymore. My mum is his official carer, as well as mine: I have Asperger's Syndrome with anxiety issues.
That may have seemed a bit off-topic, but it's very important to me, and I think these issues have all contributed to feelings of alienation amongst young people, which may have played a part in the riots. I'm not saying these issues affected all the rioters, and I am definitely not saying they cover all the reasons. I think it is very complicated, and it will vary from person to person.
But I think people are often forgetting that all thise started with a peaceful protest against the shooting of a man by the police. And I don't think enough people actually know that this protest started to turn violent after a 16-year-old girl was beaten by the police. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UK+riots+girl+beaten&aq=f This link is just to search results for this issue on YouTube, because the first option said that viewer discretion is advised, and I want people who click to have the choice to watch a less graphic video if they want more information.
I already said I didn't trust politicians, but this police issue really shocked me. The police are in charge of our safety, our very lives at times: if we can't trust them, what are we to do? Of course, many of the police would never do anything like this, and are very much worth trusting, but this does still shake me quite a bit. I'm 17, only one year older than that girl. It's a scary thought.
Sorry for going off on tangents, but I felt they were important and fairly relevant tangents. Back to my original point. I am angered by this suggestion for treatment of the rioters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14527402
These are clearly troubled people. Sometimes society can get too much for just about everyone. If you don't have a positive outlet, you will find a negative outlet. I know, I've done it myself. I have self-harmed before. Sometimes, you lash out at people. I lashed out at myself. Sometimes, people get violent with others. Taking away their benefits will solve nothing. It will simply diminish their chances for a good, healthy, non-violent life, and let's be honest, if someone's been looting already, and then you remove their source of money, that will just encourage more looting.
Maybe people are right when they say that some of these people were simply having fun. Even then, if you can take pleasure in harming people and their property, you must have a problem. I don't believe anyone is fully good or bad, and I don't believe people are born to be criminals. There must be something in their lives that's affecting them to make them react in this way. What they need is help. Benefits aren't taken away from criminals usually, and denying them just in this one case is simply reactionary. Serious criminals should be given a chance to be rehabilitated, and that applies to anyone, not just the rioters. I truly believe that everyone deserves a second chance, and that society should never just give up on an individual.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)