Angry Harry
Blog
Page3
Your Emails

Western men die some five years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health. Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys. Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media. Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety. 

They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place.

How is it possible, therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?

In what areas?

Where?

What a Piece of Sh*t is Man

The Trojan Horses Of Feminism

Fools And Feminists

Women - Weak and Pathetic?

Were Women Oppressed in the West?

Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture

Some BBC Propaganda Tricks

21/01/03 A National DNA Database? Civil liberties activists seem mostly opposed to the development of a national DNA database on the grounds that state officials might somehow be able to abuse ordinary citizens by using the data that would be contained in it. However, when one looks closely at their arguments, their fears seem mostly to be unfounded and any potential abuses of power that could be engaged in by people in authority could easily be prevented by maintaining proper safeguards. THE WHOLE PLANET would eventually benefit from even one national DNA database because of the huge resource that it would provide for those researching cures for diseases and the enhancement of human life. A national DNA database would allow medical scientists to increase vastly their understanding of the roles that genes play when it comes to every disease that there is - including those to do with ageing and mental health functioning. It would also help researchers to identify those who were at future risk and so allow preventative interventions to take place if appropriate. Indeed, given that the entire chemistry of the human body is affected by genes, the possibility of curing or preventing nearly all current medical ills with the help of gene-associated therapies is very high. The benefits for everyone would be enormous, and the massive amount of resources that are now currently needed to provide proper medical help to people could be reduced considerably. And these are just the medical benefits! But there are also huge benefits to be gained from the considerable reduction in crime that would occur if there was a national DNA database. After all, most crimes are committed by the same people - over and over again - and a DNA database would help to stop them in their tracks thereby saving everyone a huge amount of expense and misery. It would also help young boys to stop turning into 'bad' criminals because they would be caught at an earlier stage in their criminal careers. Everyone is affected by crime - if not directly, then indirectly, through the greater security measures that they have to take - or pay for - and through the terribly negative effects that crime has on everyone's psyche. With a national DNA database reducing crime, the size of the police force could be dramatically reduced and so could the whole of the criminal justice system. So, why are civil libertarians so scared of a national DNA database? How, exactly, do they think that state officials are going to use such a database to abuse their powers? After all, the fact that someone has access to a genetic database coded in 1's and 0's on a computer does not mean that they can actually create the DNA in a test tube and, perhaps, plant it somewhere. Indeed, if someone wants to plant someone else's DNA, say, at the scene of a crime, then this is already very easy to do. They simply need to obtain just a tiny sample of some small part of them and put it there! Further, it seems that most of the wrongful arrests and abuses of power carried out by police officers and lawyers occur because they are desperate to 'get a result'. A national DNA database would reduce dramatically this sort of pressure on them. Indeed, a national DNA database would make it far more difficult for those with power to abuse it. After all, the more that valid information is available, the less difficult it is to cover up one's tracks - state official or not. Civil libertarians often argue that a national DNA database would raise the specter of guilt. But the specter of guilt nowadays falls on to so many people precisely because there is so much criminality and precisely because police officers very often do not have enough evidence to pinpoint the real criminals. Of course, there would definitely be some abuses of power by a few of the relatively few state employees who would have access to a national DNA database. But, overall, such a database would actually reduce significantly the abuses of power that could take place by greater numbers of other state officials - and particularly so if proper safeguards were put in place.  Indeed, if civil libertarians fear that police officers could abuse their powers by having access to such a database then matters could easily be arranged so that police officers themselves did not, in fact, have any access to it. If every place at every time was being recorded somehow - DNA, CCTV, global positioning - or, let's just say that absolutely everything was recorded on film - then no-one would be able to get away with anything! - because it would all be recorded. And state officials would find it absolutely impossible to abuse their powers without being caught doing so.  And, quite simply, the closer that we get to this state of affairs, the safer from official abuse will everyone be. (It is important to note that just because events are being recorded, it does not follow that the events actually need to be monitored by people, or even their recordings retrieved. Perhaps, for example, access to any recordings would only be granted when serious matters were at stake.) The reduction in crime that a national DNA database would bring about would also save so many resources that governments could easily afford to spend a great deal of money in establishing independent bodies which had the sole duty of ensuring that abuses of power did not take place. And it is in this area where civil liberties activists should be devoting their energies. Further, from a political point of view, civil liberties activists also actually lose many supporters by arguing against the development of a national DNA database because it has the potential to provide such huge benefits to just about everyone. So, in summary, yes, a DNA database could certainly be used to help some people - particularly some state employees - to indulge in criminal activity. But it would prevent millions of other crimes. And, in fact, it would actually reduce the power of state officials to abuse ordinary citizens by a far greater amount than it would increase it. Further, the possibility that a few state officials - hundreds even - might, over time, abuse their powers through accessing a national DNA database pales into utter insignificance in comparison to the positively enormous amount of good that can be derived from it both in the area of crime reduction and in medicine. Civil liberties activists need to study this issue far more closely and, perhaps, try to look more into the future and less into their History books. Power is nowadays shifting all the time away from police officers, guns, soldiers, politicians and the state. It is definitely moving into the hands of technocrats, computer folk, scientists and thinkers. And it is the spread of information technology that is doing this. This is something that should be encouraged by civil liberties activists rather than thwarted by them. Finally, civil liberties activists should really start to think far more deeply about why it is that the setting up of a national DNA database - despite its huge potential for good - is not being actively and hotly pursued by many people who walk in the corridors of power. And the reason is simple. The more crime, chaos and mayhem that there is out there, the more power do they retain relative to everyone else.

Hi AH ... ... By supporting a national DNA database, you are supporting governmental tyranny. ... Regards V Hi V I could argue that it is **you** who is endorsing tyranny by trying to thwart measures that would help to prevent millions of crimes (some of them by state officials) and would also prevent millions of people suffering from terrible diseases.  And, for what reason do you do this? Simply because you fear that somebody in official circles, one day, might want to do something bad to YOU! Besides which, do you really think that the majority of people are going to worry about what the state **might** do to **some** people given the huge benefits that they would gain in the future from having their DNA on a database? CCTV, face-recognition, DNA analysis etc etc are already creeping up on us. Their implementation and development might be delayed by activism, but no-one is actually going to stop this. There is just far too much to gain by using such technologies. Now, civil liberties activists can either keep saying NO NO NO to every piece of new recognition technology - and not getting anywhere - always losing their arguments, bit by bit - or they can say RIGHT, let's have a look at this technology very closely and make damn sure that the citizens are protected from any abuses of  power that could arise from using it. In other words, those concerned about civil liberties should be saying YES to the technology, but demanding the means to be able to scrutinise most thoroughly its usage. Here, for example, is a credit card disaster ... It is a prime nightmare of the digital age: all of your personal information — credit card numbers, home address, Social Security number — stolen and passed around, or perhaps even posted on the Internet for anyone to see. link now defunct ... but do you really think that people are going to stop wanting to use their credit cards? Are they not amazingly useful devices for saving us time and helping the economy to flow? Are we going to step backwards and backwards in time to a cash-only economy? Do civil libertarians want us to ignore the benefits of technology because oftentimes informational systems might be abused? Do we get rid of computers because there are hackers? Of course not.  The way forward is clearly not to abandon credit cards, but to develop better safeguards. And opposing the creation of a DNA database is a bit like opposing credit cards. And my point is that we shouldn't be opposing either - because they are both extremely valuable information tools.  Instead, we should be demanding damn good safeguards. In the not-to-distant future, many more diseases will be preventable or curable through some form of treatment that interacts directly with the chemistry of the body. And whether it is cancer or the common cold, the DNA of a person will be very relevant to dealing with it. The more that we get to know about diseases and DNA, the more relevant to dealing with them will a person's DNA be seen to be. And there will come a point where people will be rushing to put themselves on a DNA database because it will provide them with a great deal of protection. For example, you can be certain that sometime in the near future wealthy folk will be paying most handsomely for their DNA to be stored in some private medical database so that they can be informed about developments that might affect the health of themselves or their families? Of course they will do this. And then poorer folk will demand such things. And, just like credit cards, it is going to happen. You mention Ruby Ridge and Waco etc as examples of governmental abuses of power. But these are absolutely piffling in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of serious violent crimes every year, and the millions of people suffering from debilitating diseases. And someone else mentioned the fact that American Social Security numbers can now be used for personal identification even though at the time of their creation the people were assured that this would never happen.  But I do not need convincing that governments can abuse their powers, that governments have abused their powers and that governments will continue to abuse their powers forever into the future if they are given the chance. My point is that if civil liberties activists join together and always create hell of a fuss over matters to do with freedom of speech, and always scream blue murder if they are denied access to information, and always create merry hell if people are prevented from communicating with others (see The Three Great Freedoms) then their activities will be focused on the three most important things that will prevent governments from abusing their powers. If everything that governments do can be properly scrutinised right down to the last detail then they cannot abuse their powers. And the same goes for everyone else who might abuse their powers. The key to preventing people from abusing their powers is to make information about their activities completely open to scrutiny. Period. End of story. There is no other way. In fact, the more powerful are people or organisations, the more scrutiny they should receive. Indeed, being subjected to more scrutiny should always be the price of gaining more power. And so when civil liberties activists keep droning on about CCTV, DNA, face recognition, ID cards, Homeland Security, TIA and goodness know what else - forever into the future with a brand new outburst every time that there is a new piece of technology - and we all start hearing, yet again, about Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Founding Fathers, I would say to them this. In order to protect themselves from those in power, the spread of information is the key. Let me give you an example. CCTV seems to be a problem for certain people. But one solution, for example, could be that wherever digital CCTV cameras are employed to monitor the streets or particular events - such as public demonstrations - perhaps the law should require them to feed the information that is captured and recorded not only to the police but also to some independent citizen-oriented bodies over which the police have absolutely no influence. Wouldn't this be the best way to satisfy civil libertarians and the police? As it stands, however, we have the state - the police - quite rightly saying that in order to do their job properly they must be able to gather detailed information so that they can prevent crimes and capture those who perpetrate them. And so they want to have CCTV. On the other hand, the civil liberties activists do not want CCTV because, quite rightly, they want to protect their liberties and also prevent the police from abusing the power that CCTV would give them. Both sides have good arguments. However, in my opinion, feeding CCTV information both to the police and to independent citizen-oriented bodies would solve many of the problems. Not all of them, but most of them. Indeed, such a system would protect both ordinary citizens and the police officers - who, one must point out, are not only very often the specific targets of assaults, but who are also on the receiving end of countless numbers of false allegations. But it is ordinary citizens who would gain the most. Let me put it this way: If you were taking part in a public demonstration being 'shepherded' by the police - i.e. the state - under which of the following circumstances would you feel the most secure? 1. No CCTV at all. 2. CCTV cameras feeding information only to the police department. 3. CCTV cameras feeding information to the police department and to independent citizen-oriented bodies. Look at these above three possibilities as a metaphor for what I am talking about in general when it comes to the need to spread information, and ask yourself which would make you feel the most secure; 1, 2 or 3? Well. With civil liberties activists continually arguing for number 1, we have, in fact, more or less ended up with number 2 - the very road to George Orwell's 1984 nightmare.  And the reason that this Orwellian nightmare is already happening (e.g. Homeland Security) is precisely because there are many strong arguments for number 2, but very few strong arguments for number 1 - well, at least, as judged by most people. And the reason that we do not get number 3 is precisely because civil liberties activists do not seem particularly keen to argue for number 3 - and so number 3 does not get argued for! But, in my view, number 3 above gives us the best chance for the future. a. It allows for the development of a technology that is extremely beneficial. b. It helps the state to carry out its function of maintaining law and order - something which most people want. c. It helps to protect the ordinary citizen from any abuses of power by the state - or, indeed, from others. d. It also helps to protect the police. Putting all this rather bluntly: Most civil liberties activists are actually bringing about the very nightmare that they fear the most! Yep. They are actually promoting it. And they are actually promoting this nightmare by failing to argue for number 3. However, as I keep saying, it is powerful people who have the most to lose from the further spread of information, not the ordinary citizen. And, as this dawns on the powerful, it is they who will start to try to block the spread of information. In fact, the 'backlash' from the powerful seems to have just begun! ... USA - Saying they feared government snooping against ordinary Americans, U.S. senators voted on Thursday to block funding for a Pentagon computer project that would scour databases for terrorist threats. Best wishes AH

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! I have received quite a few emails in response to my piece concerning the benefits of establishing a national DNA database. The vast majority came from Americans and, of these, absolutely all of them were negative! LOL! Well, as someone who runs a website which is pretty much devoted to lambasting governments for abusing their powers - particularly when it comes to discriminating against men - I am clearly aware that governments are not to be trusted.  And I demonstrably spend much of my life trying to point out this fact to whomsoever will listen to me. So, I was quite surprised at the volume of protest. Nevertheless, I still stand by my claim that, on balance, a national DNA database would turn out to be of tremendous benefit for people. Further, one could even argue that it is precisely because so many Americans are so fiercely determined to remain free from governmental abuses of power that one would never really have to worry too much about an American government being able to get away with very much by having access to a DNA database. One only has to look at the general furore currently being created over the way in which suspected foreign Islamic terrorist suspects are currently being treated in America to realise how difficult it would be, nowadays, for a US government to start mistreating its very own people on, say, the basis of their DNA.  Goodness me. Isn't it the case that even after the terrible tragedy of 9/11 the US airport security staff are not even allowed to target those who might be of a particular racial origin in their search for terrorists boarding planes?  Even white old women in wheelchairs are searched! Well, that's democracy at work. No way is the US government nowadays going to be allowed to pick on particular groups. Times have changed. And so has the technology. In my view, the most fundamental of safeguards against any governmental abuses of power reside in defending these three rights - freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology. Provided that people have these three rights, it is very difficult nowadays for democratic governments to abuse their powers for very long. And it is on these three rights that civil liberties activists should really focus.  But, returning to the specific issue of a DNA database, there are nine areas that I would like to address. Yes. Only nine! 1. A DNA database would have truly enormous benefits in terms of crime reduction and medicine. Surely it goes without saying that reducing or eliminating much of the damage that is done to everyone both by crime and by disease is an aim worthy of pursuit. And the further spin-offs from doing this would be just huge. And the fact that, in practice, some officials might be able to abuse their powers in some way and so cause harm to some individuals is utterly insignificant compared to the enormous benefits that could be brought to everyone by establishing - with proper safeguards - a national DNA database. 2. One way or another, the vast majority of people will end up actually demanding that information from their own DNA is analysed and stored in order to protect themselves in some way. For example, regular screening for various diseases such as cancer costs a great deal of money and time. In the not-too-distant future, as the medical technology keeps developing, and as the propensity to succumb to various diseases and deficiencies can be assessed with reference to DNA, people will get fed up with submitting their own DNA to various private laboratories in order to test for this, that, and the other, and they will simply say, "Please, just hold on to my DNA information and send me an email if there is something new that I ought to know about!" At first, independent companies will do this sort of thing. But, before long, poorer folk will start saying, "Hey, what about me? Doesn't my DNA get analysed? Why doesn't government take my DNA and save YOU, the taxpayer, a lot of money by checking out my genetic health propensities. Play fair guys." And then, perhaps, the government will be forced to step in to provide such people with a similar service - even if only to save themselves a large amount of dollars. Similarly, when the technology develops to the point where, say, a DNA identification can be made simply by sticking a finger on a screen - or something like that - people will start demanding that this sort of system is used to benefit them in some way. You don't want to queue at the airport? Then stick your finger on this so that we can identify you quickly. You don't want us to search your house and take you in for questioning in connection with that rape down the road, then stick your finger on this so that we can quickly eliminate you from our enquiries. People get hassled by officials mostly because they cannot be identified properly, not because they can!  And, given that the vast majority of people want to be protected from the negative consequences - stemming from both official sources and otherwise - of the nefarious activities of the few, they will eventually begin to see the advantages to themselves of having themselves easily and accurately identifiable in some way. And so they will demand such a thing. As another example, imagine two kinds of credit card machines. The first one is of the type that we have today. The second one requires you to stick your finger on the screen, and it can identify you perfectly. Which type of card would you want to possess in order to protect your money from card theft? Take the case of mobile phones. They can be used by the police to track individuals. But have the people refused to buy them because of this? No. They are sold by the million. The huge demand for mobile phones exists because they are so damn useful - even though the people who own them know that they can be tracked by using them. It is in this kind of manner that the people themselves will start to bring about the creation of DNA databases. They will find them useful - to protect themselves from crime, from disease and from hassle. And, eventually, they will demand such a system. 3. Bearing in mind the enormous damage that is done to so many people through crime and disease, it seems somewhat trivial, if not decidedly selfish, to try to thwart the development of a system that could prevent so much of this. Perhaps working on a cancer ward for a week or two would help to open the eyes of those who would oppose a DNA database to the very real suffering and despair of those who are ill and who are losing all hope - and there are millions of them. Perhaps working inside a prison for a week or two, or living in a crime-infested community, would help to open the eyes of those who would oppose a DNA database to how different things could have been if only the criminals could have been prevented earlier from embarking upon their criminal careers. Do we want to see millions of people every year in the west dying slowly from lung, bowel or breast cancer, and a host of other horrible diseases? Do we want to see more people having to live surrounded by more crime? (Powerful stuff, eh?) Somewhere in the future there will be created at least something like a national DNA database, because, bit by bit, the people will demand it. Perhaps being registered on this database will be optional for people, but, in the long run, they will probably be clambering to get themselves on to it. Why? Because by doing this they will be better able to protect themselves from crime, from disease and from hassle. Indeed, mothers will probably start demanding that their babies are registered with such a database as soon as they are born so that they can ensure the best protection for their offspring. But, yes. Some officials will attempt to abuse their powers in connection with such a database. And it is up to activists to keep their eyes open to make sure that they don't!   4. Our societies should be powering ahead with the development of medical science, communications technology and the spread of information. And though there are indeed dangers and difficulties that will need to be faced by doing this - and so caution is definitely extremely important - the alternative seems far worse.  As just one example, consider the dangers of allowing terrorists with future-created biological WMD's to wander freely throughout the country.  And don't just think about the 'disease' itself. Think also about the chain reactions. The panic. The fear. The breakdowns. The political repercussions. The possible retaliations. The turmoil. The implications for the future. These things are truly horrible. And then, before long, people will begin to beg for a DNA database so that terrorists are more likely to be identified and caught, and so that the scientists can come up with better ways to protect them. In order to avoid such a catastrophe, surely, we need to keep ahead in the race to understand the biology and to identify the 'enemies'?  And a DNA database is just the sort of thing that would help us to win the race in both of these areas. Indeed, there is far too much to gain by having an effective national DNA database for one not eventually to be created. Perhaps it is still too early to entrust any western government with such a database. After all, such governments still have far too much power. But their powers relative to the ordinary people are waning all the time. And this will continue to occur provided that people have freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology. As such, it would seem to be far more fruitful for civil liberties activists to spend their time considering the ways in which the information from such a database could be used inappropriately by officials, and about how this could be counteracted, instead of trying to block the development of such an extremely powerful and beneficial resource - particularly one that is, anyway, clearly creeping upon us, bit by bit. 5. USA Police here are so intent on catching a suspect in the slayings of four women that they have resorted to pulling over white General Motors pickup trucks and asking the drivers to submit to DNA tests. Such investigative methods have provoked protests from civil libertarians. Well, how's about civil liberties activists considering the civil liberties of the dead women, eh? - as well as the civil liberties of their loved ones. And what about the civil liberties of everyone who is, say, too frightened to go out at night because of such things? A national DNA database would almost certainly have helped to prevent the deaths of three of these women - if not all four of them, given that criminals such as these usually have a string of previous offences entailing violence. A national DNA database would also mean that all these truck drivers would not now find themselves being hassled into giving over their DNA. And so when civil liberties activists blindly oppose the creation of such a database one really has to ask them whose liberties, exactly, are they actually protecting? They are certainly not protecting the liberties of those who are the victims of serious crimes - or of future terrorist attacks - nor the liberties of those who will necessarily be harassed by officials who are eager to discover and capture the perpetrators of such crimes.  6. Power is always potentially dangerous. It can be used for good or for bad. And this is why it is so important that those people and those organisations that have power are continually monitored and scrutinised very closely indeed. If we can achieve this and ensure that people have freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology then there should be nothing to fear from a DNA database - or, indeed, from many other things that civil liberties activists are prone to complain about e.g. CCTV, face recognition, etc. If civil liberties activists stopped trying to block the accumulation of valid information and instead turned their attention to countering any possible abuse or unfairness that could take place as a consequence of it being obtained, they would get far more support from the public, and they would help pave the way for a vastly improved future. 7. Judging by the emails, the greatest fear surrounding a national DNA database is that, sometime in the future, a government might use it to label people in some way - and then do heinous things to them. But, in many ways,  it is already too late to worry about this. The DNA technology that could help governments to do such a thing is already here! DNA technology is spreading like wildfire all over the place, so what is to stop governments from abusing their access to DNA information right now!? Hmm. Let's consider some form of ethnic cleansing based on DNA. Well, at the moment, governments would certainly not be so accurate in their selection of ethnic targets in the first rounding up stage. For example, in Phase One of the operation, they could round up whomsoever they first thought were, say, 'gipsies' - or whatever group that they wanted to round up - and then, simply test their DNA. And then, in Phase Two of the operation, they could just take to the gas chambers the ones who had the targeted DNA. In other words, protesting against the construction of a national DNA database on the grounds that the government might use it to harm certain groups of people identifiable by their DNA is a bit like arguing that we need to shut the stable door even though the horse has already bolted. 8. Unless we eliminate across the world all DNA research and development, governments (and even terrorist groups) are already in - or very close to being in - a position to do big bad things with it vis-a-vis 'labeling' and ethnic cleansing etc And a national DNA database would help us to keep ahead in the race to protect ourselves - in very many ways. Putting this another way: Civil liberties activists need to ask themselves this question. Do we want the Americans and the free-speaking world to develop the greatest understanding of this very powerful technology, or would we prefer some other group to get ahead in the race for it - perhaps the Chinese or the Russians? Several months before 11 September, Australian scientists published a paper describing how they had unintentionally created a "supervirus" that, instead of sterilising mice as intended, killed every last one. Could this information help someone to create a human supervirus in the same way? Further, given the possibilities on the horizon when it comes to biological warfare, it is imperative that we get ahead in this particular game. 9. It is no use civil liberties activists burying their heads in the sand and trying to thwart the development of such a huge resource for good. DNA databases are eventually going to be developed right across the world. The people will demand them because so much good can come from them. And by opposing such databases, civil libertarians will simply drive people away from supporting their other very noble and worthwhile aims. Further, they will retard the relative progress only of their own countries by stirring up negativity toward such databases. Instead of running scared of this type of technology they should welcome it with open arms, take the bull by the horns, and make damn sure that it is only used for the good. But if they successfully demonise it in the eyes of the public, it will simply go underground and carry on being developed anyway - with other nations getting ahead. It is only 25 years ago that there were great fears concerning the growth of computer technologies in the workplace. People will be put out of work, they argued. There will be no jobs for anyone. We will all be disempowered. But just look at what tremendous good computers are doing for us. Over and over again throughout recent history, science and technology have completely revolutionised the way that we live for the good - from the printing of books, to the industrial revolution, to the development of computers and medicine. We live far better lives now than did all the generations that went before. We live longer, healthier lives, and we do not have to toil in such terrible conditions just in order to survive. Science and technology, on balance, have done us a tremendous amount of good. And they seem recently to have done this rather quickly. Civil liberties activists are mostly concerned to ensure that people are never mistreated by those who have power over them and they are also concerned to allow people to live their lives with as much freedom as possible - provided that their freedom does not encroach unjustifiably on the freedom of others. But disease and crime do very much restrict people's liberties and freedoms in very many ways. And a national DNA database could therefore easily help to achieve much of what civil liberties activists are actually clamouring for. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the expertise required to create, maintain and operate such a database will be found in medical scientists, computer experts, software programmers and biologists. Rarely are such people driven by politics or the need for power. And so, in some fairly significant way, such a database would represent a shift in power away from those whose work priorities usually involve violence or coercion.  And, of course, a very trivial example of this would be the fact that we wouldn't need so many police officers harassing the drivers of pickup trucks in their search for a serial killer - as per the article above - because they would have caught him ages ago. In other words, a DNA database would shift power away from the very groups of people - in this case, police officers - that civil liberties activists often fear the most.

 

When women were 'oppressed' ...









click a picture

Are you an intelligent person who believes that feminism is about 'equality'? If so, then please just take five minutes of your time to read the piece Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable and you will see that feminism is nothing of the sort. Far from it. It is one of the most malicious and destructive ideologies imaginable. Apply your intelligence for just five minutes, and you will surely see the truth about feminism for yourself.