One of the readers of this rant decided to use it as proof of my supposed racism. For the record, that's utter cock. Seems that, to some on the political left, any mention of race is enough to see one tarred with the fascist-brush.
Well, the Oscars have come and gone for yet another year. The glamour and glitz were toned down due to September 11th, so the teeth and tits didn't get quite as much of an airing as they might otherwise have done. Quite why they did this I don't know; surely it would have made more sense to celebrate the fact that they're all still alive to make movies, and that the country that hosts the awards is still much the same as it was before Bin Laden decided to carve out his place in history. I suppose that it wouldn't do to be seen enjoying oneself in the distant wake of an event that saw a body count of 3,500 and falling. So despite the fact that the whole event was designed to be a multimillion-dollar spectacular involving hedonism, celebration, and (because the movie business is, after all, a business) deals being closed, the public face of the Oscars was of comparative restraint. I imagine the good parties started once the press had buggered off or stunned themselves with whatever pills, powders, and drinks they could get their hands on. Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy. And speaking of which...
You may know that Denzil Washington and Halle Berry won the best Actor and Actress awards. I've seen neither of the films that earned them the prize so I have no idea whether or not they deserved to win (although based on Ms Berry's acceptance speech, I would say she has ample talent for acting...). Yet apparently their success is big news because they are (and look over your shoulder before whispering this) black.
Now I'm clearly a very naive young man, because I plain and simple don't understand why there has been such a song and dance about it. In truth I found a lot of the post Oscar coverage and analysis rather offensive. Elegantly coiffured men and women stood outside the venue reporting breathlessly that a black man and a black woman had each won an Oscar. I half expecting them to follow this piece of news with the words "Aren't they clever?! Who would have thought that they had it in them?". It sounded like they were filing a report about a performing seal that had done a particularly good trick.
And then we had the debate about "What does this mean for black people in America?". Well, I'm no expert in this matter but I suspect that it means the same for black people as it does for everybody; it means we know who won the Oscars for Best Actor and Best Actress. Should it really mean any more than that? I mean, I do appreciate that there is racism in the film industry; most of the movers and shakers in Hollywood are male WASP's and so it follows that certain racist views will become institutionalised in the upper echelons of the business. Naturally, we should applaud anything that seeks to remove that bigoted element. I'm just not entirely sure that what we saw in yesterday's media was the right way to go about it.
Firstly, such a big screaming deal was made of it. Why should it be so out of the ordinary that a black person wins an Oscar? Or an Oriental person? Or an Hispanic person? When such an event is reported in terms of "Well, this is unusual" I would say it helps propagate racism rather than combat it. After all, we are drawing attention to their race and making an issue of it. If someone is a talented actor then they are a talented actor, it doesn't matter what their colour or creed. Filmmaking is considered an art (although if that is the case then Pearl Harbour is a shit smeared canvass...) and I always thought that art should transcend the colour of your skin. If you hear a good song, or read a good book do you care about the racial makeup of the writer? So why should we care about the skin colour of an actor?
In one respect, some of the things that have been done to combat racism in the last few years seem to have made us care more about race than we might have done before. Complaining about the Music Of Black Origin awards is old hat, as are comments about the outcry that would be raised if a Music Of White Origin award was instituted. But they do have a certain amount of validity to them. After all, your friendly neighbourhood racist can now argue that there is no need for mainstream awards to be given to black artists as they have their own. He can perhaps further argue that it is a disgrace that there are no race-specific film awards for non-whites, as black artists have clearly shown that they want to considered separately from white artists.
That's all horrific nonsense of course; without wishing to sound patronising I would imagine that what black artists want is the same as what white artists want; the recognition of their peers. And that is no different throughout the world; people just want to be accepted by others, and perhaps get some recognition for their achievements. The coverage of the Oscars suggested that we should recognise the fact that Mr. Washington and Ms Berry are black before we consider their talent. I consider that to be just as racist as any argument used by the BNP or Nation of Islam (because a lot of their segregationist views would be at home in a KKK charter) and to have it peddled to us on the mainstream news is offensive. It's a fine line of course; if we totally ignore racial issues then racism creeps back in. But when we are still viewing a black Oscar winner as a curiosity to be commented upon then we can't claim to be consigning it to history either.
Tuesday 26 March 2002
Thursday 21 March 2002
Apathy
I think this was the beginning of my obsession with the political apathy and malaise that hangs over the West like a soggy dog.
A new species joined the endangered list today. It has been holding off the threat of extinction for a few years, and conservationists have resorted to increasingly desperate measures to safeguard it's survival. Yet it would appear that this poor beast has grown tired of it's existence and so it's plight is almost universally ignored. I'm talking about a species who's distinctive call was once heard daily, whether we liked it or not, and which was once commonplace throughout the land. I'm talking of course about The Opposition to the Government.
I don't know if anybody has noticed this, but since the fun and games started in Afghanistan, we seem to have taken very definite steps towards being a one party state. Almost all of the political news (certainly all that one doesn't have to laboriously trawl through the bowels of the broadsheets to find) concerns itself with the Labour Party. We get bad news concerning our government (lack of spending on public services, rising street crime, the seeming inability of ministers to either do their jobs or make their departments do theirs), and we get good news about it (...erm.... I’ll get back to you on that one). But what there is not is the reaction of the opposition to any of this. If Iain Duncan Smith has had anything to say about this, I have not heard him. If that cheeky little ginger munchkin Charles Kennedy has taken the opportunity to compare government policy unfavourably with that of the LibDems, then it is a waste because nobody knows about it. Why is this; is our government taking sinister steps towards totalitarianism, or are our opposition parties the most useless thing since the Innovations catalogue?
I don't really think that there can be much doubt that the Government is acting in a pretty authoritarian and unilateral manner. They're still busy telling us what we want (President Blair unveiled his "Third Phase of the Third Way which, aside from sounding like a low budget martial arts film or something from an astrological chart, pretty much underwhelmed those who could be bothered to pay attention), whilst ignoring anyone who says what they actually need (a better NHS? I didn't exactly hear a chorus of complaints when Gordon Brown issued dark warnings that taxes would have to be raised to achieve this, yet he continues to say it in the same tone as a medieval priest would have warned of an infestation of demons and seems blind to the fact that in general we're happy to pay a little more if it means having a health service that doesn't fart and collapse when a few old ladies get flu). Their methods of maintaining discipline within their own party aren't exactly inspiring either. Take Ken Livingstone (please); he was wanted by the overwhelming majority of the party as their official candidate for London Mayor. However, thanks to a voting system that Robert Mugabe would have been proud of, Ken was not selected, ran as an independent, and won. The Government accepted this in the same calm and rational manner that can be observed when a baby throws it's rattle out of the pram. Out of the Labour party went Ken, along with any pretense of a party interested in a free and fair exchange of views between it's members.
Yet try as I might, I just can't picture the Labour Party as a totalitarian party. Not due to any lack of pretensions in that direction on their part (for example, the incessant whining by the government whenever the media have the temerity to run a story showing the government in an unfavourable light. According to President Tony the media are perpetuating a 'culture of cynicism'. Hmm...you don't think 30 years of politicians making an breaking promises with gay abandon might have anything to do with it then?) but because of their endearing ability to make an utter mess of whatever they put their hand to. The renationalisation of Railtrack should have been a good move; after all, the company themselves were not exactly covering themselves in glory during their efforts to run our creaking rail network. Instead, Stephen Byers and his fun packed department of backstabbers and mercenaries managed to make themselves look inept and clueless; there are still mutterings from shareholders who want their money back (shouldn't someone explain the concept of "risk" and "stockmarket" to them?), the media have howled for his blood, and his department got lighter by two morons who were led entirely by self interest and one-upmanship. Can you imagine Stalin allowing this sort of thing? He'd have purged the entire party by now. I'm left wondering if that would be a bad thing with our government...
So no; although the Labour party may wish for Totalitarianism for it's next birthday, it's far too clumsy and British for that sort of thing. Which leaves us with the other reason why the opposition are roundly ignored; the opposition themselves.
I suppose one should start with the Conservatives, but then one has to decide where to begin. It's not as if the government hasn't been giving the Tories opportunities to take them to task. The aforementioned Mr. Byers was taken to task by the shadow Transport Secretary (who may or may not be Gillian Shepherd; so anonymous are the opposition that it is difficult to say with any certainty) about the appalling series of gaffes by his department. To cut a short story shorter, so inept was she in her 'roasting' of Byers that the Conservatives found themselves having to say that it was a deliberate ploy to keep Byers in office as he is so dreadful. Which is up there with Bart Simpson's "I didn't do it" in terms of believability. The media now do not report on Byers' troubles in terms of how the opposition has exploited it but in terms of how the government has shot themselves in the foot. Why isn't the opposition trying to take credit for a governmental mistake? Do they even care any more?
The election of IDS as leader of the conservatives would indicate that they do not. When was the last time anyone actually saw or heard anything about him? I haven't seen him on the news or in the papers. I haven't heard him on the radio. I haven't even heard references to him by other politicians (unless you count "Who?" as a reference). The man is anonymous. Little Billy Hague was deservedly a figure of fun, but at least he was noticed and his party talked about. IDS seems determined to avoid the same ridicule and is doing so by never doing anything of note, being anywhere newsworthy, or saying anything even remotely interesting. I'm beginning to wonder if he really exists, or whether Maggie grew him in a Nazi-CIA biological tank as an automaton composite of Hague and John Major. The Conservatives have a boring man at the head of a faceless party that preaches soulless values. No wonder the press ignores them. They're probably fighting the same urge that one gets upon seeing something slimy and unpleasant under a rock; to step on it.
And finally the LibDems. Oh dear oh dear oh dear, I had such high hopes for them. A party that was genuinely interested in doing the right thing for the country, who were honest about their intentions to raise taxes and who explained just what the taxes would be spent on. A party that sought to rise above partisan politics and tried to do the right thing. So what happened? Where are they? What on earth are they doing?
The answer is; not a whole lot, apart from perhaps competing with Tories to provide the most savagely worded denunciation of a Government policy (which no-one will ever read anyway). Oh, and filling up some of the seats in the House of Commons. As for Charles Kennedy, he seems to have limited himself to the occasional appearance on Have I Got News For You so that we can all see that he is a Man Who Is Not Afraid To Be Made Fun Of, or perhaps A Man Of The People. Unfortunately he tends to be categorised as A Man Whom I Have Never Heard Of, or Who Is That Man On The TV? He does seem a nice enough chap, but he's not exactly pushing the boat out in terms of increasing his profile.
I think that the problem is that neither opposition party has any real heavyweights; there is no-one there who will sink his or her teeth into the government and hold on until they cry uncle. All we have are a bunch of professional politicians who won't stick their necks out as they don't want to jeapordise any future career chances. Alas, they have no future career unless they do take a chance. The Governmental policy of "Today is much the same as yesterday" means that in general no-one cares enough about Labour's shortcomings to want to vote them out. Unless the opposition can persuade us that they do have something important to say and that the government has fouled up in an outrageous manner, then long may they continue to be ignored.
A new species joined the endangered list today. It has been holding off the threat of extinction for a few years, and conservationists have resorted to increasingly desperate measures to safeguard it's survival. Yet it would appear that this poor beast has grown tired of it's existence and so it's plight is almost universally ignored. I'm talking about a species who's distinctive call was once heard daily, whether we liked it or not, and which was once commonplace throughout the land. I'm talking of course about The Opposition to the Government.
I don't know if anybody has noticed this, but since the fun and games started in Afghanistan, we seem to have taken very definite steps towards being a one party state. Almost all of the political news (certainly all that one doesn't have to laboriously trawl through the bowels of the broadsheets to find) concerns itself with the Labour Party. We get bad news concerning our government (lack of spending on public services, rising street crime, the seeming inability of ministers to either do their jobs or make their departments do theirs), and we get good news about it (...erm.... I’ll get back to you on that one). But what there is not is the reaction of the opposition to any of this. If Iain Duncan Smith has had anything to say about this, I have not heard him. If that cheeky little ginger munchkin Charles Kennedy has taken the opportunity to compare government policy unfavourably with that of the LibDems, then it is a waste because nobody knows about it. Why is this; is our government taking sinister steps towards totalitarianism, or are our opposition parties the most useless thing since the Innovations catalogue?
I don't really think that there can be much doubt that the Government is acting in a pretty authoritarian and unilateral manner. They're still busy telling us what we want (President Blair unveiled his "Third Phase of the Third Way which, aside from sounding like a low budget martial arts film or something from an astrological chart, pretty much underwhelmed those who could be bothered to pay attention), whilst ignoring anyone who says what they actually need (a better NHS? I didn't exactly hear a chorus of complaints when Gordon Brown issued dark warnings that taxes would have to be raised to achieve this, yet he continues to say it in the same tone as a medieval priest would have warned of an infestation of demons and seems blind to the fact that in general we're happy to pay a little more if it means having a health service that doesn't fart and collapse when a few old ladies get flu). Their methods of maintaining discipline within their own party aren't exactly inspiring either. Take Ken Livingstone (please); he was wanted by the overwhelming majority of the party as their official candidate for London Mayor. However, thanks to a voting system that Robert Mugabe would have been proud of, Ken was not selected, ran as an independent, and won. The Government accepted this in the same calm and rational manner that can be observed when a baby throws it's rattle out of the pram. Out of the Labour party went Ken, along with any pretense of a party interested in a free and fair exchange of views between it's members.
Yet try as I might, I just can't picture the Labour Party as a totalitarian party. Not due to any lack of pretensions in that direction on their part (for example, the incessant whining by the government whenever the media have the temerity to run a story showing the government in an unfavourable light. According to President Tony the media are perpetuating a 'culture of cynicism'. Hmm...you don't think 30 years of politicians making an breaking promises with gay abandon might have anything to do with it then?) but because of their endearing ability to make an utter mess of whatever they put their hand to. The renationalisation of Railtrack should have been a good move; after all, the company themselves were not exactly covering themselves in glory during their efforts to run our creaking rail network. Instead, Stephen Byers and his fun packed department of backstabbers and mercenaries managed to make themselves look inept and clueless; there are still mutterings from shareholders who want their money back (shouldn't someone explain the concept of "risk" and "stockmarket" to them?), the media have howled for his blood, and his department got lighter by two morons who were led entirely by self interest and one-upmanship. Can you imagine Stalin allowing this sort of thing? He'd have purged the entire party by now. I'm left wondering if that would be a bad thing with our government...
So no; although the Labour party may wish for Totalitarianism for it's next birthday, it's far too clumsy and British for that sort of thing. Which leaves us with the other reason why the opposition are roundly ignored; the opposition themselves.
I suppose one should start with the Conservatives, but then one has to decide where to begin. It's not as if the government hasn't been giving the Tories opportunities to take them to task. The aforementioned Mr. Byers was taken to task by the shadow Transport Secretary (who may or may not be Gillian Shepherd; so anonymous are the opposition that it is difficult to say with any certainty) about the appalling series of gaffes by his department. To cut a short story shorter, so inept was she in her 'roasting' of Byers that the Conservatives found themselves having to say that it was a deliberate ploy to keep Byers in office as he is so dreadful. Which is up there with Bart Simpson's "I didn't do it" in terms of believability. The media now do not report on Byers' troubles in terms of how the opposition has exploited it but in terms of how the government has shot themselves in the foot. Why isn't the opposition trying to take credit for a governmental mistake? Do they even care any more?
The election of IDS as leader of the conservatives would indicate that they do not. When was the last time anyone actually saw or heard anything about him? I haven't seen him on the news or in the papers. I haven't heard him on the radio. I haven't even heard references to him by other politicians (unless you count "Who?" as a reference). The man is anonymous. Little Billy Hague was deservedly a figure of fun, but at least he was noticed and his party talked about. IDS seems determined to avoid the same ridicule and is doing so by never doing anything of note, being anywhere newsworthy, or saying anything even remotely interesting. I'm beginning to wonder if he really exists, or whether Maggie grew him in a Nazi-CIA biological tank as an automaton composite of Hague and John Major. The Conservatives have a boring man at the head of a faceless party that preaches soulless values. No wonder the press ignores them. They're probably fighting the same urge that one gets upon seeing something slimy and unpleasant under a rock; to step on it.
And finally the LibDems. Oh dear oh dear oh dear, I had such high hopes for them. A party that was genuinely interested in doing the right thing for the country, who were honest about their intentions to raise taxes and who explained just what the taxes would be spent on. A party that sought to rise above partisan politics and tried to do the right thing. So what happened? Where are they? What on earth are they doing?
The answer is; not a whole lot, apart from perhaps competing with Tories to provide the most savagely worded denunciation of a Government policy (which no-one will ever read anyway). Oh, and filling up some of the seats in the House of Commons. As for Charles Kennedy, he seems to have limited himself to the occasional appearance on Have I Got News For You so that we can all see that he is a Man Who Is Not Afraid To Be Made Fun Of, or perhaps A Man Of The People. Unfortunately he tends to be categorised as A Man Whom I Have Never Heard Of, or Who Is That Man On The TV? He does seem a nice enough chap, but he's not exactly pushing the boat out in terms of increasing his profile.
I think that the problem is that neither opposition party has any real heavyweights; there is no-one there who will sink his or her teeth into the government and hold on until they cry uncle. All we have are a bunch of professional politicians who won't stick their necks out as they don't want to jeapordise any future career chances. Alas, they have no future career unless they do take a chance. The Governmental policy of "Today is much the same as yesterday" means that in general no-one cares enough about Labour's shortcomings to want to vote them out. Unless the opposition can persuade us that they do have something important to say and that the government has fouled up in an outrageous manner, then long may they continue to be ignored.
Wednesday 13 March 2002
Axis of Evil
I still find the term "Axis of Evil" funny. I can't but help humming the Star Wars theme whenever it's mentioned.
Well, I could talk about Zimbabwe and the flagrant abuse of power that President Mugabe has committed. I could talk about the injustice of it (because when every single election observer there says that the election was "flawed at every stage" and when a crashed car was last week found to have a ballot box stuffed with papers voting for Mugabe's Zanu-PF party then it definitely falls under the category of unjust) and how something needs to be done to stop this happening. I'm not going to do that right now though. Partly because I'm inclined to believe that if the people of Zimbabwe want rid of their dictator then they need to do something about it themselves unless they wish to live a life being cowed and beaten. Mainly because I want to talk about Dubya's current favourite soundbite; The Axis of Evil.
Doubtless you have heard this phrase as it was spluttered forth a few weeks ago now. Let's not spend too much time worrying about the fact that the speechwriter seems to have picked the phrase according to how cool it sounded ("Yeah, Axis of Evil dude! If Dubya doesn't go for it maybe we can sell the idea to George Lucas for the 3rd Star Wars film..."). Instead, let us worry about what the implications may be for all of us if Dubya does what several newspapers (whom, to be honest, I suspect are scaremongering rather more than usual) are indicating and declares all out war (or low level conflict, or a policing operation, or whatever euphemism is flavour of the month at the moment) on all of the nations belonging to this Axis.
So then; which countries are lining up to join the axis? According to Dubya the 3 main offenders are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I'm going to look at Iraq last of all as that is something of a special case (i.e. Dubya pretty much got it right; I suppose 1 out of 3 is pretty decent...unless you're talking about declaring war and subsequent nuclear immolation in which case I'd prefer a little more accuracy). Firstly, a word about Iran. I admit to being biased as I have a soft spot for this country. President Khatami of Iran is making substantial inroads in bringing democracy and equality to this Persian nation (I do wish Dubya would stop calling them Arabs; another fine example of ignorance that is excrutiating at that level) despite the opposition of the hardline clergy who are doing their utmost to maintain the status quo (that being to support Islamic terror groups everywhere and to oppose anything said or done by the west and Israel). Khatami has done his utmost to relax the incredibly harsh Sharia law, endeavoured to improve the lot of the Iranian people (including women; a rarity in an Islamic nation) and has tried to make the government more representative of what Iranians want rather than the government telling people what they will get. He has been opposed at every turn by the clergy, who have subsequently found their support from the people plummeting. Khatami has said more than once that he has the people on his side and so the feeling was that he would get his way on a number of the reforms. After all, the last revolution was well within living memory; the clerics don't want to find themselves on the receiving end of another one.
And now, thanks to Dubya, a lot of that hard work has been undone. The clergy now say that this proves that they were right all along, and Khatami was foolish to try and open up Iran to negotiations with the West as they will always try to destroy Islamic culture and replace it with that of America. Many of the people of Iran (a nation where the people held candlelit vigils in memory of the victims of Sept. 11th) are understandably angry at being condemned by the US and so their support is swinging back to the clergy. Any hope of reforms that would increase the freedom of people in Iran has been dashed thanks to the land of the Brave and the Free. Supporters of Dubya's idiocy point to the fact that Iran and Khatami have made statements in support of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group responsible for so much of the bloodshed in Israel. And I agree, this is a bad thing. Would they perhaps like to look at some of the terror groups that the US has supported and in some cases continues to support? The Taliban once received US support, to say nothing of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, or Pinochet's murderous coup. The only thing that I can find to damn Iran for is the same thing that damns the US, the UK (we've supported lord knows how many rebels and terrorists when it suits our purpose), France (who are in the Rwanda massacres up to their necks) and so on. If someone can point out where the difference between them and us lies then I'm all ears. Happily, the EC has had an outbreak of sanity, and the visit of Khatami to various European countries this week demonstrates exactly what the view of Dubya's branding of Iran is.
Okay, that takes us on to North Korea. Here is a country that has been in the grip of a famine for years. Here is a country that cannot feed it's own people. Here is a country that is so xenophobic that the idea of it co-operating with anyone or thing that isn't North Korean is laughable (I believe the last time it did so was when some North Korean military types helped train Idi Amin's army). I'm not going to take issue with the fact that it is a dictatorship ran by a reclusive madman. But trying to identify it as a sponsor of terrorism is disingenuous as it A: Cannot afford to and B: Has a healthy fear and loathing of Islam due to the fact that it is a Communist nation that permits no religion other than the cult of leadership. Sticking the boot into North Korea is rather like sticking the boot into a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone knows he deserves it but as a threat they are completely ineffective. I will place one caveat on this paragraph; they are developing their own Nuclear Weapons (according to rumour) and this certainly needs to be closely observed. But by the UN, not the US. America has already managed to destroy the credibility of arms inspectors in Iraq when it emerged that they kept asking for the information found by the UN. This is despite the fact that the UN is supposed to be impartial. Is the world just supposed to accept America shanghai-ing the UN for it's own purposes and then believe that they are not pursuing their own agenda? If that's the case then fine, but drop the high-minded rhetoric about defending world peace and democracy; the stench of hypocrisy becomes overpowering after a while.
And finally, Iraq. A few things to get out of the way first of all; yes, I do believe that the sanctions on Iraq are failing as the Ba'ath party leadership is as secure as ever whilst the Iraqi people suffer (if nothing else, their plight should hopefully provide a warning to the people of Zimbabwe...). I also believe that weapons of mass destruction are being developed in Iraq, and that they are a threat to world peace. However, I also believe that the answer isn't nearly as simple as both Dubya's "Let's roll" approach, and Dubya himself.
Let's be honest here; the UK and US are still smarting about the Gulf War and it's failure to result in the end of Hussein's rule. We are annoyed that he is free to cast occasional barbs at the west with impunity. And most importantly of all, in this war against terror we are frustrated that there is no clear target to aim at. Afghanistan was not the target of the war as it has unfolded thus far; Al-Quaida and the Taliban were. The military is a conservative sort of organisation, and these rules of engagement have clearly sat rather uncomfortably with them. What better way to boost morale by finding a gen-u-wine country to go to war with? None of that awkward and complicated separating the civilians from the Taliban and Al Quaida (the last time America fought a war where those type of procedures were required was Vietnam), just good old fashioned "our army against their army". We all know where we stand with that.
That at least is one of the many criticisms from some elements of the political left. However justified it is (and I think it is) I would say that it is rather shortsighted. Are we simply supposed to sit back and wait until Iraq is in a position to deploy their weapons of mass destruction? Do they have to make the first move? I've got my grievances against Israel but I'm not entirely sure that sitting back and waiting for Iraq to reduce it to molten slag, or a bacterial wasteland, or a chemical hell is the best way to deal with a small-time dictator with big-time weapons. So isn't it right that we should strike now and do our utmost to remove Hussein from power before he authorises some atrocity?
Yes and no. If Dubya goes wading in, cack handed as usual, then he runs the very real risk of destabilising the Middle East. The governments of many of these countries are supporters of the US. The majority of people are not. Many would welcome the opportunity to replace their oppressive governments whom they regard as American puppets. A war against Iraq that the people do not agree with could provide that opportunity. What would start out as a conflict with defined targets could very quickly and very easily descend into anarchy. So whilst I agree something does need to be done about Iraq, it needs to be done differently to the way Dubya envisages. How? Well, I don't rightly know to be honest. But I do know that Dubya actually took the time to talk to his titular allies rather than ride roughshod over any objections they might have and do whatever he feels like, then he might find that there are other solutions.
Finally, a word about that fun brand of American and English patriot who, upon reading the above, will think nothing more than "Tough luck; we're in the right and so have the moral high ground. Therefore we should attack Iraq, and to hell with anyone who disagrees." These are same brand of people who compare anyone who disagrees with them to the people who believed that appeasing Hitler would avoid war. Well, I certainly don't like the idea of appeasement as those people, far from ensuring world peace, ensured that what could have been a localised conflict became a worldwide one. However, what I would say to them is that in behaving in the way they are, in hooting and hollering for conflict against Iraq, they are doing exactly the same thing as the appeasers once did; helping make sure that a small scale conflict becomes a bigger one.
Well, I could talk about Zimbabwe and the flagrant abuse of power that President Mugabe has committed. I could talk about the injustice of it (because when every single election observer there says that the election was "flawed at every stage" and when a crashed car was last week found to have a ballot box stuffed with papers voting for Mugabe's Zanu-PF party then it definitely falls under the category of unjust) and how something needs to be done to stop this happening. I'm not going to do that right now though. Partly because I'm inclined to believe that if the people of Zimbabwe want rid of their dictator then they need to do something about it themselves unless they wish to live a life being cowed and beaten. Mainly because I want to talk about Dubya's current favourite soundbite; The Axis of Evil.
Doubtless you have heard this phrase as it was spluttered forth a few weeks ago now. Let's not spend too much time worrying about the fact that the speechwriter seems to have picked the phrase according to how cool it sounded ("Yeah, Axis of Evil dude! If Dubya doesn't go for it maybe we can sell the idea to George Lucas for the 3rd Star Wars film..."). Instead, let us worry about what the implications may be for all of us if Dubya does what several newspapers (whom, to be honest, I suspect are scaremongering rather more than usual) are indicating and declares all out war (or low level conflict, or a policing operation, or whatever euphemism is flavour of the month at the moment) on all of the nations belonging to this Axis.
So then; which countries are lining up to join the axis? According to Dubya the 3 main offenders are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I'm going to look at Iraq last of all as that is something of a special case (i.e. Dubya pretty much got it right; I suppose 1 out of 3 is pretty decent...unless you're talking about declaring war and subsequent nuclear immolation in which case I'd prefer a little more accuracy). Firstly, a word about Iran. I admit to being biased as I have a soft spot for this country. President Khatami of Iran is making substantial inroads in bringing democracy and equality to this Persian nation (I do wish Dubya would stop calling them Arabs; another fine example of ignorance that is excrutiating at that level) despite the opposition of the hardline clergy who are doing their utmost to maintain the status quo (that being to support Islamic terror groups everywhere and to oppose anything said or done by the west and Israel). Khatami has done his utmost to relax the incredibly harsh Sharia law, endeavoured to improve the lot of the Iranian people (including women; a rarity in an Islamic nation) and has tried to make the government more representative of what Iranians want rather than the government telling people what they will get. He has been opposed at every turn by the clergy, who have subsequently found their support from the people plummeting. Khatami has said more than once that he has the people on his side and so the feeling was that he would get his way on a number of the reforms. After all, the last revolution was well within living memory; the clerics don't want to find themselves on the receiving end of another one.
And now, thanks to Dubya, a lot of that hard work has been undone. The clergy now say that this proves that they were right all along, and Khatami was foolish to try and open up Iran to negotiations with the West as they will always try to destroy Islamic culture and replace it with that of America. Many of the people of Iran (a nation where the people held candlelit vigils in memory of the victims of Sept. 11th) are understandably angry at being condemned by the US and so their support is swinging back to the clergy. Any hope of reforms that would increase the freedom of people in Iran has been dashed thanks to the land of the Brave and the Free. Supporters of Dubya's idiocy point to the fact that Iran and Khatami have made statements in support of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group responsible for so much of the bloodshed in Israel. And I agree, this is a bad thing. Would they perhaps like to look at some of the terror groups that the US has supported and in some cases continues to support? The Taliban once received US support, to say nothing of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, or Pinochet's murderous coup. The only thing that I can find to damn Iran for is the same thing that damns the US, the UK (we've supported lord knows how many rebels and terrorists when it suits our purpose), France (who are in the Rwanda massacres up to their necks) and so on. If someone can point out where the difference between them and us lies then I'm all ears. Happily, the EC has had an outbreak of sanity, and the visit of Khatami to various European countries this week demonstrates exactly what the view of Dubya's branding of Iran is.
Okay, that takes us on to North Korea. Here is a country that has been in the grip of a famine for years. Here is a country that cannot feed it's own people. Here is a country that is so xenophobic that the idea of it co-operating with anyone or thing that isn't North Korean is laughable (I believe the last time it did so was when some North Korean military types helped train Idi Amin's army). I'm not going to take issue with the fact that it is a dictatorship ran by a reclusive madman. But trying to identify it as a sponsor of terrorism is disingenuous as it A: Cannot afford to and B: Has a healthy fear and loathing of Islam due to the fact that it is a Communist nation that permits no religion other than the cult of leadership. Sticking the boot into North Korea is rather like sticking the boot into a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone knows he deserves it but as a threat they are completely ineffective. I will place one caveat on this paragraph; they are developing their own Nuclear Weapons (according to rumour) and this certainly needs to be closely observed. But by the UN, not the US. America has already managed to destroy the credibility of arms inspectors in Iraq when it emerged that they kept asking for the information found by the UN. This is despite the fact that the UN is supposed to be impartial. Is the world just supposed to accept America shanghai-ing the UN for it's own purposes and then believe that they are not pursuing their own agenda? If that's the case then fine, but drop the high-minded rhetoric about defending world peace and democracy; the stench of hypocrisy becomes overpowering after a while.
And finally, Iraq. A few things to get out of the way first of all; yes, I do believe that the sanctions on Iraq are failing as the Ba'ath party leadership is as secure as ever whilst the Iraqi people suffer (if nothing else, their plight should hopefully provide a warning to the people of Zimbabwe...). I also believe that weapons of mass destruction are being developed in Iraq, and that they are a threat to world peace. However, I also believe that the answer isn't nearly as simple as both Dubya's "Let's roll" approach, and Dubya himself.
Let's be honest here; the UK and US are still smarting about the Gulf War and it's failure to result in the end of Hussein's rule. We are annoyed that he is free to cast occasional barbs at the west with impunity. And most importantly of all, in this war against terror we are frustrated that there is no clear target to aim at. Afghanistan was not the target of the war as it has unfolded thus far; Al-Quaida and the Taliban were. The military is a conservative sort of organisation, and these rules of engagement have clearly sat rather uncomfortably with them. What better way to boost morale by finding a gen-u-wine country to go to war with? None of that awkward and complicated separating the civilians from the Taliban and Al Quaida (the last time America fought a war where those type of procedures were required was Vietnam), just good old fashioned "our army against their army". We all know where we stand with that.
That at least is one of the many criticisms from some elements of the political left. However justified it is (and I think it is) I would say that it is rather shortsighted. Are we simply supposed to sit back and wait until Iraq is in a position to deploy their weapons of mass destruction? Do they have to make the first move? I've got my grievances against Israel but I'm not entirely sure that sitting back and waiting for Iraq to reduce it to molten slag, or a bacterial wasteland, or a chemical hell is the best way to deal with a small-time dictator with big-time weapons. So isn't it right that we should strike now and do our utmost to remove Hussein from power before he authorises some atrocity?
Yes and no. If Dubya goes wading in, cack handed as usual, then he runs the very real risk of destabilising the Middle East. The governments of many of these countries are supporters of the US. The majority of people are not. Many would welcome the opportunity to replace their oppressive governments whom they regard as American puppets. A war against Iraq that the people do not agree with could provide that opportunity. What would start out as a conflict with defined targets could very quickly and very easily descend into anarchy. So whilst I agree something does need to be done about Iraq, it needs to be done differently to the way Dubya envisages. How? Well, I don't rightly know to be honest. But I do know that Dubya actually took the time to talk to his titular allies rather than ride roughshod over any objections they might have and do whatever he feels like, then he might find that there are other solutions.
Finally, a word about that fun brand of American and English patriot who, upon reading the above, will think nothing more than "Tough luck; we're in the right and so have the moral high ground. Therefore we should attack Iraq, and to hell with anyone who disagrees." These are same brand of people who compare anyone who disagrees with them to the people who believed that appeasing Hitler would avoid war. Well, I certainly don't like the idea of appeasement as those people, far from ensuring world peace, ensured that what could have been a localised conflict became a worldwide one. However, what I would say to them is that in behaving in the way they are, in hooting and hollering for conflict against Iraq, they are doing exactly the same thing as the appeasers once did; helping make sure that a small scale conflict becomes a bigger one.
Sunday 10 March 2002
Lo, cometh a Used Car Salesman
The debate about Faith schools remains a relevant one. I remain perplexed as to why a Used Car dealer should be regarded as a paragon of virtuous faith.
No matter what the event may be, and whether you think it is good or bad, it never seems to matter to you if it is happening far away. Take Afghanistan for example; we are aware in some peripheral way that there is a spot of bother out there. If we hunt hard enough through the column inches of the newspapers we may even find that people are dying out there (despite President Tony’s best efforts). We may also have heard of Camp X-Ray, where prisoners from the conflict are being held. Perhaps we have heard in passing about human rights abuses, or that English prisoners are being held there. Yet none of it is really real, because it is happening over there. We can therefore safely forget about it and get on with the important business of our daily grind.
Sometimes however, we are given cause to regret paying so little attention to events over the sea and far away. Apathy gives way to anger, mockery turns to indignation, indifference to embarrassment. I’ve been given cause to feel like that recently. For many happy years I have sat in my chair and poured all manner of scorn on those evangelical Christians in the USA who believe firmly in Creationism. They have allowed years of scientific study to gently pass them by and remain cheerfully mired in the superstitions and fairy tales of times gone past, when the world was simpler and so were the people whom they wished to have influence over. When several counties in the south of the US began to pass laws stating that creationism was to be given equal weight in school’s to evolution, far from being utterly horrified at the world’s most powerful nation taking a giant leap backwards, I could scarce contain my laughter, to say nothing of the satisfying feeling that most Englishmen get when Americans do something laughable such as elect a chimpanzee as their president.
I would wade through reams of print to find the reasoning that led to these schools saying (with a straight face) that the world was created in 7 days. Naturally, their reasoning caused one to believe that if they were created in 7 days then it was definitely a rush job on the part of God. All sorts of pseudo scientific titbits (“carbon dating is only approximate”), circumstantial guesswork (“there is a lack of fossils from key periods in the evolutionary timescale”), and downright lies (“only God could have created the world, for he has provided us with the Bible to show us that he did this”) were trotted out to any reporter who could keep the mocking grin from his face whilst the interview was conducted. In short, I revelled in the opportunity to point and laugh and stare at a group of people whose wilful stupidity and willingness to be manipulated into believing such nonsense confirmed so many long held prejudices about the good folk of Southern USA.
Well, don’t I now feel like the idiot?
I live near Newcastle upon Tyne in the north east of England. In the eyes of some, the north of England can be equated to the South of the USA; we’re supposedly a bit rougher round the edges, our accents are funny, and in general we’re a little less sophisticated than those from the richer south. Like those people of Southern USA, there is also a general sense of pride in our region. I personally am deeply in love with the northeast. I love the nightlife in Newcastle, the fact that rolling hills and countryside is but a few miles away, that money goes further here, I love the honesty and friendliness that is so prevalent here. I even love the casual way in which two chaps may beat each other near senseless in a pub yet be seen drinking together the following day. Since going away to University, I have become a born again Geordie. Which makes my shock, shame, and anger at the events in Emmanuel College, Gateshead all the greater.
Emmanuel college is the first school in the UK to go the same route as those unevolved souls in America who wish to teach our children that dinosaurs did not exist, that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that fossils are simply rock formations placed there by God himself. It is their stated intention to churn out classrooms full of children whose spirit of inquiry will be blunted by the bland assertion that God created everything, and anything that contradicts that is either flawed as it comes from the mind of Man, or treacherous because it was put there by Satan to deceive us. How can it be that the place which I love more than any other is opening itself up to mockery by exactly the sort of smug git who would do things like laugh about the stupidity of those far away from himself?
The college is, in a way, a victim of it’s own success. It is partly private and partly state funded. It has been praised for the high number of exam passes that it is producing. A sister school is due to open in Middlesborough (which is just about far enough away for me to laugh at). However, the private finance comes from a gentleman who is passionately evangelical in his faith. And, as with most tiresome evangelists, he wants to spread the good word as far as possible. Hence the faith based science syllabus which he and many of the teachers at Emmanuel wish to smear all over their pupil’s minds.
Yet why should this be such a bad thing? After all, it’s not as if teaching of evolution is being abandoned altogether. It is merely being given equal weight to creationism as theories for how we all came to be standing here now. And isn’t it a good thing to give children the choice to make up their own minds? Well, to be blunt, no. Can you really imagine evangelical teachers giving unbiased information about evolution when their own beliefs conflict and when they have the opportunity to tell the Truth to a class full of blank slates? And what about homework or essays? If a pupil was to write that he or she had taken account of both theories and found that evolution was the more plausible, would he be given the same grades as someone who had seen the light and accepted that only God could have created such a perfect and holy world?
Neither do the teaching plans of Emmanuel College bode well for the governmental preference that is being shown to faith based schools at the moment. They don’t require as much state funding and so save money. These schools tend to do better in the yearly exam result league tables, and good luck to them for doing so. Consequently, more parents wish to send their children there. What if they decide that they too wish to teach the true word of God rather than Darwin’s distasteful and blasphemous theory? Does the idea of a generation who are taught to dismiss certain lines of enquiry with the blanket answer “God did it” scare anybody else as much as me? If you want an extreme example, let’s revisit the Afghanistan conflict. The Taliban and other assorted religious fanatics who are trying to show us how good God is by trying to kill as many people as possible originated from faith based schools in Pakistan. It was in these schools that they received their education, their absolute intolerance of anything that falls outside the scope of their religious beliefs, and their unshakeable knowledge that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. Why were these schools allowed to proliferate? Because they didn’t require state funding and so saved money.
Of course, I’m not saying that Emmanuel college will be the training ground for warriors of a Christian Jihad, but I am saying that it will encourage exactly the sort of narrow-mindedness that will be music to the ears of a failing and flagging church. This will also give the lapdog Church of England a little more courage to yap at the government and make some demands of its own. The Church and the State were separated for a very good reason. Please don’t let it take the introduction of parliamentary bills calling for the abolition of abortion or removal of sex education from schools to remind us why that separation continues to be a good idea.
No matter what the event may be, and whether you think it is good or bad, it never seems to matter to you if it is happening far away. Take Afghanistan for example; we are aware in some peripheral way that there is a spot of bother out there. If we hunt hard enough through the column inches of the newspapers we may even find that people are dying out there (despite President Tony’s best efforts). We may also have heard of Camp X-Ray, where prisoners from the conflict are being held. Perhaps we have heard in passing about human rights abuses, or that English prisoners are being held there. Yet none of it is really real, because it is happening over there. We can therefore safely forget about it and get on with the important business of our daily grind.
Sometimes however, we are given cause to regret paying so little attention to events over the sea and far away. Apathy gives way to anger, mockery turns to indignation, indifference to embarrassment. I’ve been given cause to feel like that recently. For many happy years I have sat in my chair and poured all manner of scorn on those evangelical Christians in the USA who believe firmly in Creationism. They have allowed years of scientific study to gently pass them by and remain cheerfully mired in the superstitions and fairy tales of times gone past, when the world was simpler and so were the people whom they wished to have influence over. When several counties in the south of the US began to pass laws stating that creationism was to be given equal weight in school’s to evolution, far from being utterly horrified at the world’s most powerful nation taking a giant leap backwards, I could scarce contain my laughter, to say nothing of the satisfying feeling that most Englishmen get when Americans do something laughable such as elect a chimpanzee as their president.
I would wade through reams of print to find the reasoning that led to these schools saying (with a straight face) that the world was created in 7 days. Naturally, their reasoning caused one to believe that if they were created in 7 days then it was definitely a rush job on the part of God. All sorts of pseudo scientific titbits (“carbon dating is only approximate”), circumstantial guesswork (“there is a lack of fossils from key periods in the evolutionary timescale”), and downright lies (“only God could have created the world, for he has provided us with the Bible to show us that he did this”) were trotted out to any reporter who could keep the mocking grin from his face whilst the interview was conducted. In short, I revelled in the opportunity to point and laugh and stare at a group of people whose wilful stupidity and willingness to be manipulated into believing such nonsense confirmed so many long held prejudices about the good folk of Southern USA.
Well, don’t I now feel like the idiot?
I live near Newcastle upon Tyne in the north east of England. In the eyes of some, the north of England can be equated to the South of the USA; we’re supposedly a bit rougher round the edges, our accents are funny, and in general we’re a little less sophisticated than those from the richer south. Like those people of Southern USA, there is also a general sense of pride in our region. I personally am deeply in love with the northeast. I love the nightlife in Newcastle, the fact that rolling hills and countryside is but a few miles away, that money goes further here, I love the honesty and friendliness that is so prevalent here. I even love the casual way in which two chaps may beat each other near senseless in a pub yet be seen drinking together the following day. Since going away to University, I have become a born again Geordie. Which makes my shock, shame, and anger at the events in Emmanuel College, Gateshead all the greater.
Emmanuel college is the first school in the UK to go the same route as those unevolved souls in America who wish to teach our children that dinosaurs did not exist, that the world is only 10,000 years old, and that fossils are simply rock formations placed there by God himself. It is their stated intention to churn out classrooms full of children whose spirit of inquiry will be blunted by the bland assertion that God created everything, and anything that contradicts that is either flawed as it comes from the mind of Man, or treacherous because it was put there by Satan to deceive us. How can it be that the place which I love more than any other is opening itself up to mockery by exactly the sort of smug git who would do things like laugh about the stupidity of those far away from himself?
The college is, in a way, a victim of it’s own success. It is partly private and partly state funded. It has been praised for the high number of exam passes that it is producing. A sister school is due to open in Middlesborough (which is just about far enough away for me to laugh at). However, the private finance comes from a gentleman who is passionately evangelical in his faith. And, as with most tiresome evangelists, he wants to spread the good word as far as possible. Hence the faith based science syllabus which he and many of the teachers at Emmanuel wish to smear all over their pupil’s minds.
Yet why should this be such a bad thing? After all, it’s not as if teaching of evolution is being abandoned altogether. It is merely being given equal weight to creationism as theories for how we all came to be standing here now. And isn’t it a good thing to give children the choice to make up their own minds? Well, to be blunt, no. Can you really imagine evangelical teachers giving unbiased information about evolution when their own beliefs conflict and when they have the opportunity to tell the Truth to a class full of blank slates? And what about homework or essays? If a pupil was to write that he or she had taken account of both theories and found that evolution was the more plausible, would he be given the same grades as someone who had seen the light and accepted that only God could have created such a perfect and holy world?
Neither do the teaching plans of Emmanuel College bode well for the governmental preference that is being shown to faith based schools at the moment. They don’t require as much state funding and so save money. These schools tend to do better in the yearly exam result league tables, and good luck to them for doing so. Consequently, more parents wish to send their children there. What if they decide that they too wish to teach the true word of God rather than Darwin’s distasteful and blasphemous theory? Does the idea of a generation who are taught to dismiss certain lines of enquiry with the blanket answer “God did it” scare anybody else as much as me? If you want an extreme example, let’s revisit the Afghanistan conflict. The Taliban and other assorted religious fanatics who are trying to show us how good God is by trying to kill as many people as possible originated from faith based schools in Pakistan. It was in these schools that they received their education, their absolute intolerance of anything that falls outside the scope of their religious beliefs, and their unshakeable knowledge that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. Why were these schools allowed to proliferate? Because they didn’t require state funding and so saved money.
Of course, I’m not saying that Emmanuel college will be the training ground for warriors of a Christian Jihad, but I am saying that it will encourage exactly the sort of narrow-mindedness that will be music to the ears of a failing and flagging church. This will also give the lapdog Church of England a little more courage to yap at the government and make some demands of its own. The Church and the State were separated for a very good reason. Please don’t let it take the introduction of parliamentary bills calling for the abolition of abortion or removal of sex education from schools to remind us why that separation continues to be a good idea.
Thursday 7 March 2002
The right to die
I was way too pessimistic (if you'll pardon the use of the word in this context) about what would happen to Ms Pretty. I still believe in the right to die, although personally I have to say that I would want to be kept alive no matter what. I just don't see why I should impose what I want for myself onto others.
A legal debate is currently taking place in the upper echelons of the justice system. Like many legal matters, it is being expressed in terms that have a tendency to send the casual observer (i.e. me) to sleep. Unlike many legal matters it is of the utmost importance to anyone who believes in personal liberty and the right to go about ones business without interference from the state so long as it does not conflict with the laws of the land. It is a debate concerning the right of an individual to take his or her own life versus the right of the state to stop one from doing so.
In fairness, this isn't a new debate. In this country I suppose one could point to the abolition of the statute that made suicide a criminal offence or, more recently, the case of Tony Bland. Mr. Bland was effectively killed in the Hillsborough tragedy, which saw hundreds of football fans crushed to death. Unfortunately for Mr. Bland, although his mind was dead his body was capable of life. That is to say, if he was hooked up to numerous machines that fed him, allowed his kidneys to function etc, then he was capable of life. This left him as little more than a warm body in a hospital bed surrounded by machinery. After 4 years of this (and I use the term loosely) existence, his parents went to court to win the right to switch off the machines that were feeding him. The courts said that they could on the basis that feeding him was a medical treatment from which he was drawing no benefit. Despite the actions of a meddlesome priest who's name isn't worth mentioning (his actions are though; he decided to bring a private prosecution for the murder of Mr. Bland. Apparently seeing your son halfway between life and death for 4 years isn't hell enough according to this man's God; only the addition of an accusation of murder produced sufficient suffering. Happily the courts made another correct decision by effectively telling him to take his high minded principles, fold them up neatly, and shove them as far up his backside as the hand of God would allow) Mr. Bland was allowed to die.
Yet that does not bring us up to date with the present situation. Mr. Bland had no voice of his own to say whether he wanted to live or die. Although the case established that the state doesn't have the right to keep people alive no matter what their quality of life may be, it said nothing about the withdrawal of treatment from somebody who was gaining some form of benefit from medical treatment (for example, one's life being prolonged by use of anti-cancer treatments) nor did it encompass a situation whereby someone needed assistance in ending their own life. There are two ongoing cases that discuss both of these situations. Firstly that of Diane Pretty and secondly a case involving a lady (her identity is unknown to anyone outside of the case itself) who is paralysed and wishes to have the ventilator that is keeping her alive switched off.
Let us look at the case of Ms Pretty. Should you be unacquainted with the facts of this case they are as follows; she has motor neuron disease and is in constant pain. She will soon be dead, having lived her last few years in agonizing pain. She wishes to take her own life as the pain is unbearable and will only get worse. However, such is the severity of her condition that she is unable to do this by herself. Therefore she has asked her husband to help her commit suicide. Should he do so he risks being prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide (because the law allows you to take your own life but will not allow anyone to help you). Naturally Ms Pretty does not want to be relieved from her pain at the cost of the man she loves being branded a criminal. To that end, she went to the courts and asked them to give a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted. The courts refused to do so. Ms Pretty is now taking her case to the European Courts but, should it not get heard in the next few months, she may well be dead anyway.
Personally speaking, I find the decision of the House of Lords a disgrace. How dare they tell Mr. Pretty that he cannot help his wife end her horrendous suffering. The main reason given seems to have been a variation on what is called the Floodgates argument. Namely that if they allowed him to assist his wife in committing suicide, numerous people may do the same. People may also commit murder and use this as a defence. Quite why they couldn't have simply distinguished the case on it's facts (which is essentially where a judge states that the judgement can only be applied to these exact set of circumstances, and so the case can't be used as a precedent) is beyond me. Instead, one woman is left to suffer because the state feels that it's own interests outweigh hers. By which I mean that the state seems to envisage that allowing Ms Pretty to take her own life with the help of her husband after it has been made clear by all parties that this is what is wanted would lead to some sort of breakdown in law and order.
And yet there is another side to that. You may be familiar with Dr Jack Kevorkian, an American doctor who specialised in assisted suicides. He helped over 100 people end their lives, all of whom were in circumstances similar to Ms Pretty. Kevorkian was acquitted of numerous murder charges before falling foul of his home state of Michigan. He had filmed himself giving the lethal injection to a Mr. Thomas Youk. The film found it's way onto '60 Minutes' (a US current affairs program) and on April 13 1999 Dr Kevorkian found himself convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years. And my first reaction? Good.
I have few doubts that the people whom Kevorkian helped to die were settled in their wish to end their lives. I don't believe that he acted in any way out of a desire to kill people for the sake of killing (step forward Dr Harold Shipman). But the idea of a doctor (particularly a skilled self publicist such as Kevorkian) specialising in euthanasia...well, I'm sorry but there are rather too many shades of the Totalitarian state sanctioned murder of the mentally or physically handicapped in the 30's for my liking. Maybe this is something that contributed to the decision of the House of Lords.
The second case is being decided as I type this; Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who is the head of the High Court's family decisions, and as such is faced with numerous cases involving the welfare of individuals and families, has described the case as "agonising" and has admitted that she fears getting emotionally involved in the matter. Essentially, the case runs thus; a woman is paralysed from the neck down. She is on a ventilator which allows her to breath. She is lucid and can communicate with those around her. And she communicated her wish to die.
She is undoubtedly gaining benefit from the continued medical treatment in that she is alive and not in constant searing pain because of it. However, she doesn't want to live her life like that and so wants to end it. Except that, being paralysed, she cannot. And so she must ask the courts for permission to have her life support switched off. The main line of opposition to this comes from the idea that she is not mentally competent to make this decision due to her extreme circumstances. Let's forget just how patronising that is for a moment and look at the implication; they seem to be saying that if you state you have a wish to die then you are not mentally sound enough to make that decision. Nothing like a good old catch 22 to establish that having control over your life is an illusion carefully maintained by the state. Thankfully (though probably unhappily for those who enjoy nothing more than claiming that the state wants to control every aspect of your life at all times) this argument has been given little weight in court. 2 psychiatrists and an independent advisor to the court have stated that she is competent to make the decision.
Yet I suspect that the ruling will go against her; doctors want her to try a rehabilitation program that could improve her quality of life and I would imagine that the court will state that she must at least try this to see if it alters her opinion at all. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but the state seems unwilling to allow people to make their own informed decisions when one of the choices is their own death. I believe that our life and death should be something that remains unconditionally within our own control, and with luck this legal debate will enshrine that right in law.
A legal debate is currently taking place in the upper echelons of the justice system. Like many legal matters, it is being expressed in terms that have a tendency to send the casual observer (i.e. me) to sleep. Unlike many legal matters it is of the utmost importance to anyone who believes in personal liberty and the right to go about ones business without interference from the state so long as it does not conflict with the laws of the land. It is a debate concerning the right of an individual to take his or her own life versus the right of the state to stop one from doing so.
In fairness, this isn't a new debate. In this country I suppose one could point to the abolition of the statute that made suicide a criminal offence or, more recently, the case of Tony Bland. Mr. Bland was effectively killed in the Hillsborough tragedy, which saw hundreds of football fans crushed to death. Unfortunately for Mr. Bland, although his mind was dead his body was capable of life. That is to say, if he was hooked up to numerous machines that fed him, allowed his kidneys to function etc, then he was capable of life. This left him as little more than a warm body in a hospital bed surrounded by machinery. After 4 years of this (and I use the term loosely) existence, his parents went to court to win the right to switch off the machines that were feeding him. The courts said that they could on the basis that feeding him was a medical treatment from which he was drawing no benefit. Despite the actions of a meddlesome priest who's name isn't worth mentioning (his actions are though; he decided to bring a private prosecution for the murder of Mr. Bland. Apparently seeing your son halfway between life and death for 4 years isn't hell enough according to this man's God; only the addition of an accusation of murder produced sufficient suffering. Happily the courts made another correct decision by effectively telling him to take his high minded principles, fold them up neatly, and shove them as far up his backside as the hand of God would allow) Mr. Bland was allowed to die.
Yet that does not bring us up to date with the present situation. Mr. Bland had no voice of his own to say whether he wanted to live or die. Although the case established that the state doesn't have the right to keep people alive no matter what their quality of life may be, it said nothing about the withdrawal of treatment from somebody who was gaining some form of benefit from medical treatment (for example, one's life being prolonged by use of anti-cancer treatments) nor did it encompass a situation whereby someone needed assistance in ending their own life. There are two ongoing cases that discuss both of these situations. Firstly that of Diane Pretty and secondly a case involving a lady (her identity is unknown to anyone outside of the case itself) who is paralysed and wishes to have the ventilator that is keeping her alive switched off.
Let us look at the case of Ms Pretty. Should you be unacquainted with the facts of this case they are as follows; she has motor neuron disease and is in constant pain. She will soon be dead, having lived her last few years in agonizing pain. She wishes to take her own life as the pain is unbearable and will only get worse. However, such is the severity of her condition that she is unable to do this by herself. Therefore she has asked her husband to help her commit suicide. Should he do so he risks being prosecuted for aiding and abetting a suicide (because the law allows you to take your own life but will not allow anyone to help you). Naturally Ms Pretty does not want to be relieved from her pain at the cost of the man she loves being branded a criminal. To that end, she went to the courts and asked them to give a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted. The courts refused to do so. Ms Pretty is now taking her case to the European Courts but, should it not get heard in the next few months, she may well be dead anyway.
Personally speaking, I find the decision of the House of Lords a disgrace. How dare they tell Mr. Pretty that he cannot help his wife end her horrendous suffering. The main reason given seems to have been a variation on what is called the Floodgates argument. Namely that if they allowed him to assist his wife in committing suicide, numerous people may do the same. People may also commit murder and use this as a defence. Quite why they couldn't have simply distinguished the case on it's facts (which is essentially where a judge states that the judgement can only be applied to these exact set of circumstances, and so the case can't be used as a precedent) is beyond me. Instead, one woman is left to suffer because the state feels that it's own interests outweigh hers. By which I mean that the state seems to envisage that allowing Ms Pretty to take her own life with the help of her husband after it has been made clear by all parties that this is what is wanted would lead to some sort of breakdown in law and order.
And yet there is another side to that. You may be familiar with Dr Jack Kevorkian, an American doctor who specialised in assisted suicides. He helped over 100 people end their lives, all of whom were in circumstances similar to Ms Pretty. Kevorkian was acquitted of numerous murder charges before falling foul of his home state of Michigan. He had filmed himself giving the lethal injection to a Mr. Thomas Youk. The film found it's way onto '60 Minutes' (a US current affairs program) and on April 13 1999 Dr Kevorkian found himself convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years. And my first reaction? Good.
I have few doubts that the people whom Kevorkian helped to die were settled in their wish to end their lives. I don't believe that he acted in any way out of a desire to kill people for the sake of killing (step forward Dr Harold Shipman). But the idea of a doctor (particularly a skilled self publicist such as Kevorkian) specialising in euthanasia...well, I'm sorry but there are rather too many shades of the Totalitarian state sanctioned murder of the mentally or physically handicapped in the 30's for my liking. Maybe this is something that contributed to the decision of the House of Lords.
The second case is being decided as I type this; Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss who is the head of the High Court's family decisions, and as such is faced with numerous cases involving the welfare of individuals and families, has described the case as "agonising" and has admitted that she fears getting emotionally involved in the matter. Essentially, the case runs thus; a woman is paralysed from the neck down. She is on a ventilator which allows her to breath. She is lucid and can communicate with those around her. And she communicated her wish to die.
She is undoubtedly gaining benefit from the continued medical treatment in that she is alive and not in constant searing pain because of it. However, she doesn't want to live her life like that and so wants to end it. Except that, being paralysed, she cannot. And so she must ask the courts for permission to have her life support switched off. The main line of opposition to this comes from the idea that she is not mentally competent to make this decision due to her extreme circumstances. Let's forget just how patronising that is for a moment and look at the implication; they seem to be saying that if you state you have a wish to die then you are not mentally sound enough to make that decision. Nothing like a good old catch 22 to establish that having control over your life is an illusion carefully maintained by the state. Thankfully (though probably unhappily for those who enjoy nothing more than claiming that the state wants to control every aspect of your life at all times) this argument has been given little weight in court. 2 psychiatrists and an independent advisor to the court have stated that she is competent to make the decision.
Yet I suspect that the ruling will go against her; doctors want her to try a rehabilitation program that could improve her quality of life and I would imagine that the court will state that she must at least try this to see if it alters her opinion at all. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but the state seems unwilling to allow people to make their own informed decisions when one of the choices is their own death. I believe that our life and death should be something that remains unconditionally within our own control, and with luck this legal debate will enshrine that right in law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)