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.
Thursday, 16 August 2001
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.
Tuesday, 17 July 2001
Cancel the Love
I was really looking forward to the Love Parade in Newcastle before the wankers cancelled it.
If you were in Newcastle at present you would be entirely familiar with the meaning of disappointment. As I write this, I should be getting gradually breathless with excitement at the impending festivities of the weekend. A festival celebrating the simple feeling of being carefree (although admittedly this carefree feeling is usually chemically induced, if one is entirely honest there are few natural highs around these days; when was the last time you unashamedly enjoyed yourself without some sort of artificial stimulant?) was to have taken place on Saturday. It was conceptualised as a free festival for all, comprising of dance music being pumped out throughout the city and a massive central gathering on the Town Moor. It was to have been a free party that would stick in the memory of all who didn't attend it (as I personally intended to destroy a great many brain cells and be left only with a vague feeling of bliss whenever the event was mentioned. I think I am grouped in the majority of potential attendees when I say this...). It was to have been the Love Parade. And it has just been cancelled.
Now then, I shall leave aside for the moment that this is a set of circumstances rich in imagery for me to invoke and (being honest) plagarise. A festival of Love among Mankind is called off due to the failings of bureaucracy, perhaps genuine fear about safety, coincidence and bad timing, and the petty machinations of people who are not exactly evil or bad but possess a kind of low grade unpleasantness that it usually manifested by a petty drive to ensure that their lives will continue tomorrow in much the same way as they did today. To quote a better man, the party has been called off because of a few fevered ego's whom, when we let them have their way, are making us pay a higher psychic price than we realise. I believe they are known as the Residents of Jesmond Dene.
Thus far I am perhaps being guilty of romanticising the Love Parade that will not be, so perhaps a more objective rundown of the event is required before I venture further. Essentially, a vast number of well known DJ's were going to descend on Newcastle. They would be accompanied by around about a quarter of a million partygoers. The party was to have started on the Tyne Bridge and, by means of a convoy of floats, wound it's way around Newcastle before settling on the Town Moor for some particularly energetic dancing coupled with imbibing vast quantities of alcohol amongst other things until 11pm. At this point, the DJ's were to have relocated to the large swathe of clubs around the city and the party would have continued (admittedly not quite as free as it had been up until this point. I believe one could expect to pay approximately £50 for a ticket to a typical event) until the wee small hours of Sunday. A vast amount of clubbers, both casual and hard core, would have been left exhausted but happy. Over £14 million of revenue in total would have been generated for the City of Newcastle. People from all over Europe would have converged on my home City in order to celebrate just how marvelous they felt and did I know where they could get any more of those wonderful little blue pills?
And it has all been called off at literally the last minute. Anyone who has booked their accommodation and travel in advance has lost their money. My friends and myself feel deflated, cheated even, at the casual way that and event that many of us had been looking forward too for months has been derailed. Love has turned to annoyance and sadness. So then, as we're all well-adjusted human beings, we need to find out whom to blame!
As always with these things, it is best to first examine the role of the organisers. In this case, Radio 1 and Newcastle City council. R1 have been advertising and promoting this event for months, so should we blame them for letting us down so badly? The council, despite having had the chance to plan for this since the beginning of the year, only started to do so a few weeks ago. Why didn't they start sooner? Also, the late entry of Newcastle Utd into the Intertoto cup meant that a European football match would take place in the city on the same day. Had the council put their plans in place earlier, it would have been a relatively simple matter to make a few adjustments for a match that would bring few away fans and, in all probability, few home fans as well (especially as we hammered the opposition 4 - 0 in the away leg! Shove it up yer arse FC Lokeren!!). As it is, the police quite rightly raised concerns that with 2 major events taking place on one day and no planning having been made for either of them, they could not make the necessary arrangements to guarantee a safe day for all concerned. The council found that they could not guarantee car parking spaces (and also faced internal opposition as the net cost would be £150,000 to do so). So for the want of some car parks and less than 200 grand the city has lost the prestige of hosting the event itself, millions in income, and made itself look something of an inefficient laughing stock.
So then, the whole thing smacks of basic and simple inefficiency on the part of the good burghers of Newcastle whom it would seem could not organise a piss up in a brewery. Or a New Years Party at the Quayside. Or a Millennium Bridge. Or an Internationally renowned Garden Festival. Erm...actually, they organised all of those events and buildings (and more besides) rather well and efficiently. In fact, the problem only seems to have arisen when it comes to events or buildings aimed specifically at the 18-25 age group in the case of the Love Parade, or at what I'll reluctantly term the working and middle classes as in the case of the opposition to relocating Newcastle United to a new ground a few years ago. In both of these cases it is my belief (and I do hope that you'll excuse my raging paranoia here...) that the actions of a very small minority played a major role. In the latter case, those residents of Jesmond Dene and attendant areas were active and vocal in their opposition of a relocation that had the support of the majority of the city. In the case of the Love Parade I suspect that they had no real need to be particularly vocal as they make up certain elements of Newcastle Council itself, particularly (I am hugely ashamed and disappointed to say) the LibDem councilors.
Now their opposition was nothing particularly active. They opposed by delaying and procrastinating on any sort of action relating to organising the event until it was too late to assuage the worries of R1 and the police (although happily I am not so naive as to deny that good old fashioned incompetence played it's part). Why did they do this? So that their peace and quiet, their everyday life would not be affected by such a huge number of (horror of horrors) young people descending on their homes. Some of them even complained bitterly that the drug crazed and violent (?) partygoers would be turning up at their doorsteps and being intimidating throughout the day. Well, firstly there is a bloody great main road separating the Town Moor from Jesmond. Secondly, why don't they raise these objections during the Hoppings Fair on the Town Moor every summer? Christ, that's an event that sees one of the biggest congregations of Gypsies and Travellers in Europe so you would have thought the bigoted buggers would be constantly up in arms about that! They want Saturday to be no different to the other 364 days in their year and they are getting their way. This leaves them free to indulge in their usual routines of gardening and mild adultery whilst the rest of us experience pangs of regret at the loss of an exciting and fun party.
And where does this lead us? Well in a way it ties back to one of my favourite bugbears of apathy. The only people who can be bothered to raise their voices are just this kind of horribly selfish middle/upper middle class gimp that infest Jesmond and areas like it. As long as the likes of you and I pay no attention to the day to day running of the areas in which we live we can look forward to many more disappointments like this one. I didn't have much of an impact persuading people to vote in the election when it was just our taxes and public services on the line. I'm hoping that the far more important issue of a bloody good party being ruined will perhaps spur more people on to being active in standing up for what they want. I live, as ever, in hope.
If you were in Newcastle at present you would be entirely familiar with the meaning of disappointment. As I write this, I should be getting gradually breathless with excitement at the impending festivities of the weekend. A festival celebrating the simple feeling of being carefree (although admittedly this carefree feeling is usually chemically induced, if one is entirely honest there are few natural highs around these days; when was the last time you unashamedly enjoyed yourself without some sort of artificial stimulant?) was to have taken place on Saturday. It was conceptualised as a free festival for all, comprising of dance music being pumped out throughout the city and a massive central gathering on the Town Moor. It was to have been a free party that would stick in the memory of all who didn't attend it (as I personally intended to destroy a great many brain cells and be left only with a vague feeling of bliss whenever the event was mentioned. I think I am grouped in the majority of potential attendees when I say this...). It was to have been the Love Parade. And it has just been cancelled.
Now then, I shall leave aside for the moment that this is a set of circumstances rich in imagery for me to invoke and (being honest) plagarise. A festival of Love among Mankind is called off due to the failings of bureaucracy, perhaps genuine fear about safety, coincidence and bad timing, and the petty machinations of people who are not exactly evil or bad but possess a kind of low grade unpleasantness that it usually manifested by a petty drive to ensure that their lives will continue tomorrow in much the same way as they did today. To quote a better man, the party has been called off because of a few fevered ego's whom, when we let them have their way, are making us pay a higher psychic price than we realise. I believe they are known as the Residents of Jesmond Dene.
Thus far I am perhaps being guilty of romanticising the Love Parade that will not be, so perhaps a more objective rundown of the event is required before I venture further. Essentially, a vast number of well known DJ's were going to descend on Newcastle. They would be accompanied by around about a quarter of a million partygoers. The party was to have started on the Tyne Bridge and, by means of a convoy of floats, wound it's way around Newcastle before settling on the Town Moor for some particularly energetic dancing coupled with imbibing vast quantities of alcohol amongst other things until 11pm. At this point, the DJ's were to have relocated to the large swathe of clubs around the city and the party would have continued (admittedly not quite as free as it had been up until this point. I believe one could expect to pay approximately £50 for a ticket to a typical event) until the wee small hours of Sunday. A vast amount of clubbers, both casual and hard core, would have been left exhausted but happy. Over £14 million of revenue in total would have been generated for the City of Newcastle. People from all over Europe would have converged on my home City in order to celebrate just how marvelous they felt and did I know where they could get any more of those wonderful little blue pills?
And it has all been called off at literally the last minute. Anyone who has booked their accommodation and travel in advance has lost their money. My friends and myself feel deflated, cheated even, at the casual way that and event that many of us had been looking forward too for months has been derailed. Love has turned to annoyance and sadness. So then, as we're all well-adjusted human beings, we need to find out whom to blame!
As always with these things, it is best to first examine the role of the organisers. In this case, Radio 1 and Newcastle City council. R1 have been advertising and promoting this event for months, so should we blame them for letting us down so badly? The council, despite having had the chance to plan for this since the beginning of the year, only started to do so a few weeks ago. Why didn't they start sooner? Also, the late entry of Newcastle Utd into the Intertoto cup meant that a European football match would take place in the city on the same day. Had the council put their plans in place earlier, it would have been a relatively simple matter to make a few adjustments for a match that would bring few away fans and, in all probability, few home fans as well (especially as we hammered the opposition 4 - 0 in the away leg! Shove it up yer arse FC Lokeren!!). As it is, the police quite rightly raised concerns that with 2 major events taking place on one day and no planning having been made for either of them, they could not make the necessary arrangements to guarantee a safe day for all concerned. The council found that they could not guarantee car parking spaces (and also faced internal opposition as the net cost would be £150,000 to do so). So for the want of some car parks and less than 200 grand the city has lost the prestige of hosting the event itself, millions in income, and made itself look something of an inefficient laughing stock.
So then, the whole thing smacks of basic and simple inefficiency on the part of the good burghers of Newcastle whom it would seem could not organise a piss up in a brewery. Or a New Years Party at the Quayside. Or a Millennium Bridge. Or an Internationally renowned Garden Festival. Erm...actually, they organised all of those events and buildings (and more besides) rather well and efficiently. In fact, the problem only seems to have arisen when it comes to events or buildings aimed specifically at the 18-25 age group in the case of the Love Parade, or at what I'll reluctantly term the working and middle classes as in the case of the opposition to relocating Newcastle United to a new ground a few years ago. In both of these cases it is my belief (and I do hope that you'll excuse my raging paranoia here...) that the actions of a very small minority played a major role. In the latter case, those residents of Jesmond Dene and attendant areas were active and vocal in their opposition of a relocation that had the support of the majority of the city. In the case of the Love Parade I suspect that they had no real need to be particularly vocal as they make up certain elements of Newcastle Council itself, particularly (I am hugely ashamed and disappointed to say) the LibDem councilors.
Now their opposition was nothing particularly active. They opposed by delaying and procrastinating on any sort of action relating to organising the event until it was too late to assuage the worries of R1 and the police (although happily I am not so naive as to deny that good old fashioned incompetence played it's part). Why did they do this? So that their peace and quiet, their everyday life would not be affected by such a huge number of (horror of horrors) young people descending on their homes. Some of them even complained bitterly that the drug crazed and violent (?) partygoers would be turning up at their doorsteps and being intimidating throughout the day. Well, firstly there is a bloody great main road separating the Town Moor from Jesmond. Secondly, why don't they raise these objections during the Hoppings Fair on the Town Moor every summer? Christ, that's an event that sees one of the biggest congregations of Gypsies and Travellers in Europe so you would have thought the bigoted buggers would be constantly up in arms about that! They want Saturday to be no different to the other 364 days in their year and they are getting their way. This leaves them free to indulge in their usual routines of gardening and mild adultery whilst the rest of us experience pangs of regret at the loss of an exciting and fun party.
And where does this lead us? Well in a way it ties back to one of my favourite bugbears of apathy. The only people who can be bothered to raise their voices are just this kind of horribly selfish middle/upper middle class gimp that infest Jesmond and areas like it. As long as the likes of you and I pay no attention to the day to day running of the areas in which we live we can look forward to many more disappointments like this one. I didn't have much of an impact persuading people to vote in the election when it was just our taxes and public services on the line. I'm hoping that the far more important issue of a bloody good party being ruined will perhaps spur more people on to being active in standing up for what they want. I live, as ever, in hope.
Monday, 16 July 2001
Race Relations
Something that has always bothered me about pro and anti-immigration groups is that huge swathes of either side have an inclination toward violence and intimidation. Which, to my mind, means the issue will continue to spawn violence. Maybe that's the point...
Now then, have you seen anything in the media recently about that most Western of traditions, the Race Riot? Currently it seems as if one can barely move through a dull, lifeless, post-industrial northern town without setting off a 3 day conflagration involving people of every colour and creed. In Oldham, Burnley, and most recently Bradford there has been a truly frightening wave of violence that reflects poorly on the British people and the dream of a multicultural society. I have already said pretty much everything that I want to say on the subject of racism in a much earlier rant, and I have nothing more that would add to or deviate from that. What does fascinate me to a large extent is the ideologies of those who are actively encouraging the violence. I refer not only to the National Front/British National Party/ Combat 18/ (insert any other generic name for racist thugs who deserve rusty nails dragged down their eyeballs), but to those who oppose them. Whilst this would also encompass all manner of minority pressure groups, I'm going to steer clear of commenting on them. Not out of any desire to avoid controversy, but because (for now) I know very little about their organisation and motivations and as such it would not be right for me to include them here. The organisation that I shall mention is one that I am familiar with if for no other reason than I was once a member; The Anti Nazi League.
For simplicities sake, let's narrow it down to 2 opposing groups; BNP and ANL. Whilst this precludes me from addressing all of the complexities involved in this issue, it makes it easier for me to type and frankly I'd do many things for an easy life. Both of these organisations have strong ideologies driving them forward. In the case of the BNP they originate almost entirely with the writings and "work" of Adolf Hitler. There are a few other influences as well, but as these were generally either influences on Hitler (in the case of Nietzche) or influenced by him (Jean-Marie Le Pen, David Irving etc.) you'll forgive me for putting these to one side.
The ANL also have their basis in Nazi Germany, albeit indirectly. There is a quote by a man named Pastor Niemoeller from that era that they have adopted as their slogan and their mantra;
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out, for I am not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out, for I am not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, for I am not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Which is pretty powerful stuff in my opinion, and was certainly instrumental in my joining the ANL. Their basic credo is to oppose the BNP, to be their antithesis and their nemesis for the benefit of the greater good. If the BNP are for it, you can be reasonably certain that the ANL are against it.
Before sallying forth to do battle with both of these organisations, I'd rather like to add a few side points about ideologies in general. I personally have met people who have and continue to have a strong influence on my life. However, the biggest influence on my life is Bill Hicks. A lot of his material provides the basis for my own personal ideology; in effect I live a substantial portion of my life according to the words of another man. The members of both the BNP and ANL are in effect living a substantial portion of their lives according to the words of another man.
The ANL have it easier in that respect for Niemoller's words are few, and it is always easier to know what one is opposed to rather than what one believes in. But as for the BNP...they willingly say and (if they get the chance) do the most stupidly barbarous things based on the words of a half-Jewish artist from Austria who only had one testicle. Not even well understood either if one comes down to it. They delight in spouting bile and hatred about "Paki's". Aside from the obvious point that a sure way to piss an Indian off is to call him a Paki, this is lumping together pretty much all the people of South Asia and the subcontinent. So far, so racist. But Hitler (on one of his many whimsies designed to prove the pre-eminence of the Aryans and to show their descent from a mythic race of super-men from Atlantis. Yes, really.) had declared that the people of Tibet, Nepal, and Kashmir (that I know of; their may be more) were Aryan people! He basically said that they were equal to the Germans in their racial purity (and I know that all notions of purity are bollocks but there you go). You'd at least hope that they'd go to the trouble of finding out just what the man actually said before committing acts of violence is his name, but it would appear not. Perhaps if the words of Adolf Hitler could be put into Topsy and Tim style books they might get it...
Anyway, what influence have these 2 organisations had on Britain's recent overflow of racial tension? Well to put it in a nutshell, if the BNP are the bullet in the head of racial harmony in the aforementioned 3 towns then the ANL have acted as the gunpowder. It is my belief that the riots (especially those that occurred in Bradford) would have been much less severe, perhaps even avoided altogether were it not for the ANL. Now this is not to say that the ANL turned up at all 3 towns with the intent of causing violence (although it would be naive to say that none of them did; the ANL has always been a loose coalition and so can include all sorts of elements other than peace loving anti fascists), but where they appeared, the violence followed. In Bradford the initial trouble centred on the impromptu ANL demonstration. The BNP thugs gathered to abuse them and a large gang of Asian youths (who were ostensibly there in support of the ANL) surged forward to attack them. Battle duly commenced.
Okay then; aren't the ANL simply fulfilling their purpose? They will stand up to the BNP come what may because of the words of Niemoeller, isn't that a good thing? Well, yes and no. Rather than looking at what happened with the ANL there, lets have a hypothetical look at what *should* have happened if they weren't...
Well, there are all of the BNP thugs all gathered together and...oh, look at that. The police have formed a cordon around them and are pummeling merry shite out of anyone who tries to get out or in (a sort of even-handed beating you might say). The people who want to get on with their day are doing so without interruption and the people who simply want a fight with the BNP are getting pepper sprayed and arrested. The BNP can go no-where and those who try to get out...are getting pepper sprayed and arrested! At the end of the day the BNP are peacefully dispersed and a police presence remains all night.
Now then; that was an ideal world scenario. Due to the various different police forces not setting their houses in order, I'm not sure that the Asian community has sufficient trust in them to be as even handed as I'd described. Some may find the above description semi-fascist in itself. I would answer by saying that extreme times (and extreme organisations) call for extreme measures. Though I dislike it as much as the next man, a powerful police presence can sometimes be the best solution to a problem like this.
But thanks in part to the partly justified mistrust of the police from minority communities, the police do not have the mandate to do this. Instead, the ANL continue to provide a focal point for the violence, either knowingly or otherwise. I find myself applauding their intentions but (as by now you may have gathered) resenting the fact that they are still necessary. Is there really still such little trust and so much hate because of skin colour? Is this actually the 21st century or was there some kind of error when Julius Caesar re-did the calendar and this is in fact the 11th century? Either way, I repeat my earlier exhortation to sort the whole shitty mess out and get on with the important business of evolving as members of the human race.
Now then, have you seen anything in the media recently about that most Western of traditions, the Race Riot? Currently it seems as if one can barely move through a dull, lifeless, post-industrial northern town without setting off a 3 day conflagration involving people of every colour and creed. In Oldham, Burnley, and most recently Bradford there has been a truly frightening wave of violence that reflects poorly on the British people and the dream of a multicultural society. I have already said pretty much everything that I want to say on the subject of racism in a much earlier rant, and I have nothing more that would add to or deviate from that. What does fascinate me to a large extent is the ideologies of those who are actively encouraging the violence. I refer not only to the National Front/British National Party/ Combat 18/ (insert any other generic name for racist thugs who deserve rusty nails dragged down their eyeballs), but to those who oppose them. Whilst this would also encompass all manner of minority pressure groups, I'm going to steer clear of commenting on them. Not out of any desire to avoid controversy, but because (for now) I know very little about their organisation and motivations and as such it would not be right for me to include them here. The organisation that I shall mention is one that I am familiar with if for no other reason than I was once a member; The Anti Nazi League.
For simplicities sake, let's narrow it down to 2 opposing groups; BNP and ANL. Whilst this precludes me from addressing all of the complexities involved in this issue, it makes it easier for me to type and frankly I'd do many things for an easy life. Both of these organisations have strong ideologies driving them forward. In the case of the BNP they originate almost entirely with the writings and "work" of Adolf Hitler. There are a few other influences as well, but as these were generally either influences on Hitler (in the case of Nietzche) or influenced by him (Jean-Marie Le Pen, David Irving etc.) you'll forgive me for putting these to one side.
The ANL also have their basis in Nazi Germany, albeit indirectly. There is a quote by a man named Pastor Niemoeller from that era that they have adopted as their slogan and their mantra;
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out, for I am not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out, for I am not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, for I am not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Which is pretty powerful stuff in my opinion, and was certainly instrumental in my joining the ANL. Their basic credo is to oppose the BNP, to be their antithesis and their nemesis for the benefit of the greater good. If the BNP are for it, you can be reasonably certain that the ANL are against it.
Before sallying forth to do battle with both of these organisations, I'd rather like to add a few side points about ideologies in general. I personally have met people who have and continue to have a strong influence on my life. However, the biggest influence on my life is Bill Hicks. A lot of his material provides the basis for my own personal ideology; in effect I live a substantial portion of my life according to the words of another man. The members of both the BNP and ANL are in effect living a substantial portion of their lives according to the words of another man.
The ANL have it easier in that respect for Niemoller's words are few, and it is always easier to know what one is opposed to rather than what one believes in. But as for the BNP...they willingly say and (if they get the chance) do the most stupidly barbarous things based on the words of a half-Jewish artist from Austria who only had one testicle. Not even well understood either if one comes down to it. They delight in spouting bile and hatred about "Paki's". Aside from the obvious point that a sure way to piss an Indian off is to call him a Paki, this is lumping together pretty much all the people of South Asia and the subcontinent. So far, so racist. But Hitler (on one of his many whimsies designed to prove the pre-eminence of the Aryans and to show their descent from a mythic race of super-men from Atlantis. Yes, really.) had declared that the people of Tibet, Nepal, and Kashmir (that I know of; their may be more) were Aryan people! He basically said that they were equal to the Germans in their racial purity (and I know that all notions of purity are bollocks but there you go). You'd at least hope that they'd go to the trouble of finding out just what the man actually said before committing acts of violence is his name, but it would appear not. Perhaps if the words of Adolf Hitler could be put into Topsy and Tim style books they might get it...
Anyway, what influence have these 2 organisations had on Britain's recent overflow of racial tension? Well to put it in a nutshell, if the BNP are the bullet in the head of racial harmony in the aforementioned 3 towns then the ANL have acted as the gunpowder. It is my belief that the riots (especially those that occurred in Bradford) would have been much less severe, perhaps even avoided altogether were it not for the ANL. Now this is not to say that the ANL turned up at all 3 towns with the intent of causing violence (although it would be naive to say that none of them did; the ANL has always been a loose coalition and so can include all sorts of elements other than peace loving anti fascists), but where they appeared, the violence followed. In Bradford the initial trouble centred on the impromptu ANL demonstration. The BNP thugs gathered to abuse them and a large gang of Asian youths (who were ostensibly there in support of the ANL) surged forward to attack them. Battle duly commenced.
Okay then; aren't the ANL simply fulfilling their purpose? They will stand up to the BNP come what may because of the words of Niemoeller, isn't that a good thing? Well, yes and no. Rather than looking at what happened with the ANL there, lets have a hypothetical look at what *should* have happened if they weren't...
Well, there are all of the BNP thugs all gathered together and...oh, look at that. The police have formed a cordon around them and are pummeling merry shite out of anyone who tries to get out or in (a sort of even-handed beating you might say). The people who want to get on with their day are doing so without interruption and the people who simply want a fight with the BNP are getting pepper sprayed and arrested. The BNP can go no-where and those who try to get out...are getting pepper sprayed and arrested! At the end of the day the BNP are peacefully dispersed and a police presence remains all night.
Now then; that was an ideal world scenario. Due to the various different police forces not setting their houses in order, I'm not sure that the Asian community has sufficient trust in them to be as even handed as I'd described. Some may find the above description semi-fascist in itself. I would answer by saying that extreme times (and extreme organisations) call for extreme measures. Though I dislike it as much as the next man, a powerful police presence can sometimes be the best solution to a problem like this.
But thanks in part to the partly justified mistrust of the police from minority communities, the police do not have the mandate to do this. Instead, the ANL continue to provide a focal point for the violence, either knowingly or otherwise. I find myself applauding their intentions but (as by now you may have gathered) resenting the fact that they are still necessary. Is there really still such little trust and so much hate because of skin colour? Is this actually the 21st century or was there some kind of error when Julius Caesar re-did the calendar and this is in fact the 11th century? Either way, I repeat my earlier exhortation to sort the whole shitty mess out and get on with the important business of evolving as members of the human race.
Thursday, 5 July 2001
Sorting the Sperm from the Chaff
A rare foray into the world of scientific news.
Having scanned through today's news items, I find myself taken with the urge to talk about a matter rooted in a science which I know next to nothing about. No change there you may think, but in truth vast area's of the scientific world have "Here be Dragons" scrawled on them as far as I am concerned. This is not how I would like things of course, but mention this as a sort of disclaimer to those of a more scientific bent (i.e. to plead ignorance when you pick my arguments apart by the second line).
Today a story has broken concerning what some regard as the dark side of Genetic Engineering (GE for short as I can't be arsed to write that out again and again...). It is a topic that is always at the forefront of any of the arguments against tinkering with DNA, and it may be that today's story will serve to bring over a lot of previously neutral people to the anti GE camp. Whilst there are many subtleties and nuances to the anti GE argument, I don't believe that I would be doing them any injustice by summing them up in two words; designer babies.
This immediately conjures up all sorts of images to me. They range from the hip media 30somethings looking through a catalogue to decide what physiological and emotion template they would like for their child ("And will that be blue eyes to go with the blonde hair madam? A very wise choice...." Of course, that may not be entirely a dreadful thing; early projections show that we could once and for eradicate the heartwrenching disaster of giving birth to a ginger haired baby once and for all...), to the sinister Nazi-overtoned drive to ensure that all children are born to a perceived ideal.
But let us steer clear of images and dally with the facts for a short while. Basically, a clinic in America is using something called a sperm-sorting machine to enable couples to choose whether they have a boy or a girl. This sperm-sorting machine (stop sniggering) detects whether the sperm has an X chromosome for a girl, or a Y for a boy. Presumably the sperm is then used to fertilise the egg via artificial insemination as the idea of using this machine during, *ahem*, natural conception brings to mind some of the more unsavoury pornography available in Amsterdam. The success rate is not 100% (it's actually 92% and 72% respectively for identifying the correct sperm type) but for the first time it is offering parents the chance to choose a physical characteristic of their unborn (and unconceived) child.
Up until today I hadn't thought that this was legally possible. After all, there is a raft of legislation to prevent this sort of thing and it was only a few months ago that A Dundee couple were refused permission to have IVF treatment that would guarantee having a girl. However, the sorting technique gets around this as the current rules of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) apply to embryos and sperm donation, they do not apply to sperm sorting. So could this be the first step on the slippery slope to designer babies?
I find that I am in two minds as to whether it is or not. The mere fact that it is happening at all inclines me to worry that it is. I am all in favour of GE when it is used for things like eradicating hereditary diseases or to detect severely handicapped children before they are born. But to have this incredibly powerful tool and to use it to select the sex or height of one's child is rather like using a Cray supercomputer as a calculator. And yet when something is invented, we cannot uninvent it. Whether we like it or not, some people do think that the right to define their child's characteristics is a good thing; no more than an extension of the pro-choice arguments that state it is a woman's right to decide. I am emphatically pro-choice, so why do I feel such unease?
Probably because whenever this argument is raised, it tends to be done so in a manner that leads us to believe that there will be neither control nor regulation of GE in any way, shape or form. This is what is referred to in the common parlance as "misleading bollocks". There are criteria in place to use the sorting process so it's not as if people will be allowed to use it willy-nilly (sorry; cheap joke...). They require any person(s) who wish to use the process to already have at least one child of the opposite sex that they are trying to conceive, so we are not on the face of it heading for a hi-tech China where female children are next to worthless and will even be left to die so that a male child can be born and raised in that household. So despite the non-involvement (and indeed, opposition) of the HFEA, the clinic involved would appear to be behaving responsibly and to an extent, that puts paid to the bulk of worries about the use and abuse of sperm sorting.
Nonetheless, despite this and despite my inherent distrust of the anti GE camp (far too many of them seem to be glazed eyed religious types who believe that anything to do with sex and reproduction is vaguely sinful; strange how they never get many converts to their cause but there never seems to be a shortage of the bastards. I think the reason that they're so opposed to GE is because they've actually been growing clones of themselves in vast warehouses and they don't like the idea of anybody else being able to do the same...) I find that I am still uneasy at the prospect of the road ahead. The way has surely been cleared for a more open and thorough debate of just what the implications of GE are for us and more specifically for our children. I would hate to see the issues behind that debate obscured by rabble-rousers on either side. GE may well be important, so let's treat it with the respect it deserves
Having scanned through today's news items, I find myself taken with the urge to talk about a matter rooted in a science which I know next to nothing about. No change there you may think, but in truth vast area's of the scientific world have "Here be Dragons" scrawled on them as far as I am concerned. This is not how I would like things of course, but mention this as a sort of disclaimer to those of a more scientific bent (i.e. to plead ignorance when you pick my arguments apart by the second line).
Today a story has broken concerning what some regard as the dark side of Genetic Engineering (GE for short as I can't be arsed to write that out again and again...). It is a topic that is always at the forefront of any of the arguments against tinkering with DNA, and it may be that today's story will serve to bring over a lot of previously neutral people to the anti GE camp. Whilst there are many subtleties and nuances to the anti GE argument, I don't believe that I would be doing them any injustice by summing them up in two words; designer babies.
This immediately conjures up all sorts of images to me. They range from the hip media 30somethings looking through a catalogue to decide what physiological and emotion template they would like for their child ("And will that be blue eyes to go with the blonde hair madam? A very wise choice...." Of course, that may not be entirely a dreadful thing; early projections show that we could once and for eradicate the heartwrenching disaster of giving birth to a ginger haired baby once and for all...), to the sinister Nazi-overtoned drive to ensure that all children are born to a perceived ideal.
But let us steer clear of images and dally with the facts for a short while. Basically, a clinic in America is using something called a sperm-sorting machine to enable couples to choose whether they have a boy or a girl. This sperm-sorting machine (stop sniggering) detects whether the sperm has an X chromosome for a girl, or a Y for a boy. Presumably the sperm is then used to fertilise the egg via artificial insemination as the idea of using this machine during, *ahem*, natural conception brings to mind some of the more unsavoury pornography available in Amsterdam. The success rate is not 100% (it's actually 92% and 72% respectively for identifying the correct sperm type) but for the first time it is offering parents the chance to choose a physical characteristic of their unborn (and unconceived) child.
Up until today I hadn't thought that this was legally possible. After all, there is a raft of legislation to prevent this sort of thing and it was only a few months ago that A Dundee couple were refused permission to have IVF treatment that would guarantee having a girl. However, the sorting technique gets around this as the current rules of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) apply to embryos and sperm donation, they do not apply to sperm sorting. So could this be the first step on the slippery slope to designer babies?
I find that I am in two minds as to whether it is or not. The mere fact that it is happening at all inclines me to worry that it is. I am all in favour of GE when it is used for things like eradicating hereditary diseases or to detect severely handicapped children before they are born. But to have this incredibly powerful tool and to use it to select the sex or height of one's child is rather like using a Cray supercomputer as a calculator. And yet when something is invented, we cannot uninvent it. Whether we like it or not, some people do think that the right to define their child's characteristics is a good thing; no more than an extension of the pro-choice arguments that state it is a woman's right to decide. I am emphatically pro-choice, so why do I feel such unease?
Probably because whenever this argument is raised, it tends to be done so in a manner that leads us to believe that there will be neither control nor regulation of GE in any way, shape or form. This is what is referred to in the common parlance as "misleading bollocks". There are criteria in place to use the sorting process so it's not as if people will be allowed to use it willy-nilly (sorry; cheap joke...). They require any person(s) who wish to use the process to already have at least one child of the opposite sex that they are trying to conceive, so we are not on the face of it heading for a hi-tech China where female children are next to worthless and will even be left to die so that a male child can be born and raised in that household. So despite the non-involvement (and indeed, opposition) of the HFEA, the clinic involved would appear to be behaving responsibly and to an extent, that puts paid to the bulk of worries about the use and abuse of sperm sorting.
Nonetheless, despite this and despite my inherent distrust of the anti GE camp (far too many of them seem to be glazed eyed religious types who believe that anything to do with sex and reproduction is vaguely sinful; strange how they never get many converts to their cause but there never seems to be a shortage of the bastards. I think the reason that they're so opposed to GE is because they've actually been growing clones of themselves in vast warehouses and they don't like the idea of anybody else being able to do the same...) I find that I am still uneasy at the prospect of the road ahead. The way has surely been cleared for a more open and thorough debate of just what the implications of GE are for us and more specifically for our children. I would hate to see the issues behind that debate obscured by rabble-rousers on either side. GE may well be important, so let's treat it with the respect it deserves
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)