Harry the Prince of Party

Oh, Harry, Harry, Harry.
He's only third in line for the throne, so he may aswell be first to get his wang out? You only live once? Between him famously dressing as a Nazi desert soldier, complete with swastika (*facepalm*) and, more recently, flashing his crown jewels in Vegas, what is our verdict on the ginger prince?
Aged twelve, Prince Harry lost his mother. His mother who was philanthropic and emotional. His mother who, also, left his father and was unhappy in their relationship. Left to be raised by his rigid, collected father, the question of who he would more resemble in his character is still undecided.

Harry in Lesotho where he and William established a charity in 2008

He really is two sides of a royal coin. His charitable work in Lesotho with HIV affected children is an image of his mother, but his swastika- brandishing leaves somewhat to be desired. Recently, it appears the prince partied damn hard in Vegas with like-minded ruffians. They had a jolly olde time and he flashed his bits, something I regularly witness medical students doing down Oxford Road. However, unlike the medical students who can just squint through the hangover, untag themselves on facebook and swear it won't happen again (until the next time), Harry has to contend with national newspapers circling around him like the morning alcoholics in Wetherspoons.

The Sun published an image of him in the nuddy and titled the front cover:
'Heir it is!'
'Pic of naked Harry you've already seen on the internet'

Never has their been more interest in a 20-odd year old stripping off. The Sun claims that the people of Britain had the right to know what the man third in line to the throne had been doing. They also claimed that they believed it wrong that the press shouldn't be free to publish the images. Indeed they should be free to do it, the press should be unaffected by the Royal Family's wishes and information should be free to share. However, we already knew what had happened, because the Sun had already told us, they didn't necessarily need to show us. It's right that they should be able to show the images, but they didn't have to show them. It is in the public's interest to know what Harry is doing, but publishing the images is in the Sun's unique style of bad taste. 

Harry is the Mayor of Funkytown

As far as the Sun 'morally' defending the right's of free press, Murdoch has a warped view on the matter, seeing as hacking and tapping do not constitute 'moral' methods of freeing information to the press. I am not a royalist, and it doesn't bother me what Harry gets up to in Vegas. He could marry a naughty nun, a confused King or gamble with a giant Mexican and, yes, it might be good to know, but freedom of press doesn't always necessarily mean brandishing the images. The Sun has received numerous complaints about their publication of the image, not from the Royal Family, but from readers. Some may have complained believing it was wrong of the Sun to publish the image, and some may just not have enjoyed choking on their cornflakes over Harry's starkers body. Although it may be in the public's interest to know of Royal Vegas parties, the public is not necessarily interested.

Supernatural Wombs? Bad Sexual Etiquette? Would you Like me to be the Cat?

I believe one of the main problems with the 'rape question' is that it is viewed as some form of surreal, abstract mental offence, rather than a physical offence. It is a physical crime. A punch is a punch, theft is theft, rape is rape. Rape has nothing to do with relationship problems, or who's a slut and who's not- it really is very simple. Rape can be defined by a sexual act performed without the consent of one of the parties.

If a woman is asleep, she is not consenting. If she is unconscious, she is not consenting. Just because she is wearing a red mini skirt, this does not mean that she is consenting.

Considering the current case of Julian Assange, most of the controvercy originates from what people actually constitute as rape. Who knows what really happened in the beds that Assange and the two plaintiffs shared, but if events unfolded as the women described, it is more than 'bad sexual etiquette'. Yes, George Galloway has really delivered us a golden line. He has worked on the assumption that, when a woman invites a man to her bed once, he has a green light to have sex with her whilst she sleeps. Husbands can rape wives, the relationship is irrelevant. This is a fact that George Galloway has carelessly ignored.

Another offender: Todd Akin claims that in cases of 'legitimate' rape, the female body has ways of preventing pregnancy.  Experts have confirmed that rape does not change the female reproductive system.

"Would you like me to be the cat?"

What on earth does an old, Scottish bloke know about 'sexual etiquette'? How can he possibly be an authority on rape or women's bodies? If, in a different circumstance, a man was the victim of rape, perhaps George Galloway would find the topic too close to home, and wouldn't have spoken out. This is the man who cosied up to Saddam Hussein, the man who went on Celebrity Big Brother, the man who, whilst on this show, donned a catsuit and imitated a cat. I am NOT going to consider his 'sexual etiquette' as one to be followed.
Regardless of the specific case of Julian Assange and the sexual assaults alledged to have happened in Sweden, we should be clear on rape. Maybe more women should be involved in the legal and social analysis of sexual assaults against women, rather than ignorant blokes like Galloway.

Shafilea- Who is Implicated?

Shafilea was only 17 when she was murdered.

The shocking reality of Shafilea Ahmed's murder is difficult to convey, and perhaps strangest is that condolences can't be offered to her parents- because she is dead because of them. We speculate as to the reasons why she was killed, but realistically all we can do is guess at a look through such a closed community. What brings a parent to kill their own child? How can such an unnatural act be explained? On the night of Shafilea's murder, the argument began because she had come home from work wearing trousers, a t-shirt and a hooded cardigan. Hardly rebellious in Britain, but I understand how the outfit differs from traditional muslim dress. Yet, how could they raise their children in Warrington and expect them not to be influenced by their peers at school? Shafilea's dreams were to study at university and become a lawyer- again, hardly disgraceful. Plenty of parents would be full of pride if that was their daughter's aspiration.

Yet, the Ahmed's killed their daughter. Farzana Ahmed was seen preparing sheets of linen and rolls of tape earlier in the day, and her husband stuffed their eldest daughter's mouth with a plastic bag after Farzana said that they should finish it there. All their other children bore witness as Shafilea's eyes widened in shock and her legs stopped kicking. Her father, Iftikhar Ahmed, then drove her body deep into the Lake District where it wasn't found until February 2004, around 5 months after her murder.

Murder shouldn't be a matter of the home, but it seems that in the Ahmed's case it was exclusively so. The thing that is so difficult to determine is whether Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed are just killers and chose their daughter, or if, had Shafilea never pushed their religious and cultural boundaries, the Ahmeds would never have killed. I lean more towards thinking that the Ahmeds would not have killed unless under this circumstance. So, how could their own misconstrued sense of community and 'honour' be more powerful than the love of their own child? Iftikhar himself had previously been married to a Danish woman and had a child with her, his marriage to Farzana was his very own arranged marriage. Described by one of the nurses who treated Shafilea after she had drank bleach as a cry for help in 2003, the family was 'loveless'. Perhaps Iftikhar and Farzana saw their children as a mere extension of their unhappy marriage and thought the only way they could make them happier was by bringing them 'honour' in their community.

It has taken almost ten years for Shafilea's parents' conviction

 The entire topic lays an egg shell floor. Her murder goes hand in hand with her community. Or does it? Is it just the parents or is it the religion? How can we know when we are afraid to even ask the question? I'm sure many muslim families would be deeply offended at the suggestion that they could kill their children in the name of warped community reputations. Yet, why else did the Ahmeds kill their daughter if not for that very reason. As one Guardian article claims, this is a crime meshed in migration and modernity- but unlike the article proceeds, Britain cannot be implicated. Farzana and Iftikhar hate all 'western' concepts- how can you build on or interfere with that? They live in and raised their children in a country they despise- and that is why Shafilea was murdered. How can they have expected to have everything? To live in better conditions in the 'west', yet demand their daughters followed the archaic rituals of arranged marriage and housewifeship? Their failings as loving, understanding, caring parents are glaringly obvious, regardless of their religion/ culture, yet their crime was because of their religion and culture.

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"

"Everywhere I go I be followed by six hoes"- Chris Brown, 'Don't Lie'

If an ordinary man, let's call him John Smith, savagely beat a woman and was convicted in court of the offence, his criminal record would be tarred forever. If, in future, he applied for a job, our John Smith would frankly not be given a chance. The large majority of employers wouldn't give his job application a second glance if he had a criminal record- particularly considering the offence.

Yet Chris Brown enjoys a net worth of over $24 million (therichest.org) and is topping the charts. As I have previously written, immediately after the crime was commited, Brown was publicly abhorred and many radio stations refused to play his music. However the only things that have changed since then is; time has passed, and Chris Brown has done some token community service.

Indeed!

In the media the entire affair is treated like a standard 'choose your celeb' Hollywood feud. Remember when Brad and Jennifer split? Did you pick a side? Brennifer or Brangelina? Well, this isn't like that. Rihanna was a victim of domestic abuse and Chris Brown commited a legal and moral crime. As far as separating the man from the music- this just isn't possible, particularly in a music genre which is based solely on image rather than musical capability. The man is the music. George Osborne is his policies, Joey Barton is his football, Chris Brown is his music. Artists the likes of Marilyn Manson are unjustifiably heckled for being bad role models, whilst Brown is hailed. Chris Brown sets a good example to neither boys or girls. Boys learn that beating a woman doesn't prevent you from being surrounded by them and from making millions singing about how well you treat them. Girls learn that men who abuse women still deserve to have their music danced to and receive sexual favours.