A subject that doesn't really affect me, but still annoys the shit out of me.
I see that Neil and Christine Hamilton have been exonerated of all wrongdoing today. Well, not *all* wrongdoing obviously, but certainly they can now hold their heads up high and say in a strong and clear voice "We are not rapists! Corrupt liars and thieves we may be, but rapists we are not!"
Of course, were it not for a silly bitch screaming "Rape" in the name of earning a fast buck, I would not have been placed in the lamentable position of having sympathy for a couple whom I regard as a decaying and slightly smelly blood clot on the tampon of life. Nadine Milroy-Sloane, the woman who made the accusations, has gone on record as saying that she is "devastated". I can hardly blame her; not only has she had all of her assets frozen and not only is she doomed to financial ruin (because the Hamiltons will pursue her in the courts in an effort to find the cash to pay off their rather sizable debts to Mohammed Al Fayed) but she has managed to strike a blow for rapists everywhere. Now a man can rape away to his hearts content, safe in the knowledge that the actions of just one brain-dead money whore has ensured that the 1 out of every 10 rape victims who are courageous enough to report what has happened to the police will think twice before doing so. After all, they're already putting themselves forward for the humiliation and pain of reliving the experience in a police interview room and in court. The additional incentive of the very people whom are fighting your corner wondering at the back of their minds whether or not you are making it up for reasons of your own gives that extra frisson of horror to the whole experience. God bless you Miss Sloane; your complete lack of anything even remotely resembling a scruple will ensure that wherever a sexually inadequate, violent man and a woman are gathered together with no witnesses, the man will surely bless your name and actions.
However, one thing that the Hamiltons have raised during their numerous media briefings is how disgusted they felt that their accuser could remain anonymous whilst they were paraded around for all to see (the fact that it was they who caused and propagated the media circus by their daily updates to anyone who'd listen seems to have passed them by...). As such, they have called for a change in the law to remove the right of anonymity for the victim. This is, of course, an extraordinarily bad idea. Possibly it's the only thing that is would cause more rejoicing among the rapist community than the actions of Miss Sloane. However, it does raise one thing concerning our rape laws; their paternalism. That is to say, the fact that they favour women but only by treating them like sweet little things whom, if their DNA were to be mapped, would be found to contain sugar, spice, and all things nice.
As the law stands, the accuser is granted anonymity whilst the accused is not. For the record, I happen to believe that both parties should remain anonymous unless there is a conviction. The current law works entirely on the assumption that the victim is female (male rape has only been recognised as a crime in the last decade) and therefore a weak and fragile little creature whose abominable suffering means that she cannot be relied on as a witness. Any disagreements on that? If so, why not have a swift glance at the conviction rates in rape cases where the victim is also the only witness. They're not very high needless to say, and this is because of a marked reluctance from the police and CPS to proceed to court where the only evidence is that of the victim. This paternalism can also work in favour of a woman courageous enough to push for charges to be brought, or a woman like Miss Sloan (whom, by the way, represents the vast minority of people who say that they have been raped) who can get a case taken further than it should be because the legal system assumes that women are too free of guile to lie or to make accusations for reasons of revenge or money.
So then; the paternalism of our rape laws can work either for or against the victim, but the fact is that it shouldn't do either. It shouldn't even be present, but it is. And it is by no means the only example. Take divorce laws; I know from experience that if a man wants to come out of a divorce settlement and not be on the "losing" side (that is, the side who has lost most financially) then he should immediately take steps to secure a sex change. There is *always* a presumption in favour of the woman in a divorce case. If there is a house in joint names, it is she who will get it. If there are bills or credit agreements in joint names, it is he who will get them. The judge will almost always work on the idea that the man has to provide for this poor woman whom he mistreated to the point that she felt the need to divorce him. And they will do this regardless of what the facts may be. Out of the divorce cases that I was involved in during my brief tenure in the legal profession, I would say that the financial circumstances of the man were better than those of the woman perhaps 15% of the time. Otherwise they were either equals or, occasionally, the woman's circumstances were better. Yet I have never ever either sat in on, or heard about from a colleague, a case where the man was given fair and equal treatment and where his soon to be former wife was given exactly the same.
And why am I so completely opposed to this sort of thing? Well, it is not (as you may think) because I am a sexist pig who thinks that women should be returned to the kitchen. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe that women should be treated completely 100% equally with men. That's not to say that I think men and women are both exactly the same (I think anti-feminism is something to rant about another day. If you take issue with that last point I shall give ample opportunity for disagreement at a later point.) because they're not, but that doesn't mean that being different means "not as good". Therefore, I'd like to see complete equality in society's treatment of men and women. The paternalistic attitude of the law and many other facets of society prevent this.
A paternalistic society is nothing new in itself. However, it is a very visible example of our increasing acceptance of "Positive Discrimination" into society. This is a strange beast as it seems to be telling us that two wrongs make a right. Whilst it is wrong to discriminate against someone from an ethnic minority so that they do not get a job for which they are eminently qualified, it is apparently quite correct to discriminate in their favour. I'm sure you're familiar with the "Ethnicity" forms that come with every job application these days. You know; the ones that ask you for your cultural and racial background so that they can fill a certain quota of jobs according to race, gender, or sexual orientation. Don't these things strike anyone as...well, rather offensive? I'd like to know that I got a job on my merits or, if I didn't I would rather it was because there was someone better qualified for the job. I'd be less than impressed knowing that I'd got a job solely because I was a crippled black homosexual and that fills out 3 different quota's in one. I'm being facetious of course, but I do find it a little sad that we have to enshrine this sort of thing in law. If we have to write our ethics laws down and enforce them then we don't really have any ethics as a society. A Company can have the most small-minded bigot in the world selecting their staff and not have his attitudes addressed because as long as he fills a quota of minorities or women, then he will be considered an equal opportunities employer. Call me idealistic, but I would have thought that the whole point of laws designed to stop Racial discrimination would have concentrated on educating people about why being racist or sexist immediately marks one out as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal with little or no place in the 21st century. I wouldn't have expected it to claim that racism and sexism are on the decline purely because the figures say so. (Incidentally, I think I can claim to be completely free of sexism or racism; I care not for your racial makeup, sexual orientation, gender, or functionality of your limbs. Whoever you are, rest assured that I hold you all in equal contempt.)
As things stand we are making no effort whatsoever to reduce the causes of discrimination. What we are doing is masking most of the visible effects, and we are doing it in a way that is itself discriminatory. True equality cannot be forced on people( and more is the pity because I for one would love to see the discomfort of an average neighbourhood Nazi being forced to live with and work with, for example, an Asian Les-Bi-Gay association. Now *that* would make good reality TV...), it needs to be nurtured. What we have smacks of a quick fix so that the government of the day can claim to be doing more to reduce discrimination than ever before. If there was a long term plan to educate people from school age about the evil of discrimination, and also to ensure that employers are fair and equal without having to rely on an ethnicity form, perhaps even to reform the law and it's practitioners in order to help them see women as humans rather than objects to be protected, then perhaps discrimination of any kind will be consigned to history.
If you're thinking "...and pigs might fly" in postscript to that, I would hardly blame you.
Tuesday 28 August 2001
Tuesday 21 August 2001
The (Insert Name Here) Ghetto Uprising
Compared to the abuse that is heaped on Israeli policy these days, this is nothing more than a gentle chiding.
A little while ago I wrote concerning the quite horrific mess that is Israel in the 21st century. I made a parallel between child whom is abused becoming an abuser, and Israelites having suffered oppression at the hands of the Nazi's becoming oppressors themselves. I was accused of oversimplifying the case to the point of distortion. To an extent I'll accept that. Not a very big extent though as I still think it's a valid comparison, the more so since a particular historical parallel has been brought to my attention. Allow me to explain...
In the spring of 1943 things were looking bleak for the Jews who had found themselves confined to the Warsaw Ghetto, an area won through conquest that was being used to contain the Jews. 300,000 of them had been deported to Treblinka in the previous summer, and they had heard dark rumours of mass killings taking place there. This was of course a comparatively late stage in their persecution by the Nazi's. They had endured what must have seemed like endless suffering; numerous racial laws had clearly defined them as a sub-class of people and so the state tacitly condoned, not to say encouraged anyone who struck against them. Kristalnacht saw the destruction of much of their property. Those goods and properties that escaped this were confiscated by the state. Jews outside of Germany had been forcibly removed from their land to make way for German settlers as part of Hitler’s "Lebensraum" policy. Those who remained in German held territory were treated as second class citizens in their own country, finding that the only work available to them was unskilled labour at best, and no work at all at worst. Initially they were all packed into ghettos such as the one in Warsaw. Even these grotesque and crowded places could not be thought of as their own as the Nazi's kept them on a tight leash with any perceived disobedience being met with lethal and indiscriminate force.
By this time there had been murmuring and discontent throughout the Jewish ghettos. The mass deportation and subsequent tales of horror during the summer of 1942 led to the formation of the ZOB, an organisation that had resistance to the Nazi oppressors as it's sole purpose. It's methods were crude; by January 1943 they had managed to acquire some weapons and used them on the German soldiers who came to round up Jews for deportation. It was a small victory as it only drove the Germans away for a few days, but it was cause for celebration amongst a people so crushed that any act of defiance brought hope and a certain freedom from the grim inevitability of their lives.
On April 19th 1943, the German's entered the Warsaw ghetto with the intention of liquidating it and deporting all inhabitants to the various death camps set up around Poland. 750 members of ZOB fought the heavily armed, better-trained and numerically superior German forces off for almost a month. The fact that they were doomed to lose is an irrelevance here; they knew that they were making martyrs of themselves but they felt that the treatment that they were receiving was so bad, so inhuman that it was better to obey the dictates of their conscience even though it would cost them their lives. They were martyred as free men and women as well as Jews. Their actions were of course utterly condemned by the Nazi's and used as an excuse for even more savage brutality (if that were possible...) toward the Jews. Despite this and despite the inherent futility of the ZOB led uprising, this incident is (rightly) recorded in history as an heroic stand against oppression and evil. Time has led us to forget whatever condemnations the Nazi's and their sympathizers put forward and to remember only the heroism of those incredibly brave men and women.
I would say that one of the reasons the uprising happened in the first place was that the Nazi's had put the Jews through so much, heaping indignity upon indignity, that the members of ZOB (which, by the way, stands for Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which in turn means Jewish Fighting Organisation) felt that they had nothing else to lose. A man or woman with nothing to lose is capable of doing things that would have been considered either out of character or suicidally stupid depending upon your point of view. Which leads me back to Israel circa 2001...
Summer 2001 would seem to hold the promise of still darker days ahead for the Palestinian people of Israel. They have found themselves confined to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, area's that were won by conquest, and have endured suffering that must seem endless to them. They have been displaced from their land, firstly by the creation of Israel itself (although I should clarify at this point that I continue to believe that the creation of Israel was both a good and necessary thing) and then by the creation of Israeli settlements in the aforementioned conquered areas. They are treated as second class citizens; the Israeli police have admitted to tribunals investigating the events of the recent troubles that they use a mix of live ammunition and rubber bullets when controlling Arab-Israeli and Palestinian riots, and rubber bullets only when the Jewish Israeli's rise in anger.
The Israeli policy of assassination further reminds the Palestinians that any perceived disobedience on their part will be met with lethal and sometimes indiscriminate force. Far from boasting the pinpoint accuracy that made the Israeli secret service Mossad so feared in the 70's and 80's, these attacks can come at any time and have no guarantee of leaving innocent bystanders untouched. How many people have died at the hands of an Israeli assassin? How many of those were the actual targets? Do the Israeli government even care? It would appear not as they show no signs of abandoning this policy.
Today finds many more moderate Palestinians and Arab Israeli's supporting the actions of organisations such as Hamas. Indeed, 3 out of 4 Palestinians support the recent wave of suicide bombings. More people seem to be coming out in support of meeting Israeli force and intimidation with force of their own. They reason that they have nothing else left to lose. The more radical amongst them would rather become a martyr to the cause of freedom for the Palestinian people than be battered and abused by the Israelis. This is despite the fact that the Israeli army and Security forces are numerically superior, far better trained, and in possession of superior equipment. All the Palestinians have is some small arms and bomb making equipment. Every time they do strike at Israel, it is used as an excuse for even more brutal and savage reprisals against the Palestinians.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at here. One can see the many similarities between the actions of the Jews of Warsaw in 1943 and those of the Palestinians of Israel in 2001 without much prompting. It would appear that the Jews have forgotten an extremely important lesson from their own history. Either that or they simply don't care enough about the Palestinians to think much about it.
As a final point, it has also been pointed out to me that the Palestinians have been a lot more active and violent in their efforts against the Jews than the Jews were against the Nazi's. In truth, I no longer recall or care whom it was that committed the first atrocity against citizens of the other side. The fact is it doesn't matter any more because when one side commits what the other calls an atrocity, it is used as an excuse to commit another one in reprisal. What does matter, regardless of how one views the Palestinians and their cause, is that they are fighting for their freedom against the most appalling odds. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this makes them martyr's of equal weight to those in Warsaw.
A little while ago I wrote concerning the quite horrific mess that is Israel in the 21st century. I made a parallel between child whom is abused becoming an abuser, and Israelites having suffered oppression at the hands of the Nazi's becoming oppressors themselves. I was accused of oversimplifying the case to the point of distortion. To an extent I'll accept that. Not a very big extent though as I still think it's a valid comparison, the more so since a particular historical parallel has been brought to my attention. Allow me to explain...
In the spring of 1943 things were looking bleak for the Jews who had found themselves confined to the Warsaw Ghetto, an area won through conquest that was being used to contain the Jews. 300,000 of them had been deported to Treblinka in the previous summer, and they had heard dark rumours of mass killings taking place there. This was of course a comparatively late stage in their persecution by the Nazi's. They had endured what must have seemed like endless suffering; numerous racial laws had clearly defined them as a sub-class of people and so the state tacitly condoned, not to say encouraged anyone who struck against them. Kristalnacht saw the destruction of much of their property. Those goods and properties that escaped this were confiscated by the state. Jews outside of Germany had been forcibly removed from their land to make way for German settlers as part of Hitler’s "Lebensraum" policy. Those who remained in German held territory were treated as second class citizens in their own country, finding that the only work available to them was unskilled labour at best, and no work at all at worst. Initially they were all packed into ghettos such as the one in Warsaw. Even these grotesque and crowded places could not be thought of as their own as the Nazi's kept them on a tight leash with any perceived disobedience being met with lethal and indiscriminate force.
By this time there had been murmuring and discontent throughout the Jewish ghettos. The mass deportation and subsequent tales of horror during the summer of 1942 led to the formation of the ZOB, an organisation that had resistance to the Nazi oppressors as it's sole purpose. It's methods were crude; by January 1943 they had managed to acquire some weapons and used them on the German soldiers who came to round up Jews for deportation. It was a small victory as it only drove the Germans away for a few days, but it was cause for celebration amongst a people so crushed that any act of defiance brought hope and a certain freedom from the grim inevitability of their lives.
On April 19th 1943, the German's entered the Warsaw ghetto with the intention of liquidating it and deporting all inhabitants to the various death camps set up around Poland. 750 members of ZOB fought the heavily armed, better-trained and numerically superior German forces off for almost a month. The fact that they were doomed to lose is an irrelevance here; they knew that they were making martyrs of themselves but they felt that the treatment that they were receiving was so bad, so inhuman that it was better to obey the dictates of their conscience even though it would cost them their lives. They were martyred as free men and women as well as Jews. Their actions were of course utterly condemned by the Nazi's and used as an excuse for even more savage brutality (if that were possible...) toward the Jews. Despite this and despite the inherent futility of the ZOB led uprising, this incident is (rightly) recorded in history as an heroic stand against oppression and evil. Time has led us to forget whatever condemnations the Nazi's and their sympathizers put forward and to remember only the heroism of those incredibly brave men and women.
I would say that one of the reasons the uprising happened in the first place was that the Nazi's had put the Jews through so much, heaping indignity upon indignity, that the members of ZOB (which, by the way, stands for Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which in turn means Jewish Fighting Organisation) felt that they had nothing else to lose. A man or woman with nothing to lose is capable of doing things that would have been considered either out of character or suicidally stupid depending upon your point of view. Which leads me back to Israel circa 2001...
Summer 2001 would seem to hold the promise of still darker days ahead for the Palestinian people of Israel. They have found themselves confined to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, area's that were won by conquest, and have endured suffering that must seem endless to them. They have been displaced from their land, firstly by the creation of Israel itself (although I should clarify at this point that I continue to believe that the creation of Israel was both a good and necessary thing) and then by the creation of Israeli settlements in the aforementioned conquered areas. They are treated as second class citizens; the Israeli police have admitted to tribunals investigating the events of the recent troubles that they use a mix of live ammunition and rubber bullets when controlling Arab-Israeli and Palestinian riots, and rubber bullets only when the Jewish Israeli's rise in anger.
The Israeli policy of assassination further reminds the Palestinians that any perceived disobedience on their part will be met with lethal and sometimes indiscriminate force. Far from boasting the pinpoint accuracy that made the Israeli secret service Mossad so feared in the 70's and 80's, these attacks can come at any time and have no guarantee of leaving innocent bystanders untouched. How many people have died at the hands of an Israeli assassin? How many of those were the actual targets? Do the Israeli government even care? It would appear not as they show no signs of abandoning this policy.
Today finds many more moderate Palestinians and Arab Israeli's supporting the actions of organisations such as Hamas. Indeed, 3 out of 4 Palestinians support the recent wave of suicide bombings. More people seem to be coming out in support of meeting Israeli force and intimidation with force of their own. They reason that they have nothing else left to lose. The more radical amongst them would rather become a martyr to the cause of freedom for the Palestinian people than be battered and abused by the Israelis. This is despite the fact that the Israeli army and Security forces are numerically superior, far better trained, and in possession of superior equipment. All the Palestinians have is some small arms and bomb making equipment. Every time they do strike at Israel, it is used as an excuse for even more brutal and savage reprisals against the Palestinians.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at here. One can see the many similarities between the actions of the Jews of Warsaw in 1943 and those of the Palestinians of Israel in 2001 without much prompting. It would appear that the Jews have forgotten an extremely important lesson from their own history. Either that or they simply don't care enough about the Palestinians to think much about it.
As a final point, it has also been pointed out to me that the Palestinians have been a lot more active and violent in their efforts against the Jews than the Jews were against the Nazi's. In truth, I no longer recall or care whom it was that committed the first atrocity against citizens of the other side. The fact is it doesn't matter any more because when one side commits what the other calls an atrocity, it is used as an excuse to commit another one in reprisal. What does matter, regardless of how one views the Palestinians and their cause, is that they are fighting for their freedom against the most appalling odds. Whether the Israelis like it or not, this makes them martyr's of equal weight to those in Warsaw.
Thursday 16 August 2001
Taliban in the USA
I wrote this a little over a month prior to 9/11. I only mention that as it makes what is written seem a little...well, spooky.
Today I thought that, as I’d written a little about Boris Yeltsin in the Russia Rant, and since I was speaking of dangerously unstable leaders whose actions are a threat to the international status quo (y'know, whenever I use that phrase I always get a brief image of Status Quo doing a gig at the United Nation to a large group of very bemused looking ambassadors...), I thought I'd bring you up to speed on the actions of lovable Dubya. If indeed his actions they are. To best illustrate what I mean, I think perhaps I shall begin by looking at the latest actions of those fun loving party animals, the Taliban (incidentally Maddy, what is the Russian take on the goings on in Afghanistan? Is it even mentioned after the disasters of the 80's concerning the Soviet occupation? Do let me know, as I'm rather curious).
There is currently a certain amount of unease in the international community concerning the Taliban's latest party trick. They have arrested 8 western aid workers (and 16 Afghans coincidentally, but they're neither European nor American so the media pretty much ignore them, except perhaps for a tagline stating that those 16 face imminent execution...) for Proselytising. Once I looked up what the hell that meant, I found that the 8 aid workers were facing jail for an unknown length of time for the crime of possessing Christian literature (Bible and biblical studies) with the intent to spread the Word of God (copyright J. Christ) to the Afghan people. Naturally the west is concerned, and all the more so as the Taliban won't allow any diplomats to see or talk with the 8.
Now, all of the reports that I have seen carry the underlying message that it is outrageous for a government to treat foreign nationals in this shabby manner. The Taliban are twisting Sharia law (Sharia is Islamic religious law and is used throughout the Islamic world) so that it can be used to fit their own purposes. Islam was originally a most tolerant religion; when the Catholics were nailing people to bits of wood and setting fire to them for not being catholic enough the Moslems were quite happy for their citizens to be whatever religion they pleased so long as they didn't rock the boat. It appears that the Taliban are subverting the law so that, instead of being a tool of justice, it is a tool of the state.
Okay, if you're still reading and wondering "What the shagging hell has this to do with Dubya?" then thank you for bearing with me for I shall get to that presently. I want you to bear the actions of the Taliban (winner of the "Worlds shittest, least humane, and least democratic Government" award for the last 3 years running) whilst we have a little look at the events in America over the last couple of days.
Three things caught my eye yesterday whilst reading through the American news and I found each one rather worrying in it's own special way. The first concerns a Greenpeace demonstration against Dubya's beloved Defence Shield, the second dealt with a writer being jailed, and the finale looked at the imminent execution of a man in (surprise, surprise) Texas.
So then; Greenpeace. 15 of their members and 2 journalists are currently awaiting trial in LA for the crime of disrupting an antimissile defence test in California by entering the test site area using inflatable crafts. Nothing unusual so far (par for the course in fact; I often wonder if the main qualification for joining Greenpeace is the ability to drive a rubber dinghy and use it to play chicken with a Whaling Ship/Warship/Oil Tanker). One would expect them to be duly found guilty of a misdemeanor charge such as trespass and be given a fine (unless you're in France in which case you could perhaps expect them to be put on a ship and dynamited...). However, this is not the case. They are being charged with Conspiracy to Violate a Safety Zone, a felony charge that carries a 6-year sentence. (By the way, the difference between Misdemeanor crime and Felony crime is rather like the difference between a dose of Thrush and a dose of Cancer. One is mildly irritating but causes no lasting problems whilst the other is life changing in every sense of the phrase). Such protests have never been met with such harsh charges before, and as they centre around Dubya's favourite project, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that politics rather than any interest in justice motivate the charge. It is a bullying tactic and its purpose would seem to be to discourage any further protest against the Defence Shield.
Then we have the treatment of the 17 people; 11 are foreign nationals and they found themselves imprisoned in a high security correctional facility, needing $20,000 each to secure bail. After 6 days Greenpeace provided the money and so they now await trial which is due to start on September 25th. Let me just re-state this in case it hasn't sunk in; for taking part in a non-violent protest for 2 minutes these men and women are facing the very real possibility of spending the next 6 years in prison. Do I really need to point out the parallels between this and the actions of the Taliban? I didn't think so....
(Incidentally, the Defence shield tests thus far have been a magnificent and resounding failure; the first one cost $100 million and missed its target entirely. Neither wonder the US government want to stop people getting anywhere near the test sites. They may just notice that the whole thing doesn't actually work...)
Next we have a case that predominantly centres around the First Amendment to the American Constitution which provides for freedom of speech. An American writer named Vanessa Leggett has been held in a Texas prison for nearly a month now. She was in the process of writing a book about the murder of a woman by her husband and brother in law. That particular case is not really an issue any more as the husband confessed all and exonerated his brother entirely shortly before committing suicide. As part of the research for that book she interviewed pretty much everybody involved in the case, including the husband (obviously she did this before he topped himself otherwise it would be a rather dull interview).
The courts have ordered that she turn over all of the those notes to the FBI as it may help their investigation of the crime. Well...okay, fair enough to be honest. I happen to think that generally speaking the police should have access to as much information as possible that will assist them in solving a crime. Except that the crime *has* been solved. So why the big fuss over her notes? Well she says that she has to protect her sources, and that is an integral part of free speech because free speech requires a free press and a free press requires the writer to ensure the confidentiality of their source. However, the courts have changed tack somewhat and are trying to say that she cannot be protected by the First Amendment because "she's not a registered journalist". So the only people who are apparently allowed free speech in America are journalists. Once again, it is an example of the bullying from a federal organisation (the FBI rather than the government in this case) and the use of the legal process to achieve and end that is not motivated by justice. The message being sent by the FBI would seem to be "Do as we tell you at all times or we'll imprison you" (still thinking of those oppressive gentlemen in Afghanistan and their own particular brand of policing? Good...). Vanessa Leggett will stay in prison for the next 18 months if she continues to defend the rights that she is entitled to by the American Constitution. Not exactly something that'll be included in any new verses of "The Star Spangled Banner" I suspect.
We stay in Texas for the last item on the American shitlist. The improbably named Napoleon Beazley was due to die today for taking part in the murder of a man named John Luttig. He committed the murder when he was 17 years old. Now I certainly don't excuse him from murdering someone because he was a mere boy (although I do find it slightly puzzling that he was not old enough to drink or vote when he committed the crime yet he is old enough to die for it). The taking of a life is a dreadful thing and he deserved punishment. However, bearing in mind his age and circumstances (Napoleon is black and from a poor area where being in a gang was a social boon. He also had no previous criminal record and had been described as a model student. Also, just look at his name for God's sake! If my parents had named me so, I'm pretty sure that I would have a grudge against the world) I would argue that he also deserved some effort at rehabilitation. By all accounts his shows remorse and shame for his actions and all who are in contact with him agree that the 25 year old man sitting on death row is an entirely different person to the 17 year old who arrived there.
However the thing that really interests me in this case are the incidental details. Napoleon is black, the victim (and jury) was white. Not only that, but the victim's son is a federal judge whom advised the prosecution during trial. He is also a good friend of at least 3 judges in the Supreme Court where Napoleons last appeal was heard. The 3 in question withdrew from hearing the appeal, and the 6 remaining judges were evenly split as to whether to commute his sentence. As there was no majority, the state of Texas decided to execute him anyway.
Let me just go over that again because it's a little confusing at first; there are serious doubts over the validity of the death sentence imposed on this man and this is evidenced by the fact that 3 of the most senior judges in America think he shouldn't be executed. He is going to be killed anyway. (As I've been writing this the Texas Parole board have announced a stay of execution. I don't yet know how long it is for, but he is still under sentence of death). This is all happening in the same state where a man who has been on death row since 1984 had his execution stopped by the court on Monday because his lawyer had spent much of the original trial asleep. The state actually argued that the fact that the defence counsel had been asleep did not necessarily mean that the trial had been unfair. As you read this, you may like to have a think about the reports about the use of Sharia law in Afghanistan where people are condemned to death pretty much all of the time and any complaints about the unfairness of the trial are swept aside.
Okay, so maybe I'm belabouring the point here but doesn't it worry you that the most powerful nation in the world is behaving in this manner? Its not been too difficult to draw parallels with the Taliban and the aforementioned events in America, so what the hell is going on? Much though I hate Dubya, I'm reluctant to place all of the blame at his door. I despise the man because he is a bumbling buffoon whose elevation to President of the USA is right up there with Caligula appointing a horse as his Prime Minister. I have difficulty believing that he alone is behind the massive erosion of freedom and the rule of law that has taken place since his election. I'm inclined to think of him as more of a figurehead, but for whom I don't know. Whoever the people are pulling the strings, I would say that we have reason to be worried about them.
Today I thought that, as I’d written a little about Boris Yeltsin in the Russia Rant, and since I was speaking of dangerously unstable leaders whose actions are a threat to the international status quo (y'know, whenever I use that phrase I always get a brief image of Status Quo doing a gig at the United Nation to a large group of very bemused looking ambassadors...), I thought I'd bring you up to speed on the actions of lovable Dubya. If indeed his actions they are. To best illustrate what I mean, I think perhaps I shall begin by looking at the latest actions of those fun loving party animals, the Taliban (incidentally Maddy, what is the Russian take on the goings on in Afghanistan? Is it even mentioned after the disasters of the 80's concerning the Soviet occupation? Do let me know, as I'm rather curious).
There is currently a certain amount of unease in the international community concerning the Taliban's latest party trick. They have arrested 8 western aid workers (and 16 Afghans coincidentally, but they're neither European nor American so the media pretty much ignore them, except perhaps for a tagline stating that those 16 face imminent execution...) for Proselytising. Once I looked up what the hell that meant, I found that the 8 aid workers were facing jail for an unknown length of time for the crime of possessing Christian literature (Bible and biblical studies) with the intent to spread the Word of God (copyright J. Christ) to the Afghan people. Naturally the west is concerned, and all the more so as the Taliban won't allow any diplomats to see or talk with the 8.
Now, all of the reports that I have seen carry the underlying message that it is outrageous for a government to treat foreign nationals in this shabby manner. The Taliban are twisting Sharia law (Sharia is Islamic religious law and is used throughout the Islamic world) so that it can be used to fit their own purposes. Islam was originally a most tolerant religion; when the Catholics were nailing people to bits of wood and setting fire to them for not being catholic enough the Moslems were quite happy for their citizens to be whatever religion they pleased so long as they didn't rock the boat. It appears that the Taliban are subverting the law so that, instead of being a tool of justice, it is a tool of the state.
Okay, if you're still reading and wondering "What the shagging hell has this to do with Dubya?" then thank you for bearing with me for I shall get to that presently. I want you to bear the actions of the Taliban (winner of the "Worlds shittest, least humane, and least democratic Government" award for the last 3 years running) whilst we have a little look at the events in America over the last couple of days.
Three things caught my eye yesterday whilst reading through the American news and I found each one rather worrying in it's own special way. The first concerns a Greenpeace demonstration against Dubya's beloved Defence Shield, the second dealt with a writer being jailed, and the finale looked at the imminent execution of a man in (surprise, surprise) Texas.
So then; Greenpeace. 15 of their members and 2 journalists are currently awaiting trial in LA for the crime of disrupting an antimissile defence test in California by entering the test site area using inflatable crafts. Nothing unusual so far (par for the course in fact; I often wonder if the main qualification for joining Greenpeace is the ability to drive a rubber dinghy and use it to play chicken with a Whaling Ship/Warship/Oil Tanker). One would expect them to be duly found guilty of a misdemeanor charge such as trespass and be given a fine (unless you're in France in which case you could perhaps expect them to be put on a ship and dynamited...). However, this is not the case. They are being charged with Conspiracy to Violate a Safety Zone, a felony charge that carries a 6-year sentence. (By the way, the difference between Misdemeanor crime and Felony crime is rather like the difference between a dose of Thrush and a dose of Cancer. One is mildly irritating but causes no lasting problems whilst the other is life changing in every sense of the phrase). Such protests have never been met with such harsh charges before, and as they centre around Dubya's favourite project, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that politics rather than any interest in justice motivate the charge. It is a bullying tactic and its purpose would seem to be to discourage any further protest against the Defence Shield.
Then we have the treatment of the 17 people; 11 are foreign nationals and they found themselves imprisoned in a high security correctional facility, needing $20,000 each to secure bail. After 6 days Greenpeace provided the money and so they now await trial which is due to start on September 25th. Let me just re-state this in case it hasn't sunk in; for taking part in a non-violent protest for 2 minutes these men and women are facing the very real possibility of spending the next 6 years in prison. Do I really need to point out the parallels between this and the actions of the Taliban? I didn't think so....
(Incidentally, the Defence shield tests thus far have been a magnificent and resounding failure; the first one cost $100 million and missed its target entirely. Neither wonder the US government want to stop people getting anywhere near the test sites. They may just notice that the whole thing doesn't actually work...)
Next we have a case that predominantly centres around the First Amendment to the American Constitution which provides for freedom of speech. An American writer named Vanessa Leggett has been held in a Texas prison for nearly a month now. She was in the process of writing a book about the murder of a woman by her husband and brother in law. That particular case is not really an issue any more as the husband confessed all and exonerated his brother entirely shortly before committing suicide. As part of the research for that book she interviewed pretty much everybody involved in the case, including the husband (obviously she did this before he topped himself otherwise it would be a rather dull interview).
The courts have ordered that she turn over all of the those notes to the FBI as it may help their investigation of the crime. Well...okay, fair enough to be honest. I happen to think that generally speaking the police should have access to as much information as possible that will assist them in solving a crime. Except that the crime *has* been solved. So why the big fuss over her notes? Well she says that she has to protect her sources, and that is an integral part of free speech because free speech requires a free press and a free press requires the writer to ensure the confidentiality of their source. However, the courts have changed tack somewhat and are trying to say that she cannot be protected by the First Amendment because "she's not a registered journalist". So the only people who are apparently allowed free speech in America are journalists. Once again, it is an example of the bullying from a federal organisation (the FBI rather than the government in this case) and the use of the legal process to achieve and end that is not motivated by justice. The message being sent by the FBI would seem to be "Do as we tell you at all times or we'll imprison you" (still thinking of those oppressive gentlemen in Afghanistan and their own particular brand of policing? Good...). Vanessa Leggett will stay in prison for the next 18 months if she continues to defend the rights that she is entitled to by the American Constitution. Not exactly something that'll be included in any new verses of "The Star Spangled Banner" I suspect.
We stay in Texas for the last item on the American shitlist. The improbably named Napoleon Beazley was due to die today for taking part in the murder of a man named John Luttig. He committed the murder when he was 17 years old. Now I certainly don't excuse him from murdering someone because he was a mere boy (although I do find it slightly puzzling that he was not old enough to drink or vote when he committed the crime yet he is old enough to die for it). The taking of a life is a dreadful thing and he deserved punishment. However, bearing in mind his age and circumstances (Napoleon is black and from a poor area where being in a gang was a social boon. He also had no previous criminal record and had been described as a model student. Also, just look at his name for God's sake! If my parents had named me so, I'm pretty sure that I would have a grudge against the world) I would argue that he also deserved some effort at rehabilitation. By all accounts his shows remorse and shame for his actions and all who are in contact with him agree that the 25 year old man sitting on death row is an entirely different person to the 17 year old who arrived there.
However the thing that really interests me in this case are the incidental details. Napoleon is black, the victim (and jury) was white. Not only that, but the victim's son is a federal judge whom advised the prosecution during trial. He is also a good friend of at least 3 judges in the Supreme Court where Napoleons last appeal was heard. The 3 in question withdrew from hearing the appeal, and the 6 remaining judges were evenly split as to whether to commute his sentence. As there was no majority, the state of Texas decided to execute him anyway.
Let me just go over that again because it's a little confusing at first; there are serious doubts over the validity of the death sentence imposed on this man and this is evidenced by the fact that 3 of the most senior judges in America think he shouldn't be executed. He is going to be killed anyway. (As I've been writing this the Texas Parole board have announced a stay of execution. I don't yet know how long it is for, but he is still under sentence of death). This is all happening in the same state where a man who has been on death row since 1984 had his execution stopped by the court on Monday because his lawyer had spent much of the original trial asleep. The state actually argued that the fact that the defence counsel had been asleep did not necessarily mean that the trial had been unfair. As you read this, you may like to have a think about the reports about the use of Sharia law in Afghanistan where people are condemned to death pretty much all of the time and any complaints about the unfairness of the trial are swept aside.
Okay, so maybe I'm belabouring the point here but doesn't it worry you that the most powerful nation in the world is behaving in this manner? Its not been too difficult to draw parallels with the Taliban and the aforementioned events in America, so what the hell is going on? Much though I hate Dubya, I'm reluctant to place all of the blame at his door. I despise the man because he is a bumbling buffoon whose elevation to President of the USA is right up there with Caligula appointing a horse as his Prime Minister. I have difficulty believing that he alone is behind the massive erosion of freedom and the rule of law that has taken place since his election. I'm inclined to think of him as more of a figurehead, but for whom I don't know. Whoever the people are pulling the strings, I would say that we have reason to be worried about them.
Monday 13 August 2001
Tories are shit
But my predictions about their future were worse
I thought that today I would spend some time picking at my very favourite scab; the Conservative Party. I've been looking back at some of the...well, let's be honest here, diatribes that I have written concerning the old whore of a political party. In my predictions for the leadership battle I seem to have been somewhat awry (not that that will stop me from further examination of the subject...), though I would argue that I have more than made up for that by the use of a number of sustained assaults on my esteemed lookalike and former leader of the Tories, Little Billy.
Some have asked me why I don't follow my own advice about dealing with things that annoy and infuriate; simply ignore it. Well, I find that I can't (and also find a creeping empathy with those who feel it their civic duty to watch TV programs that they know will annoy them in order to write a stern "Dear BBC, I was shocked and appalled...." letter. Maybe somewhere there is a formerly left wing and now radical Conservative writing endless right-wing missives to be circulated around his/her friends as the Ying to my Yang...). I think the reason for this is my sneaking fondness for the target of my first tentative political allegiance. The reason for that would be that I, as you have no doubt gathered, am strongly in favour in personal freedom and the exercise of free will. The Conservative Party was founded on that same spirit before the advent of Thatcherism twisted that philosophy into "Personal Success no matter what the cost to others". It is certainly a better philosophy than the control freak attitude that New Labour exhibits with alarming regularity.
But what of all things Conservative now? What is the state of play for those who seek to dethrone the usurper Blair and replace him with...well, they're not actually sure yet but more of that later. In any case, what is going on? Perhaps the first Tory related item to look at would be the weekend arrest of Neil and Christine Hamilton. If you're not aware of the illustrious history of these two fine upstanding members of the community, Neil is a former Tory MP for the constituency of Tutbury and Hatton. He is also a corrupt liar, cheat, and swindler. I can say this free from any fears of libel because this was found to be the case in the High Court when Neil unsuccessfully sued Mohammed Al Fayed for libel. Mr. Al Fayed had basically called Neil a corrupt liar etc. because Mr. Al Fayed had paid Neil to ask questions in the House of Commons in his capacity as MP on his behalf. Anyway, despite a fervent prayer that both sides lose the libel case (Mr. Al Fayed is, perhaps, the single worst thing that the ancient culture of Egypt has ever produced. A nastier, bigger bully has yet to be seen in the business world and I continue to hope that he keeps getting denied the British Passport and Citizenship that he so desperately craves), the law is such that one man had to win and that man was Mr. Al Fayed.
So then; the Hamiltons are now bankrupt due to the cost of their failed libel action. Quite how someone can be bankrupt and still own a flat in London, a house in Cheshire, and generally live the life of Riley is a matter for another time, but bankrupt and disgraced they are. In truth I had expected to hear little more about them (although I secretly hoped that Christine Hamilton would once more publicly exhibit the battleaxe bitchiness that seems to be her stock in trade) but, as in all things Conservative, I was proved wrong on Friday. The Hamiltons were arrested and quizzed by police about an "extremely serious" sexual assault on a woman. Both were alleged to have taken part in this crime. It would seem that their besmirched reputation was to be the recipient of an even greater storm than before.
However, I can't help but feel a pang of sympathy for the demonic duo. For starters, the alleged victim had contacted the publicist Max Clifford (whose name seems to be fast becoming a byword for sleaze amongst the rich and famous) before contacting the police. Now maybe my finger isn't on the pulse of the psyche of someone who has just been gang raped, but doesn't that strike anyone as a little peculiar? Secondly, the Hamiltons were in fact giving a dinner party on the night of the alleged attack (one wonders what kind of food gets served at a dinner party hosted by people whose debts are rather greater than the collective poverty of every single person that I have ever met...) which sort of provides an alibi (Or maybe not..."Okay, Neil and I are just popping out for an hour or so. Please do help yourselves to pudding. What? You want to know where we're going? Erm...well, we thought we'd nip out and...what? What do you mean why is Neil carrying that 2 foot dildo?! It's a pointer if you must know! We're actually nipping out to give a quick lecture and Neil always uses that pointer at the Lecture Hall!").
Of course they are now busy eroding whatever public sympathy they might have felt entitled to by a display of directionless anger and threats to sue absolutely everybody including the people who read about the crime of which they are accused. Still, presumably it gives them something to distract their attentions from the obvious destitution that they have to endure...
My next target isn't actually a member of the Conservative Party any more. Nor is he a free man. He may be stripped of his title of a Lord of the Realm. With any luck, he may soon lose his anal virginity to large tattooed gentleman in the showers. Who else could I be referring to but Jeffrey Archer.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that he wasn't given disgraced former minister Jonathan Aitkin's old prison suite. I was even happier to see that he has been classified as a category C prisoner (prison categories run from A as the most dangerous to D as the most harmless) thus ensuring he cannot go to an open prison and must instead serve his sentence with criminals as opposed to former company chairmen and old cabinet colleagues. It looks like he may suffer more as the police are starting numerous inquiries into his (alleged) theft of money from just about every organisation and charity that he's been involved with since the 60's.
There is not much more to say about Jeff, or indeed about the Hamiltons, except that so long as Conservatives such as these continue to dominate the headlines, then there is no chance of Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke or Iain Duncan-Smith dominating politics. They serve to remind us of just why we got rid of the horribly corrupt, venal, self-serving shits in the first place. Actually, in that respect they're providing a public service...
Which leads me rather nicely to a brief word about the Tory leadership battle. Of the original 3 candidates I had thought would contest the leadership (Portillo, Clarke, and Widdecombe) only 1 has made it into the final ballot, and it is not the one I thought it would be. Despite the fact that Portillo was the only man with the necessary charisma and ability to lead the Tories with anything remotely resembling skill and acumen, the spiteful and vindictive side of the Conservative party triumphed over that which has a modicum of common sense. So we have Kenneth Clarke (AKA. Man most likely to die or a heart attack in Parliament. Just look at him for God’s sake!) and the somewhat anonymous Iain Duncan-Smith (AKA. Darth Tory, the Dark Lord of the Sith) competing for the Tory Leadership.
Again, there's not much to say here. If Darth Tory wins then he'll almost certainly continue to bring little Billy's vision of a completely unelectable party to fruition, and we can definitely look forward to another Labour government as well as (hopefully) a LibDem led opposition. Should Clarke win then he shall doubtless have his preordained heart attack and die a la John Smith of the Labour Party, thus leaving the way clear for a more dynamic and youthful candidate to take the helm. Someone rather like Portillo in fact. Remember that you heard it here first.
I thought that today I would spend some time picking at my very favourite scab; the Conservative Party. I've been looking back at some of the...well, let's be honest here, diatribes that I have written concerning the old whore of a political party. In my predictions for the leadership battle I seem to have been somewhat awry (not that that will stop me from further examination of the subject...), though I would argue that I have more than made up for that by the use of a number of sustained assaults on my esteemed lookalike and former leader of the Tories, Little Billy.
Some have asked me why I don't follow my own advice about dealing with things that annoy and infuriate; simply ignore it. Well, I find that I can't (and also find a creeping empathy with those who feel it their civic duty to watch TV programs that they know will annoy them in order to write a stern "Dear BBC, I was shocked and appalled...." letter. Maybe somewhere there is a formerly left wing and now radical Conservative writing endless right-wing missives to be circulated around his/her friends as the Ying to my Yang...). I think the reason for this is my sneaking fondness for the target of my first tentative political allegiance. The reason for that would be that I, as you have no doubt gathered, am strongly in favour in personal freedom and the exercise of free will. The Conservative Party was founded on that same spirit before the advent of Thatcherism twisted that philosophy into "Personal Success no matter what the cost to others". It is certainly a better philosophy than the control freak attitude that New Labour exhibits with alarming regularity.
But what of all things Conservative now? What is the state of play for those who seek to dethrone the usurper Blair and replace him with...well, they're not actually sure yet but more of that later. In any case, what is going on? Perhaps the first Tory related item to look at would be the weekend arrest of Neil and Christine Hamilton. If you're not aware of the illustrious history of these two fine upstanding members of the community, Neil is a former Tory MP for the constituency of Tutbury and Hatton. He is also a corrupt liar, cheat, and swindler. I can say this free from any fears of libel because this was found to be the case in the High Court when Neil unsuccessfully sued Mohammed Al Fayed for libel. Mr. Al Fayed had basically called Neil a corrupt liar etc. because Mr. Al Fayed had paid Neil to ask questions in the House of Commons in his capacity as MP on his behalf. Anyway, despite a fervent prayer that both sides lose the libel case (Mr. Al Fayed is, perhaps, the single worst thing that the ancient culture of Egypt has ever produced. A nastier, bigger bully has yet to be seen in the business world and I continue to hope that he keeps getting denied the British Passport and Citizenship that he so desperately craves), the law is such that one man had to win and that man was Mr. Al Fayed.
So then; the Hamiltons are now bankrupt due to the cost of their failed libel action. Quite how someone can be bankrupt and still own a flat in London, a house in Cheshire, and generally live the life of Riley is a matter for another time, but bankrupt and disgraced they are. In truth I had expected to hear little more about them (although I secretly hoped that Christine Hamilton would once more publicly exhibit the battleaxe bitchiness that seems to be her stock in trade) but, as in all things Conservative, I was proved wrong on Friday. The Hamiltons were arrested and quizzed by police about an "extremely serious" sexual assault on a woman. Both were alleged to have taken part in this crime. It would seem that their besmirched reputation was to be the recipient of an even greater storm than before.
However, I can't help but feel a pang of sympathy for the demonic duo. For starters, the alleged victim had contacted the publicist Max Clifford (whose name seems to be fast becoming a byword for sleaze amongst the rich and famous) before contacting the police. Now maybe my finger isn't on the pulse of the psyche of someone who has just been gang raped, but doesn't that strike anyone as a little peculiar? Secondly, the Hamiltons were in fact giving a dinner party on the night of the alleged attack (one wonders what kind of food gets served at a dinner party hosted by people whose debts are rather greater than the collective poverty of every single person that I have ever met...) which sort of provides an alibi (Or maybe not..."Okay, Neil and I are just popping out for an hour or so. Please do help yourselves to pudding. What? You want to know where we're going? Erm...well, we thought we'd nip out and...what? What do you mean why is Neil carrying that 2 foot dildo?! It's a pointer if you must know! We're actually nipping out to give a quick lecture and Neil always uses that pointer at the Lecture Hall!").
Of course they are now busy eroding whatever public sympathy they might have felt entitled to by a display of directionless anger and threats to sue absolutely everybody including the people who read about the crime of which they are accused. Still, presumably it gives them something to distract their attentions from the obvious destitution that they have to endure...
My next target isn't actually a member of the Conservative Party any more. Nor is he a free man. He may be stripped of his title of a Lord of the Realm. With any luck, he may soon lose his anal virginity to large tattooed gentleman in the showers. Who else could I be referring to but Jeffrey Archer.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that he wasn't given disgraced former minister Jonathan Aitkin's old prison suite. I was even happier to see that he has been classified as a category C prisoner (prison categories run from A as the most dangerous to D as the most harmless) thus ensuring he cannot go to an open prison and must instead serve his sentence with criminals as opposed to former company chairmen and old cabinet colleagues. It looks like he may suffer more as the police are starting numerous inquiries into his (alleged) theft of money from just about every organisation and charity that he's been involved with since the 60's.
There is not much more to say about Jeff, or indeed about the Hamiltons, except that so long as Conservatives such as these continue to dominate the headlines, then there is no chance of Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke or Iain Duncan-Smith dominating politics. They serve to remind us of just why we got rid of the horribly corrupt, venal, self-serving shits in the first place. Actually, in that respect they're providing a public service...
Which leads me rather nicely to a brief word about the Tory leadership battle. Of the original 3 candidates I had thought would contest the leadership (Portillo, Clarke, and Widdecombe) only 1 has made it into the final ballot, and it is not the one I thought it would be. Despite the fact that Portillo was the only man with the necessary charisma and ability to lead the Tories with anything remotely resembling skill and acumen, the spiteful and vindictive side of the Conservative party triumphed over that which has a modicum of common sense. So we have Kenneth Clarke (AKA. Man most likely to die or a heart attack in Parliament. Just look at him for God’s sake!) and the somewhat anonymous Iain Duncan-Smith (AKA. Darth Tory, the Dark Lord of the Sith) competing for the Tory Leadership.
Again, there's not much to say here. If Darth Tory wins then he'll almost certainly continue to bring little Billy's vision of a completely unelectable party to fruition, and we can definitely look forward to another Labour government as well as (hopefully) a LibDem led opposition. Should Clarke win then he shall doubtless have his preordained heart attack and die a la John Smith of the Labour Party, thus leaving the way clear for a more dynamic and youthful candidate to take the helm. Someone rather like Portillo in fact. Remember that you heard it here first.
Friday 10 August 2001
Mother Russia
Recent murders of those who criticise Putin would seem to indicate I was ridiculously optimistic about the man.
I recently received an email from a friend of mine working in the Russian Media, specifically in Samara. I believe that the place has just elected a Communist mayor (to the immense chagrin of the government; I believe the chap has had to suspend his membership of the Communist Party. Oh how times have changed.) but I may be mistaking it for one of a million other places in a country that, until recently, represented nothing more than a vast amorphous blob on the map. Well...that's not strictly true actually. It also represented secrecy and fear, sleepless nights consumed with worry about "The Bomb" and when (that's when, not if) it would be dropped because simply everyone in the UK knew that the USSR/Russia (ignorance being what it is, the terms were interchangeable) wanted nothing more than to bomb us out of existence. Of course, now that I come to think about it, no one knew why...
It's none of those things now of course. Well, if it is it's to a much lesser degree, but it's not that long since information about Russia and the USSR was defined by the lack of it. Up to age 10 I can remember the news reports that concerned the nations east of the Iron Curtain. They were always speculative rather than based on any hard facts, and invariably an expert on Soviet thinking was wheeled in to try and give an interpretation on whatever little tidbit of information had come to light. Having been raised on a diet of Spy films such as James Bond, I always imagined that this piece of information had only been won at the cost of the life or liberty of a brave spy or defector and so I was generally rapt with attention as some self important fart explained how the Godless Communists were Up To Something.
I actually became rather good at USSR news interpretation myself; any announcement that any dignitary had a cold was a sure sign that the person in question would soon be shuffling off this mortal coil. When Premiers Chernyenko and Andropov (apologies for misspellings) developed such a condition, everyone braced himself or herself and the media did their (actually quite pitiful) best to guess whom the successor would be. Yet we never even knew exactly when they did die. I remember waking to Breakfast news many moons ago to find Nick Ross looking seriously into camera and intoning the rhetorical question "Is President Chernyenko dead or not?"
This of course seems absurd nowadays. With the advent and advance of mass media communication one can make a decent stab at guessing what time any given world leader went to the toilet, never mind whether he or she is still drawing breath. But back then the only thing we had to go on was Russian radio and television; specifically the fact that they had apparently been playing sombre music all day. So either the premier was ill, the premier was dead, or the entire Soviet nation was suffering from a hangover so colossal that the premier had ordered slow music until everyone had had a chance to have a fried breakfast and a cup of tea. As there had been an announcement some weeks early that President Chernyenko was suffering from a cold, I knew that the poor man had joined the ranks of the dearly departed and a few days later I had the smug satisfaction of being proved right.
And that was pretty much the pattern for the 80's. The east was inaccessibly and so the media concentrated on the west, specifically America. Denied the chance to take any cultural influences from Russia et al due to a mixture of anti communist feeling here, and a perceived veil of secrecy there we embraced American culture with open arms. Today almost all of our slang terms, marketing ideas, TV programs and program ideas etc. spring forth from America. The only example of Russian culture influencing English media that springs to mind is, regrettably, A Clockwork Orange. The gang in this book speaks in slang called Nadsat, a mixture of Russian and English phrases. This sounds outlandish to us today, but if one were to stop and think about the amount of Americanisms used in our day to day speech one could see just how strong the Western influence is. The language of A Clockwork Orange is, in my opinion, an example of the way we might speak today had East been given an equal chance to West in our media.
The dawn of the 90's and the events in the East were always seen as a great victory for the Western Way of Life as far as the media in general were concerned. We heralded the collapse of Communism and looked forward to the former USSR taking it's place on the world stage as an equal partner (well...I did anyway). Not least amongst my own personal causes for celebration was the end of the Cold War and an end to the constant, almost paralysing fear of a Nuclear War. Later events were to prove me almost 100% wrong on this particular issue. I had thought that the end of the Soviet Union would mean an end to 2 superpowers threatening each other with Mutually Assured Destruction. In that respect I was correct. What we instead got was about 9 nations with Nuclear Weapons, all of which were pointing here, there, and everywhere. If I was rigid with fear beforehand, I should by rights have been comatose with terror now.
This was not the case though. Instead of the media calmly and neutrally scaremongering about the threat of Nuclear War as they had done in the 80's, a new tactic was used. Whilst before Russia was regarded with fear, hostility and suspicion it was now gradually becoming regarded with a certain derision, head-shaking amusement, and a few condescending smiles. And suspicion. What had caused this change in the media view of Russia? Two words; Boris Yeltsin.
Actually, that's not entirely true. When the Emergency Committee usurped Gorbachev, the world held its breath. Seemingly we were about to plunge back into the Cold War years with the added bonus of political instability in the East as well as the aforementioned fear etc. The media in the West then saw Yeltsin as hero, certainly. When he stood up to the tanks in the streets he took on an iconic status similar to that held by the poor brave Chinese gentleman who, armed only with his briefcase, stopped a column of tanks from attacking the protesters in Tianamen Square. When he replaced Gorbachev the media swept the fact that the handing over of power was not entirely seamless, and any chords of unease about the mans ability to actually run the country were treated dismissively by those in the know.
In fairness to him, it was a while before he became regarded as an unstable semi-alcoholic liability. Not because of any statesmanlike actions on his part, but mainly due to a combination of the goodwill felt toward him after the Emergency Committee debacle, and partly because of the actions of Vladimir Zhiranovsky or "Mad Vlad" as he was christened here.
Here was a man who punched his political opponents on air, who made grandiose plans to invade Europe and annex Japan, and who held his party conference in a strip club. I think it was his actions that broke the ground for the western media to really belly laugh at the Russian Leadership (though not the Russian People; I think the English have an inherent respect for any nation that can effortlessly drink so much).
So despite the fact that Russia still had the capability to blow the world up about 4 times over, and despite Yeltsin's alarming love of having the big red button with him at all times of the night and day no matter what his relative sobriety, the media regarded Russian Politicians with an undisguised contempt and brevity. We in our turn began to laugh at them. I think in part this has to do with all of those years of nuclear fear; if we didn't laugh now we would surely cry.
And so here we are now in the 21st century. The Eastern media seems to the casual observer to be working in much the same way as the Western, with some sections slavishly devoted to a political stance, others funded by questionable sources, some with an iron hard integrity that usually translates into insufferable self righteousness. Putin is the president and the Western laughter has stopped. The general view of him seems to be that he is a good man for Russia, but this view is tempered by an air of unease as that is what the chattering classes said of Hitler in the 30's. The Chechen War (as it is known here) seems to rumble on, but in truth there is little news about it. Despite the fine words and high ideals we supposedly hold, it would seem that we care little for the implications of Russia putting it's house in order. And so we ignore the few reports on it that are actually deemed newsworthy by the West.
Yet despite this, there may be a light breeze of change blowing in our media. With Dubya on the throne in the US we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being allied to a moron who will act unilaterally and demand that the rest of the world follow suit. Doing in fact exactly what the media spent so long warning us the USSR would do. As President Putin tentatively begins to sound out his traditional allies concerning opposition to the US Missile Defence Shield, can it be too much longer before we in Europe find that we have a lot in common concerning that issue and perhaps make overtures of our own? And if we find concord on that issue, could there not be others? As in everything, time will surely tell.
I recently received an email from a friend of mine working in the Russian Media, specifically in Samara. I believe that the place has just elected a Communist mayor (to the immense chagrin of the government; I believe the chap has had to suspend his membership of the Communist Party. Oh how times have changed.) but I may be mistaking it for one of a million other places in a country that, until recently, represented nothing more than a vast amorphous blob on the map. Well...that's not strictly true actually. It also represented secrecy and fear, sleepless nights consumed with worry about "The Bomb" and when (that's when, not if) it would be dropped because simply everyone in the UK knew that the USSR/Russia (ignorance being what it is, the terms were interchangeable) wanted nothing more than to bomb us out of existence. Of course, now that I come to think about it, no one knew why...
It's none of those things now of course. Well, if it is it's to a much lesser degree, but it's not that long since information about Russia and the USSR was defined by the lack of it. Up to age 10 I can remember the news reports that concerned the nations east of the Iron Curtain. They were always speculative rather than based on any hard facts, and invariably an expert on Soviet thinking was wheeled in to try and give an interpretation on whatever little tidbit of information had come to light. Having been raised on a diet of Spy films such as James Bond, I always imagined that this piece of information had only been won at the cost of the life or liberty of a brave spy or defector and so I was generally rapt with attention as some self important fart explained how the Godless Communists were Up To Something.
I actually became rather good at USSR news interpretation myself; any announcement that any dignitary had a cold was a sure sign that the person in question would soon be shuffling off this mortal coil. When Premiers Chernyenko and Andropov (apologies for misspellings) developed such a condition, everyone braced himself or herself and the media did their (actually quite pitiful) best to guess whom the successor would be. Yet we never even knew exactly when they did die. I remember waking to Breakfast news many moons ago to find Nick Ross looking seriously into camera and intoning the rhetorical question "Is President Chernyenko dead or not?"
This of course seems absurd nowadays. With the advent and advance of mass media communication one can make a decent stab at guessing what time any given world leader went to the toilet, never mind whether he or she is still drawing breath. But back then the only thing we had to go on was Russian radio and television; specifically the fact that they had apparently been playing sombre music all day. So either the premier was ill, the premier was dead, or the entire Soviet nation was suffering from a hangover so colossal that the premier had ordered slow music until everyone had had a chance to have a fried breakfast and a cup of tea. As there had been an announcement some weeks early that President Chernyenko was suffering from a cold, I knew that the poor man had joined the ranks of the dearly departed and a few days later I had the smug satisfaction of being proved right.
And that was pretty much the pattern for the 80's. The east was inaccessibly and so the media concentrated on the west, specifically America. Denied the chance to take any cultural influences from Russia et al due to a mixture of anti communist feeling here, and a perceived veil of secrecy there we embraced American culture with open arms. Today almost all of our slang terms, marketing ideas, TV programs and program ideas etc. spring forth from America. The only example of Russian culture influencing English media that springs to mind is, regrettably, A Clockwork Orange. The gang in this book speaks in slang called Nadsat, a mixture of Russian and English phrases. This sounds outlandish to us today, but if one were to stop and think about the amount of Americanisms used in our day to day speech one could see just how strong the Western influence is. The language of A Clockwork Orange is, in my opinion, an example of the way we might speak today had East been given an equal chance to West in our media.
The dawn of the 90's and the events in the East were always seen as a great victory for the Western Way of Life as far as the media in general were concerned. We heralded the collapse of Communism and looked forward to the former USSR taking it's place on the world stage as an equal partner (well...I did anyway). Not least amongst my own personal causes for celebration was the end of the Cold War and an end to the constant, almost paralysing fear of a Nuclear War. Later events were to prove me almost 100% wrong on this particular issue. I had thought that the end of the Soviet Union would mean an end to 2 superpowers threatening each other with Mutually Assured Destruction. In that respect I was correct. What we instead got was about 9 nations with Nuclear Weapons, all of which were pointing here, there, and everywhere. If I was rigid with fear beforehand, I should by rights have been comatose with terror now.
This was not the case though. Instead of the media calmly and neutrally scaremongering about the threat of Nuclear War as they had done in the 80's, a new tactic was used. Whilst before Russia was regarded with fear, hostility and suspicion it was now gradually becoming regarded with a certain derision, head-shaking amusement, and a few condescending smiles. And suspicion. What had caused this change in the media view of Russia? Two words; Boris Yeltsin.
Actually, that's not entirely true. When the Emergency Committee usurped Gorbachev, the world held its breath. Seemingly we were about to plunge back into the Cold War years with the added bonus of political instability in the East as well as the aforementioned fear etc. The media in the West then saw Yeltsin as hero, certainly. When he stood up to the tanks in the streets he took on an iconic status similar to that held by the poor brave Chinese gentleman who, armed only with his briefcase, stopped a column of tanks from attacking the protesters in Tianamen Square. When he replaced Gorbachev the media swept the fact that the handing over of power was not entirely seamless, and any chords of unease about the mans ability to actually run the country were treated dismissively by those in the know.
In fairness to him, it was a while before he became regarded as an unstable semi-alcoholic liability. Not because of any statesmanlike actions on his part, but mainly due to a combination of the goodwill felt toward him after the Emergency Committee debacle, and partly because of the actions of Vladimir Zhiranovsky or "Mad Vlad" as he was christened here.
Here was a man who punched his political opponents on air, who made grandiose plans to invade Europe and annex Japan, and who held his party conference in a strip club. I think it was his actions that broke the ground for the western media to really belly laugh at the Russian Leadership (though not the Russian People; I think the English have an inherent respect for any nation that can effortlessly drink so much).
So despite the fact that Russia still had the capability to blow the world up about 4 times over, and despite Yeltsin's alarming love of having the big red button with him at all times of the night and day no matter what his relative sobriety, the media regarded Russian Politicians with an undisguised contempt and brevity. We in our turn began to laugh at them. I think in part this has to do with all of those years of nuclear fear; if we didn't laugh now we would surely cry.
And so here we are now in the 21st century. The Eastern media seems to the casual observer to be working in much the same way as the Western, with some sections slavishly devoted to a political stance, others funded by questionable sources, some with an iron hard integrity that usually translates into insufferable self righteousness. Putin is the president and the Western laughter has stopped. The general view of him seems to be that he is a good man for Russia, but this view is tempered by an air of unease as that is what the chattering classes said of Hitler in the 30's. The Chechen War (as it is known here) seems to rumble on, but in truth there is little news about it. Despite the fine words and high ideals we supposedly hold, it would seem that we care little for the implications of Russia putting it's house in order. And so we ignore the few reports on it that are actually deemed newsworthy by the West.
Yet despite this, there may be a light breeze of change blowing in our media. With Dubya on the throne in the US we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being allied to a moron who will act unilaterally and demand that the rest of the world follow suit. Doing in fact exactly what the media spent so long warning us the USSR would do. As President Putin tentatively begins to sound out his traditional allies concerning opposition to the US Missile Defence Shield, can it be too much longer before we in Europe find that we have a lot in common concerning that issue and perhaps make overtures of our own? And if we find concord on that issue, could there not be others? As in everything, time will surely tell.
Wednesday 8 August 2001
Vows of Poverty
The subject matter of this rant caused the only argument my wife and I had on our Honeymoon. True story.
Having returned refreshed from my holiday and only having had one near death experience whilst out there, I'm quite surprised to find myself rather uninspired as to what to write. There are of course the event in the UK whilst I've been turning myself a sort of grubby looking off-white colour in the Spanish sun. Not least among these is the furore over Brass Eye and its satirical look at the media treatment of paedophiles. God, how I wish I could have been here to bask in the aftermath of that one. However, I doubt that I could add much to the 700+ newspaper column inches that were generated in the week following broadcast, so I shall limit myself to a few points. Firstly, it did not encourage paedophilia (as claimed by the Sun, the Mail et al) any more than Jonathon Swift encouraged cannibalism when he wrote "A Modest Proposal" during the Irish Potato Famine (that book was a satire on British attitudes to the Irish during the famine. In one passage he suggested that the Irish should cease complaining about their lack of food, as there was an overabundance of children that could be butchered and eaten). It was a program that poked fun at both media frenzy and the effects thereof (anybody remember the Welsh Pediatrician who was chased from her home after the News of the World's name and shame campaign?) and media whore B-list celebs who will do anything for publicity and cash, to the extent that they don't even listen as their spastic words tumble out of their mouths.
Secondly, it very effectively embarrassed the relevant governmental spokesmen and women who rushed to condemn it before having to admit that they hadn't actually seen it (although in fairness one could accept that David Blunkett is not really very likely to see anything...). This also explains my own lack of unconditional praise for the program. I've only seen clips of it on the Net and not the whole thing, so I'm not really qualified to go into any more depth about it. And it is with that in mind that I shall move on to other matters.
Whilst on my merry jaunt to the Iberian peninsular I managed to take in some culture between the epic bouts of sunbathing. That which held most interest for me (or at least sticks most in my mind) was the cathedral in Seville. This was a truly magnificent building; littered with monuments and choked up with chapels, it could not fail to inspire awe. (You just know there's a "but" coming don't you?)
However, what rather cast a pall over any appreciation of its majesty was the Treasury room. Bearing in mind that the Treasury was probably intended to cause gasps of delight at the sheer range of artifacts and objects of unutterable beauty, a brisk walk around the room was enough to make me feel sick with anger at and loathing of the Catholic Church. I estimate that if the contents of that room were to be converted into it's value in £20 notes then one could have filled the cathedral itself. I saw golden crucifixes inlaid with diamonds and emeralds, icons that were smothered in pearls, goblets dripping with precious stones, and don't even start about the various pieces of dead saints that were littering the place (although I do wonder how many of them were genuine; a quick count of the altars in Italy that claim to house a digit of St. Paul indicates that he had at least 27 fingers...).
And that was just one single cathedral! There are hundreds of the damned things worldwide, and if we suppose that each one only held treasures a tenth of the value of those found in Seville then on can see that the Catholic Church must have a value running into billions, if not trillions (trillion= 1000 billion) of pounds. How come we never see the Pope at the top of the Times Rich List? And why does this get my goat so much? Because the hypocritical bastards never let up about how it's easier for a poor man to get to heaven than a rich man, thus implying that by tithing one's wealth away then heaven becomes somehow more accessible. Surely the papacy must have been banned from passing the pearly gates since the 9th century is that's the case. And also because this organisation claims that it does so much good for the poor, the hungry, and the needy and takes the moral high ground in any debate about what more can be done to help them. Here's an idea; why not sell just one artifact from each cathedral, thus providing enough money to feed, clothe, and educate pretty much every person in any given continent? Go for 4 or 5 items and one can do the same to 4 or 5 continents. Shit, the stuff can be replaced with gold leaf and costume jewelry and nobody would know the difference.
Of course, this will never happen, as all artifacts are needed "for the greater glory of God". Well, I was in that Treasury for a good half an hour and I didn't see anybody's eyes light up with religious fervour. I saw lots of avaricious faces admiring the pretty baubles, and that was about it. Why does God need all of this stuff anyway? Is he an art collector? If so he has a taste for the gaudy and glittery.
Actually, since we're on the subject of this quaint idea of collecting and doing stuff for some semi-mythical father figure with a penchant for collecting people and things into vast stone buildings, I think it might be worth commenting on the Cathedral itself. It was vast and gothic in it's appearance, and at every corner there was some piece of tourist guide scribble reminding us that the building was completed in God's name and for His glory, as if somehow it wouldn't have been possible to build the damn thing without His blessing! Yes, it is an amazing achievement that so huge and imposing a building could have been constructed over 500 years ago but it was mankind who built it, not God (unless I'm mistaken; maybe God mixed the mortar, Jesus did the carpentry, and the Holy Spirit did the ceiling...). It is a testament to man's ability to create and perpetuate his ideas in exactly the same way as the Pyramids, the Statue of Liberty etc. The fact that it was done in the name of a religion doesn't make it any greater and to say that it does is to downgrade the importance of those two monuments I have just mentioned, the latter of which was built in the name of Freedom and the former as a monument to a great Pharaoh. (Well...actually the latter was a gift to the US from France and the former was more of a monument to a great ego but let's not let the facts stand in the way here...).
So what is the point of this (other than me venting my spleen of course)? Probably that the Treasury proved to me that the words of the Catholic church are hollow and meaningless when it comes to their claims that one can have a better life when one has faith. The church as a body care little for you or for the poor and needy. They care about worshipping their God and all you and I are to them is a means to get more pretty baubles and buildings for Him. Even the ticket I had to buy to get into the Cathedral made the proud boast that 60% of the price would go on building (and presumably outfitting) new churches. If you actually do have a faith of some kind or another then that is a good thing, but please do keep it as a personal faith. The more money that is given to the church, the more wealth it can accumulate and the longer it will keep getting on my nerves.
Having returned refreshed from my holiday and only having had one near death experience whilst out there, I'm quite surprised to find myself rather uninspired as to what to write. There are of course the event in the UK whilst I've been turning myself a sort of grubby looking off-white colour in the Spanish sun. Not least among these is the furore over Brass Eye and its satirical look at the media treatment of paedophiles. God, how I wish I could have been here to bask in the aftermath of that one. However, I doubt that I could add much to the 700+ newspaper column inches that were generated in the week following broadcast, so I shall limit myself to a few points. Firstly, it did not encourage paedophilia (as claimed by the Sun, the Mail et al) any more than Jonathon Swift encouraged cannibalism when he wrote "A Modest Proposal" during the Irish Potato Famine (that book was a satire on British attitudes to the Irish during the famine. In one passage he suggested that the Irish should cease complaining about their lack of food, as there was an overabundance of children that could be butchered and eaten). It was a program that poked fun at both media frenzy and the effects thereof (anybody remember the Welsh Pediatrician who was chased from her home after the News of the World's name and shame campaign?) and media whore B-list celebs who will do anything for publicity and cash, to the extent that they don't even listen as their spastic words tumble out of their mouths.
Secondly, it very effectively embarrassed the relevant governmental spokesmen and women who rushed to condemn it before having to admit that they hadn't actually seen it (although in fairness one could accept that David Blunkett is not really very likely to see anything...). This also explains my own lack of unconditional praise for the program. I've only seen clips of it on the Net and not the whole thing, so I'm not really qualified to go into any more depth about it. And it is with that in mind that I shall move on to other matters.
Whilst on my merry jaunt to the Iberian peninsular I managed to take in some culture between the epic bouts of sunbathing. That which held most interest for me (or at least sticks most in my mind) was the cathedral in Seville. This was a truly magnificent building; littered with monuments and choked up with chapels, it could not fail to inspire awe. (You just know there's a "but" coming don't you?)
However, what rather cast a pall over any appreciation of its majesty was the Treasury room. Bearing in mind that the Treasury was probably intended to cause gasps of delight at the sheer range of artifacts and objects of unutterable beauty, a brisk walk around the room was enough to make me feel sick with anger at and loathing of the Catholic Church. I estimate that if the contents of that room were to be converted into it's value in £20 notes then one could have filled the cathedral itself. I saw golden crucifixes inlaid with diamonds and emeralds, icons that were smothered in pearls, goblets dripping with precious stones, and don't even start about the various pieces of dead saints that were littering the place (although I do wonder how many of them were genuine; a quick count of the altars in Italy that claim to house a digit of St. Paul indicates that he had at least 27 fingers...).
And that was just one single cathedral! There are hundreds of the damned things worldwide, and if we suppose that each one only held treasures a tenth of the value of those found in Seville then on can see that the Catholic Church must have a value running into billions, if not trillions (trillion= 1000 billion) of pounds. How come we never see the Pope at the top of the Times Rich List? And why does this get my goat so much? Because the hypocritical bastards never let up about how it's easier for a poor man to get to heaven than a rich man, thus implying that by tithing one's wealth away then heaven becomes somehow more accessible. Surely the papacy must have been banned from passing the pearly gates since the 9th century is that's the case. And also because this organisation claims that it does so much good for the poor, the hungry, and the needy and takes the moral high ground in any debate about what more can be done to help them. Here's an idea; why not sell just one artifact from each cathedral, thus providing enough money to feed, clothe, and educate pretty much every person in any given continent? Go for 4 or 5 items and one can do the same to 4 or 5 continents. Shit, the stuff can be replaced with gold leaf and costume jewelry and nobody would know the difference.
Of course, this will never happen, as all artifacts are needed "for the greater glory of God". Well, I was in that Treasury for a good half an hour and I didn't see anybody's eyes light up with religious fervour. I saw lots of avaricious faces admiring the pretty baubles, and that was about it. Why does God need all of this stuff anyway? Is he an art collector? If so he has a taste for the gaudy and glittery.
Actually, since we're on the subject of this quaint idea of collecting and doing stuff for some semi-mythical father figure with a penchant for collecting people and things into vast stone buildings, I think it might be worth commenting on the Cathedral itself. It was vast and gothic in it's appearance, and at every corner there was some piece of tourist guide scribble reminding us that the building was completed in God's name and for His glory, as if somehow it wouldn't have been possible to build the damn thing without His blessing! Yes, it is an amazing achievement that so huge and imposing a building could have been constructed over 500 years ago but it was mankind who built it, not God (unless I'm mistaken; maybe God mixed the mortar, Jesus did the carpentry, and the Holy Spirit did the ceiling...). It is a testament to man's ability to create and perpetuate his ideas in exactly the same way as the Pyramids, the Statue of Liberty etc. The fact that it was done in the name of a religion doesn't make it any greater and to say that it does is to downgrade the importance of those two monuments I have just mentioned, the latter of which was built in the name of Freedom and the former as a monument to a great Pharaoh. (Well...actually the latter was a gift to the US from France and the former was more of a monument to a great ego but let's not let the facts stand in the way here...).
So what is the point of this (other than me venting my spleen of course)? Probably that the Treasury proved to me that the words of the Catholic church are hollow and meaningless when it comes to their claims that one can have a better life when one has faith. The church as a body care little for you or for the poor and needy. They care about worshipping their God and all you and I are to them is a means to get more pretty baubles and buildings for Him. Even the ticket I had to buy to get into the Cathedral made the proud boast that 60% of the price would go on building (and presumably outfitting) new churches. If you actually do have a faith of some kind or another then that is a good thing, but please do keep it as a personal faith. The more money that is given to the church, the more wealth it can accumulate and the longer it will keep getting on my nerves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)