The government and various MPs have been making quite a hash of a number issues recently, not that one should expect anything else.

First, there have been calls to force parents to allow MMR vaccination of their children by refusing them education. Whilst this measure might increase vaccination rates, it would be absolutely morally bankrupt and would end up causing a huge amount of resentment in the (sadly quite large) minority of people who bought into the scaremongering bullshit over MMR. If a parent really doesn't want their child to be vaccinated, then refusing the child an education isn't going to help much. They should certainly be told that they're wrong, encouraged to vaccinate their child as much as possible, and if necessary be called idiots and bad parents; but these aren't jobs for the government. Doctors, scientists and the press should be extolling the virtues of vaccination at every opportunity, and explaining why the jab is safe and effective. Bullying people into having their kids vaccinated goes past even the normal British nanny-statism, and gets into a pretty scary place.

Next up, the Medical Research Council is opposing scientists' plans to march on the house of commons in order to support stem-cell research, describing them as "counter-productive". What a ludicrous statement. There's a large number of people who don't properly understand stem-cell research or are opposed to it for (usually rather incoherent) philosophical reasons, including some MPs, and it seems to me the best way to remedy that is through public action, such as media appearances, letter writing, websites and demonstrations. It seems that the best people to explain scientific issues are usually scientists. As such, a demonstration by scientists is a pretty damn good idea. Luckily, it seems that the scientists are undeterred, and Evan Harris MP (who recently managed to repeal the UK's blasphemy laws, and is one of very few politicians I wouldn't feel dirty voting for) is supporting them.

In case you hadn't heard, "extreme" pornography is now illegal. Liz Longhurst, the woman who campaigned for this law, says "Sometimes the freedoms of like-minded, decent people have to be curtailed because of a few others". I find myself completely unable to sympathise about the death of her daughter after reading that. Yes, it's very sad when an insane person decides to live out their fantasies, but that doesn't give anyone a right to decide what is and isn't okay for other people to view. She's gone on an absurd moral crusade (although she rejects the term), because she believes her daughter would still be alive today if it weren't for violent pornography, instead of blaming the actions of a dangerous nutjob (who is now in jail). Even if you're willing to sacrifice freedom for perceived security (and if you are, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, you're a moron), banning violent pornography isn't going to make the situation worse, if everything. Studies suggest that access to pornographic material decreases the incidence of sex crimes by providing a release for urges. One of the main problems with this bill is the rather loose wording when it comes to exactly what constitutes "extreme". Who gets to choose where exactly comparatively mainstream bondage porn "appears to threaten a person's life". Does "appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal" include furry porn? Of course, most people are willing to bleet along about how repulsive it all is, and how those perverts should be hanged, and most of those who actually realise that their liberties are being encroached upon are doubtless scared of being labeled a pervert. Ever been on 4chan or gotten a pop-up you really didn't want to see? Better delete your browser cache now, or else the police might come knocking. Spiked has more on the issue.