Digital Intuition

Shutting Down “Digital Intuition”

Today is my first official day as the Lead Developer at Fruitbowl Media, starting as a partner I’m going to be shutting down my personal brand of “Digital Intuition” (not that I really used it much in the first place) and start using my standard personal handle “msaspence”.

Open letter to Julian Brazier on the issue of gay marriage and his appearance on Newsnight

The episode of Newsnight that I make reference to was from the 15th March 2012 and can be watched (until the 22nd at least) on the iPlayer the part featuring Mr Brazier starts at around the 2 minute mark.

Dear Mr Brazier

I recently watched an episode of Newsnight, in which you were featured criticising the government’s plans for gay marriages. I am writing to express my disgust at your views on gay marriage; they are antiquated, discriminatory and offensive.

I recognise that you are elected not only to represent your constituents’ opinions but make decisions that are in their best interests. However on this issue you should only be representing their opinion. The fact you “have made [your] own mind up” is entirely irrelevant. There are no practical implications on crime, unemployment, the economy, child welfare or anything else for you to consider, it is solely an issue of principle and as such your public stance should be based entirely on public opinion and not your own personal beliefs.

You go on to defend this by stating that “all of the consultations you’ve had so far, all but one of them, have been against this measure”. I’m interested to know what kind of consultations you are referring to? Have you really been talking to the general population or have you been speaking to church leaders and your right wing supporters? How many consultations did you have with gay communities, with the people this actually affects? I would venture a guess that had you consulted a wider, more representative segment of your constituents you would have found, at least more, if not a majority support for gay marriages. In such a right wing constituency I could be wrong, but just the fact you haven’t consulted with the people actually affected by this issue, is an insult to your constituents and a mockery of your position as their elected representative.

The opinion of opposition voices should be considered largely moot, this proposition does not affect them in a practical sense, positively or negatively so why should their opinions outweigh those of the gay community upon whom this has a profound and positive impact. You are elected not only to represent the opinions of the majority but also to defend the rights of minorities. You don’t just represent the people who voted for you but also the people who didn’t.

You state “marriage is an institution that has served this country very well for nearly 2000 years, and I think we should change it at our peril”. Would you then also have proposed to keep slavery, an institution that served western Europe very well (in an economic sense at least) for thousands of years. What about suffrage? The rights of the nobility?

I agree with you that marriage is a fundamental right and an important part of our society. It should be protected, especially in these modern times where so many marriages end in divorce. But to defend the importance of marriage whilst maintaining that gays should not be allowed to marry is to say that they are not important enough. It is saying a gay relationship is less important, that a gay person is less important. It is discrimination and should not be tolerated.

Your supporters say that they already have civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are no more suitable than segregation of blacks in the US was. They had equal or similar rights and yet we find the idea of segregation, offensive and discriminatory. Relegating the union of gays to “civil partnership” is similarly discriminatory.

Does this change the definition of marriage? Yes, but it is a change for good, for a more tolerant equal society, and well overdue. You do not protect things by keeping them as they have always been; this only leads to them becoming stale and irrelevant. You protect them by nurturing them, evolving them.

I dare say this will fall on deaf ears, but it needed to be said if only to show that there are people in Canterbury who support the rights of others, that encourage tolerance and understanding, for whom you do not speak on this issue.

Matthew Spence Resident of St Dunstans Canterbury

Getting Behat to Beep When it’s Finished

Some times when you’ve got a big Behat test suite to run you want to go off an do other things. Which means you have to constantly check back on your terminal to see if its done. Wouldn’t it be better if the terminal beeped when it was done? Well using Behat’s hook its as easy as:

/**
 * @AfterSuite
 */
public static function beep(Behat\Behat\Event\SuiteEvent $event) {
    echo "\007";
}

If you are on a mac and are feeling particularly fancy you can do:

/**
 * @AfterSuite
 */
public static function beep(Behat\Behat\Event\SuiteEvent $event) {
    $params = $event->getContextParameters();
    $result = $event->getLogger()->getFeaturesStatuses();
    if (isset($params['announce_completion']) && $params['announce_completion']) {
        if ($result['failed']) {
            exec("say behat failed");
        } else {
            exec("say behat succeeded");
        }
    }
}

To enable the audio prompt go into behat.yml and add:

default:
  context:
    parameters:
      announce_completion: true

This allow you to enable on a profile by profile basis.