The less said about the events of today the better. Let’s just say I haven’t seen that many self-obsessed pretentious teenagers since college, and let me remind Lyn that I still love her. Perhaps she should go here.

Today I had my first speech therapy lesson in over ten years. Well, it wasn’t really my lesson, as I wasn’t a student; more like a participant. I don’t think, however, that they’ve changed much: the aim of speech therapy, as far as I can gather, is to get one to communicate as much as possible. So, in my day, Mrs hickson and I used mostly to sit and talk, often about books. Today we played a version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? It was rather slow going – we were working with one boy who seems to be a reluctant communicator.

I’m already finding volunteering at school very rewarding. At the mo, I only go in for a couple of hours every two or three days, but I get the same kind of buzz I got from Onevoice – the buzz which comes with the feeling that you might be making a difference.

The subject of Islamic dress has cropped up again, and as uusual I found myself in two minds. Now, you all know my stance on clothing in general: people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. Hence Lyn and I have two tutus hanging on the wardrobe door in our bedroom!

But what about the burka or hijab? Naturally, if some people choose to wear them, Muslim or otherwise, it’s their choice. The only reservation I have is a practical one: in places where one’s face needs to be seen for identification, I think people should be obliged to take the head covers off. I guess this should also apply to things like hockey masks and zentai suits. Mind you, it also occurred to me that such clothing might be useful if one intended to break the law. But this is no reason to ban the things. In Japan and other places, people are increasingly going out in public in zentai suits where they are seen as figures of curiosity and fun; in a way it’s a form of performance art, something like having a life-sized plasticine figure walking down the street. If I have no objection to that, how could I possibly object to people wearing the veil?

In other words, while I can see the disadvantages to veils on the practical level, my urge to tolerate and celebrate diversity must win out: people should be able to wear what they want. But now we get to the really problematic bit: is it really a choice? In my more facetious moments, I sometimes think that, if it’s just about covering up, why don’t women wear zentai suits instead of veils? But that would defeat the point of trying to desexualise women’s bodies; I guess the point of veils is in part to prevent men from seeing women as sexual objects. But I sometimes think veils – especially the big black ones – objectify women in other ways. It denotes gender, making it impossible to see the person inside. You can’t see that person as an individual, but just as ‘a woman’, in a way, especially if there is a group of women in such veils. I sometimes see women wearing such things when I’m out with Lyn; having only just moved to London, I must admit to still feeling a little scared by the sight. On the other hand, you can say exactly the same about zentai suits: they can be said to turn people into objects, removing their identity; and some people are indeed scared by them.

Yet, as an atheist, I also worry that women are forced to wear veils and denied the freedom to wear what they want. Problem is, how can you tell whther they are given a choice – many Muslim women argue they chose to wear the veil to show their religious identity, in which case it is prescribed to them and, paradoxically not a choice. If this is so, then the difference between the full veil and the zentai suit is that one connotes fun and freedom, the other is repressive. The whole debate rests on whether it is a choice.

I fear I might be rambling here: I’m talking about things I might not fully understand, so I’ll leave it there.

I just came across this link, which I think you should all go watch. It’s another perspective on what I was blogging about yesterday, and one with which I totally agree. I’d like to dismiss such people as reactionary and paranoid, yet I cannot for I know they are right. There is an inherent danger in assuming some lifes aren’t worth living.

Btw, the person in the bandanna is Claire/Dennis, whom I have mentioned here before.

I was just watching the news. I’ve had quite a good day: I went into school to help with an ICT session. We’re starting to figure out my exact role there, but the staff seem rather eager for me to help. Anyway, I was watching the news item on the court case of the mum who killed her daughter who had ME.

I know I’ve blogged about this before, possibly more than once, but it still worries me. Of course, people have a right to do what they want, even kill themselves, but I worry that some person would take advantage of this case? Say someone is caring for a severely disabled person who can’t communicate, and decides they’ve had enough? they might claim that the person being looked after wants to end their life when they don’t. of course, there will always be ways of communicating – even wiggling one’s toe can form the basis of a system of communication – but my point is that this can be abused. Disability history is littered with abuses like this. I mean, how do we know such people really want to die? What if they lack the cognitive capacity to make such a decision, and are being coerced into doing so? It would be seen as condescending to have one rule for people with learning disabilities on this, and another for those without. Thus this ruling opens up a huge moral can of worms, and I feel rather uncomfortable about it.

I went exploring again today. Again, I tried to find the dome and again I failed. You’d think that it wouldn’t be hard to find, wouldn’t you? It’s big and ugly and looks like a huge white spot. But no! this time, though, I went along the previously mentioned Shooters Hill road and found the royal observatory? How incredible is that? I went in and took a look – it’s free! I didn’t do a very thorough tour, but it was amazing to see things like the ancient telescopes. I also wondered over the Greenwich meridian almost without noticing.

From there I went down the hill, to the national maritime museum. I have an affinity for ships and boats, but couldn’t find an accessible entrance. I was going to go further, but I noticed my battery had dropped a few bars, so I headed home. Next I’m going to figure out the busses, and maybe the tube; then virtually the whole of London will be my playground!

And I will find the damn dome one day.

I should probably have typed this up yesterday, but by the time I got in I was knackered. Even just three hours at school wore me out; I don’t know where my teacherfriends get their energy. Nevertheless, they want me to go back there on Monday afternoon, so I must have been doing something right.

I encountered quite a few things off extreme interest yesterday afternoon, but there isn’t much I’d want to put on here, not at this point anyway. They had the kids interview me for school radio, which was rather fun. One of the kids on the radio team seemed to be a born entertainer. They also showed me around the school: it is bigger and more laberynthine than Hebden, and very impressive. Yet it had the same ‘feel’ as Hebden – that special school feel I can’t describe. An oxymoronic feeling.

I’m looking forward to going back there on Monday. I just want to help, and I think the staff think I can be a positive rolemodel for the kids. Who knows – maybe I can teach them a few things.

I am now an urbanite. Well, kind of. For all my life I’ve lived in the country: the housing estate where I grew up – indeed, where I was born – backs onto fields. Three minutes driving in my chair would bring me to lanes and hedgerows and the smell of manure. Every day, growing up, my trip to school took me past fields full of cattle, sheep, or crops.

Yet now, I’m surrounded by miles of concrete and tarmac. I’m not complaining about this: in fact the prospect of exploring London excites me; but I find it odd to reflect on the fact that, for the first time in my life, I’m living in a place without a field or tractor in site. Even alsager campus was surrounded by farmland.

I’ve already taken my first steps into my latest brave new world. I’ve been making trips to the local shop and back, but the other day, armed with an electric door key so I could let myself back in, I set off on my first real voyage of exploration. We’re reasonably near the O2 arena, so I decided I’d try to find that. Lyn gave me directions, but I must have taken a wrong turn as I couldn’t find a pub I knew I needed to pass. Interestingly for history buffs, I did find Shooters hill road, which was strategically significant during world war two as it would have been the road the Germans would have taken into central London had they invaded.

Anyway, this afternoon we’re off to the shops – I need more cash – and tomorrow I start a voluntary post at a local school. I’ll let you guys know how I get on, and whether I see any cows.

this is just a quick blog to say that I’m safe and well in charlton. The last few days have been largely uneventful. I’m settling in okay; dad dropped my PC off this morning, as well as other essentials. I get the feeling todday just might be the first day of the rest of my life.

I am in two minds about blogging anything today. Tomorrow I begin my move to Lyn’s. all being well, I’ll live with her permanently, which means tonight is my last night living here. I was born here, in this house, so it’s kind of an odd feeling. It is, at one and the same time, both sad and exciting. I don’t want to reflect on it too much, so I’ll just send you here – it’s one of my favourite songs, and today it seems a good choice.

It is probably lazy of me to do this two days in a row, but I must say that this is probably the most inspiring bits of writing I’ve read in quite some times. It’s written by Clair Lewis, probably one of the leading lights of the disability rights movement. She writes how it takes courage to ‘be our best selves’, and not to bow to social pressures and simply be good little cripples. As I’ve written before, part of the reason why I love Lyn so much is because she has done just that: she had the courage to become the person she believes herself to be, not for any quazi-political reason, but because she refused to let social pressures get in her way. Lyn’s might be an extreme example, but to a lesser extent most disabled people feel a certain amount of pressure to conform to what society expects of us – to be meek and mild crips grateful for being allowed to live at all. We must overcome this feeling; we must stick up for ourselves, and show our true colours. Only then can equality be attained.

I have been reading steve graby’s site throughout today. I met steve a month or two ago, but have only just started reading his blog. While I disagree with some of what he writes – he can be too radical sometimes – most of what he writes is fascinating. His stuff on gender in particular made me think, and I like the notion of being nongendered or gender-neutral particularly interesting. This is not the same as actively crossing gender boundaries, but simply not associating with either gender, in a way approaching my stance on gender from the other end. While I like to negate the gender binary by crossing male/female lines (dressing up as a woman) he negates it simply by not recognising it. Anyway go here.

I caught dave CaMoron on the Andrew Marr Show earlier. Truth is, he doesn’t seem such a bad fellow – a nice approachable family man who used to play footie with chris evans. I also like the fact that he supports both the BBC and NHS, the two finest institutions of their kind in the world. Yet what I find unpalatable about the conservatives these days is that underneath the charm and spin lie the same old rigid values that have always been the hallmark of conservatism. On Friday I explored how liberalism is, from certain points of view, inherently contradictory: if you take it too far it actually becomes illiberal and intolerant. However, I didn’t mean this as a criticism of the philosophy: bearing such things in mind is an integral part of liberalism itself.

I think this is where it contrasts with conservatism as I perceive it. Whereas liberalism has the ability to perceive it’s own contradictions, conservatism is too rigid and dogmatic, especially in it’s American form. To conservatives, concepts like right and wrong are absolutes rather than subjective constructs. Hence we hear CaMoron talking about things like the family and austerity – his own pre-conceived ideals. Tories hold such things to be good, when in fact A) they are idealistic constructs and

B) there are many good examples of such things being repressive or destructive. The problem is, conservatism, unlike liberalism, cannot acknowledge the fact that it can be wrong.

I have been thinking a lot recently about liberalism, and what it means to be liberal. To me it means having an open mind, and being tolerant of different people and lifestyles. I like to think of myself as a rather liberal, open minded person – I think that, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, physically or otherwise, people should be allowed to do as they please. This, of course, stems from my belief that there is no such thing as ‘normal’, so any lifestyle is just as valid as any other.

This, on the face of it, seems a pretty simple philosophy. Yet, if you think aabout it, there are a few little inconsistencies and contradictions. How far can you take it? What, exactly, is harm? On YouTube one can find videos of all kinds of people: for instance, that’s where I found out about Jazz, a 7 year old girl who was born a boy, or Kim Petras, the worlds youngest post-operative transsexual. I view such phenomena in a positive light: although others may have reservations about such cases, transitioning between the genders has obviously made these young people happier, so I think it cool that they have been allowed to become the people they want to be. Needless to say, the same applies to my girlfriend. If living as the opposite gender, or in whatever lifestyle you want, makes you happy, then I say go for it.

But on the other hand, YouTube also has video clips of a girl who weighs 400 pounds, or rather used to before her diet. I must admit I feel pretty sickened at the fact that this girl was allowed to get so obese. One must ask yourself, however, what is the difference? Why is one behaviour okay, and another not? The girl in question claims she was addicted to food, implying that she was not in full control of her eating just as Jazz and Miss Petras did not decide to be transgender. Further, she obviously found happiness in eating, just as kim, jazz and Lyn find happiness in being who they are. Why is one behaviour right and another wrong? Of course, being so fat was causing her real problems: she was unable to walk due to her weight, and her heart was under aa great deal of strain. But one could also say there are substantial medical and social risks in transitioning too; and one can also point out, as a disabled person, that the ability to walk is not as great a thing as others might want one to believe. So why is one behaviour (at least nominally) condoned by society, but another condemned?

Those were, admittedly, two rather obscure examples, but my point is that there are contradictions which those that call themselves liberal must contend with. I’ve been thinking about islam recently, and indeed faith in general. I like to think that the UK is a pretty tolerant place where people from all over the world can come and find a safe haven. I don’t care what god you worship, or how you worship it. Yet what if a central principal of that worship actually contradicts that principal of tolerance? On YouTube (yes yes, I get most of my knowledge from YouTube these days) there are videos of people who apparently want to impose sharia law in the UK, or at least have areas where sharia law is enforced. As I understand it, sharia law is pretty intolerant; it demands women wear the hijab, and involves brutal punishments, or at least punishments we would find brutal. It seems incompatible with western liberal democracy.* as a tranny, I think people should be allowed to dress as they please; I also suspect that most of the women I know would fiercely object to having to wear a veil. Moreover, sharia in it’s strictest form involves capital punishment, which I find utterly repugnant. Thus there is a conflict between respecting the right to worship and the need to ensure everyone is held to the same laws. I should add too that this issue is not localised to islam – in some areas, for example, orthodox jewish law prevails. To me, it makes no sense to have one set of rules for one set of people, and another for another; surely if everyone is equal, they everyone should be held to the same laws. Similarly, why should one issue be dealt with one way and accomodated, and another be condemned by society?

This is further complicated by my atheism. I do not believe in any god or gods, just in the evidence I am presented with. Part of me feels that religion is just another divisive factor and so should be done away with. The same principals which brought me to liberalism – those of equality, justice, and evidence-based judgements lead me to believe society should be secular. If there is no consensus of faith, then the government should be faithless; but this would lead us to a Dawkinsian stance of assuming religion is bad and wanting to do away with it, which strikes me as rather illiberal. Thus we have a paradox – in order to respect everyone’s faith, we should assume no faith is correct, but then what’s the point of faith?

These contradictions trouble me; they puzzle me. The very principles which bring me to liberalism show me its shortcomings. Yet this does not mean liberalism is wrong: on the contrary: Liberalism also means being forever mindful that nothing is ever black and white.

*however, some scholars have argued that English common law was originally inspired by Islamic law. ”It has been suggested by several scholars such as Professor John Makdisi, Jamila Hussain and Lawrence Rosen[23] that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily (see Arab-Norman culture), and ”through the close connection between the Norman kingdoms of Roger II in

Sicily – ruling over a conquered Islamic administration – and Henry II in England”.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#English_common_law)

It snowed heavily last night, and I take it as a sign of old age that I am not overjoyed. In fact, it’s rather depressing. I need to get over to Crewe station to get my train ticket for London, but for the last two or three days that hasn’t been possible due to the snow. Of course, there was a time when I thought snow was wonderful stuff it meant days off school and snowball matches with my brothers. I remember trying to walk in it, half petrified of falling over, half eager to hit mark or Luke with a snowball. Indeed, Lyn has promised me a snowball match, and I’m more than willing to accept her challenge, yet I just whish some of it would clear so I can get to her. Until then, snow is just a damn nuisance.

This entry is a test to see if I can blog from this computer. I swapped machines over the weekend; my old computer – a trusty old warhorse I’ve been using since I started university – is now packed and ready to be taken to lyn’s. I should, with any luck, be blogging from there soon.

Looking back through the archive, it’s interesting to see how things have progressed, and how my attitudes have changed. For instance, I used to be pro-special schools, then, after meeting Becca and Katie, dead set against them. Now I feel I take a more cautious stance, as idealism must give way to pragmatism.

I’ve also tried to record the important things in my life – important events and happenings. Dad says this makes my site seem more of a diary than a blog. But I’d maintain that it’s important to present people with who I am; to show the world that a guy with c.p can be as active as anyone else, as foolish, as prone to boredom, or as selfish. I’ve just tried to bee honest, and to show the world who I am.

Well, when we manage to get a ticket, I’ll be off down to lyn’s, and the next chapter in my life will begin. I look forward to letting the world know how I’m getting on.

The decade turned rather dully for me I’m afraid. In the end I had to stay at my parents’, rather than going to Lyn’s for new year, and my parents don’t seem to celebrate new year. They were in bed before 12. oh well. Nevertheless, I’m excited at the prospect of the new year. What might 2010 bring? I start my trial period living with Lyn very soon – I’ve already started packing. When I’m there I hope to get a job. It seems I might finally be growing up.

Something tells me it’ll be a hell of a year. I can’t wait. Anyway happy new year everybody!