Sarah Tether to stand down

I composed the following posting for Facebook on learning that Sarah Tether, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent, was to stand down as an MP.

I consider it likely that the political reality of managing a nation state involves interfacing with huge numbers of powerful vested interests, and to achieve anything requires forming alliances with organisations one might personally find distasteful. I have little doubt not only that the issue is the same the world over, but also that one's own moral purity could be preserved only under a highly authoritarian regime, assuming, of course, that one's moral principles aligned with that regime. The part I am not so keen on is that UK government ministers are required to pretend that they like the decisions that are taken in their name. I should rather they were honest, told it like it is, and then MPs such as Sarah Tether, and formerly Estelle Morris and Claire Short, would not be required to say things that we know they don't believe.

Plea of sanity?

The trial verdict and sentencing of Anders Breivik in Oslo recently was a matter of some interest to me, not because of the harrowing testimonies given by survivors, nor was I motivated by a desire to know that a racist, xenophobic, right-wing, Nazi sympathiser would be removed from pubic society, but because his behaviour raises questions about attitudes to mental health. The suspect’s guilt was never in question: he freely admitted the killings he had perpetrated. Indeed, in his final words addressed to the court Breivik expressed regret for not having killed more people. There was, however, uncertainty about the trial verdict regarding his state of mind. I guess that one of the first questions that will have been asked was whether Breivik was fit to stand trial, that is, whether he would be capable of following and understanding the legal proceedings. It must have been decided that he was indeed fit to stand trial, and from the way in which the trial was subsequently conducted there is no reason to consider this to have been a poor decision. As the trial progressed, the judges were then required to decide whether, at the time he carried out the killings, Breivik was in a state of mind in which he was able to take responsibility for his actions. Occasionally this has been expressed in more lurid terms: speaking of Breivik as a madman, and suggesting that he may be mad, with the difficult freight of meanings and nuances carried by those two terms. The BBC presented this more politely as a decision regarding his sanity: if considered to be sane then he would be criminally responsible for killing 77 people, for which he would be imprisoned; if considered to be insane then he would be incarcerated in a secure psychiatric ward and assessed for treatment. Perhaps ironically, according to the BBC news reports, the address of incarceration would be the same regardless of the verdict. During an interview, a spokesperson from the Norwegian penal service told the BBC that while in remand Breivik had not been permitted contact with other prisoners, for his own safety as well as theirs, and that this regime would continue. There is commentator observation that, regardless of the verdict, he would be incarcerated for the rest of his life. It seems clear, therefore, that, other than access to treatment, little will change in Breivik’s circumstances whether he is held to be sane or insane. According to BBC commentators an overwhelming majority of people in Norway wanted the judges to decide that Breivik should be considered sane. My understanding of this is that they wanted Breivik to be punished for his wicked actions. The same commentators reported that Breivik also wished to be considered sane, his reasoning being that he wished his actions to be seen as having been carried out for a reason instead of dismissed as the behaviour of a person unable to behave rationally. The verdict of the five judges was unanimous: they considered Breivik to be sane, and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment. The situation appears a little more complex to me. I understand that the psychiatrists who assessed Breivik’s mental health did not arrive at a unanimous agreement about his sanity. It seems obvious to me that this is because there neither is, nor can there be, a binary distinction between sanity and insanity. The lay and legal concepts of sanity are a convenience, verbal and conceptual. The mental health of a person may be compromised as a result of illness or injury, or because of who they have become. In attempting to determine the sanity of a person whose mental health is compromised, it is arbitrary where the line of distinction between sanity and insanity is drawn. No doubt Norwegian psychiatrists and/or psychologists subjected Breivik to a battery of tests in order to help them place him one or other side of a line. The results of those tests, however, were interpreted differently by the several people who made the assessment. When a person has some kind of mental disorder, the medical model attempts to distinguish between illness, which is treatable, and personality disorder, which is not treatable. There is a huge medical classificatory system of mental illness and personality disorders. There is also a long history of people being diagnosed differently by different medical staff. Indeed, in a famous 1960s expose, a number of medical students were diagnosed with schizophrenia simply because they were in a psychiatric hospital to which they had admitted themselves in order to carry out research on diagnosis. Equally, failure to agree on a diagnosis does not equate to there being nothing wrong, merely an inability to ascribe, or to agree on, a classification. However, if no broad medical agreement could be reached about a diagnosis of illness or personality disorder then it would be difficult to hold Breivik to be be insane. My perspective differs from the medical model. It seems obvious to me that individually murdering scores of strangers is evidence enough that there is something seriously awry with Breivik, Empathy and compassion are important components of what it is to be fully and healthily human. The desire to kill anyone, including oneself, is unhealthy. There may be antecedent circumstances in which sense may be made of the desire to kill someone, but killing is never a healthy response. It seems from the reports that Breivik showed neither empathy nor compassion when killing people, nor did he subsequently show remorse. Breivik’s actions were far from healthy. Reading on-line a few paragraphs of Breivik’s own writing, Breivik showed that he feels no connection to people. He expressed no warmth. He stated clearly that he expected to be ‘misunderstood’ and vilified for his actions. This suggests a tension between a sense of being the persecuted outsider, and a sense of being set apart, of superiority, perhaps even mildly messianic. It seems equally obvious to me, therefore, that Breivik is in considerable need of therapeutic help: to learn to empathise, to learn to feel compassion, to learn to relate to people, and to learn about the ordinary miracle of being fully human. Perhaps he is incapable of learning these things, but instead of simply locking him up as a criminal, it might have been more imaginative and hopeful had he been offered long-term therapy. Whilst prison may not be the optimum environment in which to help someone such as Breivik, the way in which he carried out the killings, and the way he conducted himself during the trial, point to him remaining an on-going threat to the safety of others, from whom the public should reasonably expect to be protected. However, the public were always going to be protected whether Breivik was considered sane or insane. The desire to define him as a criminally-responsible has denied Breivik the opportunity to receive the help that could have contributed to him becoming a more socially-responsible person. I have written this posting with reference only to news reports, mostly on the radio. There is a useful and detailed Wikipedia page about Breivik at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_breivik

Aversion to gambling

Whilst far from unique, the depth of my aversion to gambling is unusual. It pains me to see people forfeiting their wages in the hope of winning a jackpot. I hate being told about next week's housekeeping money being fed into insatiable slot machines. I feel sickeningly upset when I hear about a student who, having spent their year's student loan at the local casino, then runs up thousands of pounds of debt in a futile attempt to assuage a gnawing hunger to gamble.

My aversion has multiple components:

1. I detest the anxiety involved when hoping to win (anything). There is already more than enough anxiety in my life, and adding to it would be perverse.Clearly, some people enjoy the frisson that is probably a key part of the experience for them, an enjoyment that maintains their behaviour.
2. I cannot bear the disappointment of losing money. For some people, it is losing that spurs them into further gambling in the hope of recovering their losses.
3. When I hear about someone losing money, I find it easy to imagine how I would feel were I to lose that money (sympathy rather than empathy)
4. I imagine the consequences of losing evey last penny, and being unable to afford to buy food, warmth, light. I lived on the bread line back in the 1980s, and feel a powerful urge to avoid a life of penury.
5. I imagine losing all my possessions: house, car, computer, smartphone, books, music, DVDs. These are things I have chosen carefully, and in which I have invested much of myself: they mean a lot to me.
6. I imagine losing the important relationships in my life. There is a desolate scene in The Full Monty in which the character who also plays Mr Chuckles loses his family.
7. I imagine the shame of having to admit to people that I have gambled everything away.
8. I imagine the fear of being caught up in the murky underworld of debt recovery. The scene in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, in which Tom and his mates are threatened by Barry "The Baptist" with mutilation and shame if they don't pay a gambling debt, is nauseatingly unsettling.

I feel ethically antagonistic to the idea of business turnover and profit deriving from people losing their money. Harsh though it may sound, I cannot but help think of these businesses as behaving parasitically. I am also aware that a proportion of gambling that takes place probably attracts the attention of organised crime (or is that just in the movies?), also parasitical, with which I wish to have no involvement, and have every desire to avoid funding.
A society that places emphasis on gambling is a society that peddles fantasies of escape from reality.
In contrast, I feel strongly drawn towards a work ethic that prizes working for a living, with a concomitant ethic that prizes working hard, for which one should be proportionately rewarded. I believe that I become more who I truly am through engagement in my work, and especially by working hard. Gambling is the antithesis of these ethical principles, and an implication of gambling is that work is for suckers.
As we have witnessed, with astronomical quantities of money disappearing from national economies as a result of the sub-prime mortgage scandal in the US, followed by the collapse of some commercial banks, followed by the near bankrpting of countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Iceland, how money is spent can have a very significant impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people. When money is spent on the wrong things, in this case on speculation, governments fall, workers are thrown out of their jobs, pensioners lose their pensions, and the standard of living drops. Speculation of this kind is no different from gambling, except that vast numbers of innocent people are swept up in the subsequent destruction. I can't help but wonder what would happen to national economies were people to stop gambling and start businesses instead.

There is considered to be something glamourous about a casino When Ian Fleming's character James Bond walks into a casino, we are being told that he associates with very wealthy, champagne-sipping people who can afford to dress elegantly, and who wish to suggest they are so wealthy that they can afford to risk losing some of their wealth. The reality of casinos in Sunderland, UK, or I guess Las Vegas, Nevada, is perhaps rather more seedy. The gambler's hope (although not the only reason why they gamble) is to win money. Their msitake is to over-estimate the probability of winning. A casino is a business that understands the probabilities, the net effect of which is always to relieve people of their money, albeit perhaps over a period of time Were the opposite true, casinos as businesses could not exist. Regarding betting, the sleigtht of hand is slightly different: for bookmakers: to survive in business, the odds have to be weighted in favour of the business. Lottery's work slightly differently again, in which the prize money is dependent on total stakes, and the lottery company makes its money by retaiinng a proportion of the stakes.

I have never bought a lottery ticket, and even though they seem to be sold everywhere in the UK,  I do not know how to mark a lottery ticket. At the odds of 14,000,000 to 1 against winning, it seems incredible to me that people do buy lottery tickets - maybe it manifests the intensity of their desperation for a better life.. I have never visited a casino, and find it easy to imagine the range of negative feelings that I would probably experience were I to do so. I once went into a betting shop, simply because I did not know what they look like. I felt sorry for the people who spend so much of their lives in such places, for the one I visited was grim. Far from feeling tempted to place a bet, I felt soiled, and could not leave fast enough.

...to be continued...

Sunday thoughts

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, said in a recent interview for BBC1's Sunday Politics in Scotland, that it is "immoral" how the less well-off had been made to "suffer" for the failings in the financial services sector.The cardinal's somewhat intemperate language would suggest that he considers issues in terms of the absolutes of good and bad, rather than in more nuanced shades and tones. He fails to recognise that the ethics of the current UK administration continue to remain validly self-consistent, best characterised by the phrase 'rich people looking after rich people'. I find myself in agreement with the cardinal's sentiment. In my ethical framework it is not okay that the welfare state is, in part, being dismantled. To add insult to injury, the abrading is happening in order to pay for the problems created by a sector that has no need for the welfare state. Let the banking and financial sector pay for its own mistakes. In my political analysis, the UK economy is far too dependent on the City of London-based financial sector. I should much rather the UK economy were based on skilled and high-tech manufacturing, but with an emphasis on reducing consumption. If there were economic austerity to be faced by ordinary people, let it be because the economy of the UK were being rebalanced away from financial services towards sustainable ways of living.

The same cardinal, who is well-known for speaking out on controversial issues, recently lambasted the UK government for wishing to provide a legal definition of marriage. The cardinal believes that only the Christian church ought to be allowed to define marriage. A major part of the problem is that the Roman Catholic church, amongst several, has a conservative and extremely outdated view of what constitutes an appropriate relationship, whereas the British public, along with populations across the economically developed world, have been rejecting en masse practices that belong (at best) to a different era. By seeking to bring up to date the concept and practices of marriage, the UK government is patently seeking to revive its popularity. Therefore, it seems to me, this is an issue of competence. I defend the assertion by the UK parliament of its right to determine issues that apply to people across the country. I also defend the right of the Roman Catholic church to determine its own attitude towards marriage.If the Roman Catholic church does not wish to embrace the practice of marrying same-sex couples, it does not seem necessary to force them to do so. Gay couples can choose to marry in a civil ceremony (and I'm not sure how this would differ from a civil partnership) or in a church of another denomination. I am certain that the Religious Society of Friends will be enthusiastic to hold gay weddings for Quakers.

It is looking increasingly likely that, in due course, the Anglican church will split in two over issues of sexuality. Gene Robinson's enthronement in a see of the Episcopal Church in the US exposed attitudes in the worldwide Anglican Church that appear indistinguishable from homophobia. In an effort to keep the Anglican communion in one piece, Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Church, introduced a covenant to which each of the Anglican national churches was expected to sign up. However, the Church of England refused to sign it on the basis of its exclusion of gay clergy. It is far from clear to me why both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are so willing to see themselves portrayed as irretrievably homophobic.Recently, the Catholic Education Society contact the Roman Catholic schools in the UK, inviting them to use in school assemblies material concerning the Roman Catholic church's objection to gay marriage, and urging the schools to encourage their pupils to sign an on-line petition against gay marriage. It is not hard to imagine the effect this may have on young people who feel uncertain or uneasy about their emergent sexuality.

The Church of England is feeling challenged about the likely reduction in the number of its bishops who sit by right in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the UK parliament). That the bishops are present at all owes itself to the fact that the Church of England is the established church of England - despite the fact that the House of Lords scrutinises legislation that applies variously or severally to the four countries of the UK. On the face of it, this sounds like an excellent reason for removing all of the bishops from the House of Lords. However, I believe that there is a place for senior representatives of each of the major religions and Christian denominations, including the churches in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a scrutinising body, the work of the House of Lords would be enhanced by having the views of as many as possible of the constituent bodies that make up the complex organism that is the UK

The execution of Ali Hassan al-Majeed

From the news BBC radio reports that I have heard, and the BBC website reports I have read, Ali Hassan al-Majeed, popularly known in the West as 'Chemical Ali', was a man with brutal values who acted on those values, resulting in the death of many thousands of people. In particular, he directed the persecution of Kurdish population in northern Iraq, the most celebrated attack being at Halabja in which 5,000 people died from the mustard gas attack he ordered. He also organised the crushing of Shi'ite communities after Iraq's war with Iran, and again after the First Gulf War (George Bush senior). For these war crimes he was sentenced to death on four counts. In addition, he co-ordinated the killing of less-than-loyal members of Saddam Husein's immediate family, of which he was also a member. It is difficult to imagine a man who, in the eyes of the world, more deserved to be executed for his crimes. Ali Hassan al-Majeed was executed by Iraqi authorities on Monday 25 January 2010.

I remain resolute in my belief that killing is wrong. The execution of this man not only enacts the belief that some people do not deserve to live, but also that I have - someone has - the moral right to determine the ending of a person's life. I do not have that right, and no-one should have that right other than the person themselves. I believe that, in its pre-meditation, execution is a morally worse act than accidental killing, say, in the commission of a robbery.

War: skillful tactic or utter disaster?

War destroys. War destroys people, communities, culture and infrastructure. War only ever destroys. It is the process of rebuilding that picks up the pieces and rebuilds. Warfare always represents failure.

In her fascinating article, Diana Francis debunks the popular myth that war can be for good.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/diana-francis/war-justifiable-or-simply-catastrophic

If death and destruction are to be reduced, warfare must stop. No exceptions. No excuses.
...

Eric Blair: 25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950

From what I have read about him, Eric Blair was not an easy person to get along with, and enjoyed challenging the status quo. He had strongly-held political opinions and was reluctant to be silenced. He resigned from his job with the BBC because he opposed censorship. His family supported the British establishment, but he came to oppose it. Blair was a proponent of a federal socialist Europe, a position outlined in his 1947 essay Toward European Unity. He was left-wing in his politics, but was also highly critical of the left. He hated anything politically authoritarian, which is how he came to write Nineteen Eighty Four. In Why I Write (1946) he wrote "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green

The article below is one of several I have seen recently along the same lines:

World Environment News - Some Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green - Planet Ark

I am aware that there are many millions of people, particularly in South America, Africa and parts of Asia, who would experience a vast improvement in their quality of life were they to be given the opportunity to live in these abandoned neighbourhoods. Is it ethically more sound to raze the houses to make green space, or to provide shelter for people who have none?

I am slowly but increasingly persuaded that no-one should be given the right to exclude other people from land that is not theirs: Israelis should have no right to exclude Palestinians from living in Israel; nor supporters of the British National Party [Front Nationale, Vlaams Blok/Belang] to prevent people with darker-coloured skin from living in western Europe. I guess that there are residents of Flint, Michigan, who would object to people from elsewhere in the world (such as refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants) taking up residence in abandoned neighbourhoods.

A related, though separate, issue concerns social welfare. Were familes say, from Timbuktu, to relocate to Flint, Michigan, or to Pennywell, Sunderland, who would be responsible for their social welfare?

[To be continued ...]

Was this evil?

The following story is edited from the BBC News website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/7631234.stm: 2008/09/23 14:33:28 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/7631734.stm: 2008/09/23 15:55:25 GMT

A 32-year-old woman has been found guilty of murdering her four-year-old disabled daughter.

Joanne Hill, from Connah's Quay, in Flintshire, had admitted drowning Naomi in the bath last year but denied murder due to diminished responsibility. Hill was jailed for life with a minimum term of 15 years. Chester Crown Court was told she had been unable to cope with Naomi's mild cerebral palsy.

Naomi's father Simon Hill described his wife's actions as "evil".

During the two-week trial, the jury heard hard-drinking Hill was ashamed of Naomi's condition, which meant the little girl had to use callipers to help her walk.

Judge Elgan Edwards told Hill there was no excuse for what she did. He said the aggravating features in the case were the vulnerability of Naomi and the breach of trust between a mother and daughter. He said: "You killed your own daughter because you could not cope with her disability. You had other pressures upon you, a disintegrating marriage and you decided to kill your own daughter by drowning her."

Because of the murder conviction Hill will not return to a secure unit but go straight to prison, the judge said. He commented on Hill's "sad" history of mental health problems and said he hoped she would be transferred back to hospital very soon. He added: "This has been a very sad case. Sad for you, for your husband, for the child you killed. "There can be no excuse for what you did."

On 26 November, 2007, Hill collected Naomi from a child-minder and took her home. The court heard how Hill had run a bath, adding bubble bath and came down for a glass of wine. When the bath was full, Hill put her daughter in the bath and drowned her by holding her head under the water for up to 10 minutes. The post-mortem examination found Naomi had died by drowning and also found facial haemorrhages which pointed to the girl's head being forcibly held under water with her face against the surface of the bath. Hill then dressed the little girl and put her in her car together with a bottle of wine before her husband returned home from work. She then drove around for eight hours.

The following day, Hill arrived at the Countess of Chester Hospital with her dead daughter in her arms, shouting for help.

The court heard how it was unclear what Hill was doing in the eight hours leading up to her arrival at hospital with Naomi dead in her arms. Police established she visited a petrol station at about 2330 BST that night and the jury were shown CCTV footage of her smiling and joking with the sales assistant.

Speaking after Hill was convicted by a unanimous jury, her husband Simon said: "Joanne is a non-swimmer with a fear of water. To be held under water is her biggest fear. "What she did to my princess Naomi was evil. There's not a minute that goes by without me wishing that [Naomi] was still here. She was my constant companion, she was my best friend, she was my little princess."

Hill's mental health issues first became apparent in the early 1990s when, aged 17, she saw a child psychiatrist for anxiety and repetitive thoughts. In 2000, she attempted suicide and throughout the year she was prescribed a medication for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness. In January 2003, shortly before Naomi was born, Hill was diagnosed with chronic anxiety and immediately afterwards, suffered a severe form of post-natal depression.

In a statement North Wales NHS Trust said a full review was to be conducted under the control of the Flintshire Local Safeguarding Children's Board. "Until these formal processes have concluded it would be inappropriate for the trust to make any detailed comment and the trust is also bound by the rules of patient confidentiality," the statement read.

A spokeswoman for the disability charity Scope, which focuses on people with cerebral palsy, said they were "saddened and appalled by this case". "Naomi's death is a tragedy," Alice Maynard said. "However, this case raises the wider issue of how many disabled parents still don't get the support they need in bringing up children and how society continues to portray disability in a negative light, creating shame and stigma around impairment. "Tragically, in this instance, this combination of factors proved lethal."

The jury in the trial of Joanne Hill, who has been convicted of murdering her disabled daughter, had a crucial decision to make about the 32-year-old's state of mind.

Hill, of Connah's Quay, Flintshire had killed four-year-old Naomi but the jury had to decide whether she was ill on the day she killed her daughter.

The defence case rested on proving that Hill, who had a history of mental health problems, was suffering "an abnormality of mind" when she drowned Naomi in the bath.

But Michael Chambers QC, for the prosecution, said Mrs Hill's behaviour in the months and days leading up to the killing had been considered normal and rational.

He said Hill should be found guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, because she had made a "deliberate and conscious" decision to kill her daughter.

Naomi was disabled, having mild cerebral palsy, and Hill could not cope with it, claimed the prosecution.

But deciding whether somebody is mentally ill at a particular time is a complex task.

During the trial at Chester Crown Court, Dr Aideen O'Halloran, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, said Hill's behaviour in the weeks leading up to Naomi's death indicated she was having a relapse of her mental health condition.

The court was told Hill had a history of mental health problems which first became apparent in the early 1990s when she was 17 years old and saw a child psychiatrist for anxiety and repetitive thoughts.

In 2000, Hill twice attempted suicide and throughout the year she was prescribed medication for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness.

In January 2003, shortly before the birth of Naomi, Hill was diagnosed with chronic anxiety and the following April, she had a "hypermanic" episode.

After Naomi was born ten weeks prematurely in a "difficult" birth, Hill suffered a severe form of postnatal depression, although she did respond to treatment.

On Boxing Day 2006 she suffered a severe relapse and left the family home to be cared for by her parents.

Once again Hill recovered, returning to work part-time in the March and full-time a month later.

In June, doctors decided there was no need for further involvement by her local Mental Health Team and in August her case was closed, although she remained under the care of her GP and on several types of medication.

In November, it was recorded that she was drinking heavily, increasing the risk of depression and the likelihood that she would stop taking her medicine.

Later that month she killed Naomi.

Dr O'Halloran concluded that Hill was suffering from depression and was able to "disassociate" her feelings, a combination that was "an abnormality of the mind" in her view.

But Dr Paul Chesterman, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, told the jury Hill's actions had not suggested a mental disorder at the time of the killing last year.

Hill had enjoyed a night out and had sex with a workmate on the Thursday before Naomi was killed, behaviour that Dr Chesterman said was "incompatible" with clinical depression.

Away from the trial, Gordon Huntley from the charity Wrexham Mind office sympathised with the jury's difficult task.

"When it comes to mental health it's far more difficult. When it's a physical illness, it's quite visible," he said.

"With mental health it's not quite so easy because the person doesn't necessarily understand what's going on themselves.

"It can be really difficult for jurors to come to any sort of understanding, let alone decision, about why somebody might want to do something like that."

And the complexity of the issue can lead to very different conclusions, even from experts, about a person's state of mind.

"I don't always agree with some of my colleagues in health on occasions," said Mr Huntley.

"I work closely with them and I'm quite friendly with a number but they do face quite difficult decisions in terms of what is happening to an individual.

"'What diagnosis do I give them and therefore what treatment can I give them or is available, is it the right one?'

"It's quite difficult and can be quite a lonely position for them to carry that burden."

Mr Huntley said it was also incredibly difficult to predict whether somebody with a history of serious mental health problems was likely to commit an extreme act.

"The stigma that people face with mental health issues is significant but it's not warranted, but unfortunately there are incidents that lead to tragic circumstances," he said.

"While for the vast majority, that's not the case, there are some of those events and sometimes people fall through the gaps."

European invasion of the Americas (1)

My two visits to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian, Washington DC, prompted me to consider the ethics of the European invasion of the Americas from 1492 onwards. I have been journalling about this issue in detail on paper, but have been reluctant to date to commit any of my thoughts to publicly-accessible electronic form. However, having just read the article reproduced below, I thought that it would make a good start to the process of placing my thoughts about the issue in the public domain. The article is in Planet Ark, world environment news, which I believe to be a subsidiary of Reuters.

***

BRASILIA - Isolated native Indians in the Amazon forest of Brazil and Peru remain threatened by advancing loggers despite growing international attention to their plight, a senior Brazilian official said on Thursday.

"Pressure from Peruvian loggers continues, it's a concern," Marcio Meira, head of the government's Indian affairs agency, Funai, told the foreign press association in Brasilia.

Brazil's Acre state along the border with Peru is one of the world's last refuges for such groups, but increasing activity by wildcat miners and loggers puts them at risk.

Dramatic pictures of pigment-covered Indians from the region threatening the photographer's aircraft with bows and arrows were carried in May by media worldwide.

The Peruvian ambassador to Brazil subsequently told Meira his government was concerned about the issue and preparing measures, without detailing what these were.

Brazil has 26 confirmed native Indian tribes that live with little or no contact with the outside world. There are unconfirmed reports of an additional 35 such groups.

Many of them live in the forest like their forefathers did centuries ago, hunting and gathering.

More than three months after the photographs sparked an international media frenzy, Funai officials continue to witness logging activity in the region. "There is evidence. We see timber floating down the river which originates in Peru," said Meira.

Survival International, a group that campaigns for tribal peoples' rights, said last week that the Peruvian government had not lived up to its promise of publishing an investigation into accusations of illegal logging.

"The Peruvian government must not be allowed to bury this issue, or to turn their backs on the uncontacted tribes," said Survival's director, Stephen Corry.

The issue will be discussed at an international conference on native Indians in Georgetown, Guyana, later this month, Meira said.

Advancing loggers also threaten isolated tribes in Brazil's northern Mato Gross state and along the upper Xingu river in Para state, Meira said.

(Reporting by Raymond Colitt, editing by Ross Colvin)

Story Date: 15/9/2008

***

Having visited Auschwitz-Birkenau

One of my sisters recently visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have never had the courage to visit that grim place, and I respect her for doing so. In response to her visit she found herself asking versions of the primary questions listed below that she was kind enough to e-mail me. I have added some searching, self-reflective supplementary questions because that is my nature. It is not my intention to remove anything from her experience by developing her material in this way. Rather, my purpose is to engage with her material in ways that are relevant to my process. As recorded elsewhere, I am currently active in considering a new non-religious ethical framework for society. It is in this context that my supplementary questions can best be read.

Q1. What is the character of someone who believes that other people are a sub-species and unworthy of life? Are there occasions when I treat someone, or some group of people, with less than the full respect that belongs to humanity?

Q2. What possible ethical framework could permit medical doctors to perform "experiments" on living people, and subsequently kill those people with phenol injections? In what ways do I behave unethically towards people, even if those people live in a different continent? I buy electronic goods that I suspect were manufactured in Chinese sweat-shops; I buy food staples that may have been grown and harvested by poor and oppressed people working the farms and estates of trans-national corporations.

Q3. What did the recipients of second-hand clothes / false limbs/ glasses / suitcases / etc., believe about their provenance? Do I always enquire about the provenance of the clothes I wear and the food I eat?

Q4. How could anyone feel okay about making cloth from the hair, and lampshades from the skin, of people for whom they have contempt, and what kind of person would want to possess objects made from those materials? What will people of the future think about the choices I have been making during my life?

Q5. Why did the Nazi machine go to the lengths of transporting Jewish people from places as far away as Greece and Portugal (taking up to 10 days in freight trains) to Birkenau, only then to murder them?

Q6. How did the tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people who were involved at some level in the premeditated murder of Jewish, Roma, gay and disabled people across Europe, subsequently reconcile themselves with the wickedness in which they had participated, or at least with which they had colluded? How do I reconcile myself with knowledge of the hurt and pain I have caused people during my life?

Q7. Why didn't the Hungarian 'underground resistance' disseminate the news from escapees about what was happening in Birkenau, and thus prevent half a million Jewish people from being transported there in 1944? How guilty am I for allowing people to believe what I have known not to be true.

Q8. To what extent did the UK and US governments keep quiet about Auschwitz-Birkenau? Why do I stand by without complaint and permit the UK government to deport from the UK refugees from strife-torn parts of the world?

Q9. Are the Italian authorities currently dehumanising the Roma people, and thereby moving in the same direction as the Nazis? Is my conscience as squeaky clean as I should like people to believe?

Q10. By what signs could I recognise that the people around me have gone a step too far? Would I be prepared to recognise that a line had been crossed? What would I do about it were I to see it happening?

***

The following poem is widely attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Original

Translation

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

***

In 2003, American punk rock band NoFX paraphased the poem in the song "Re-gaining Unconsciousness" on the album War on Errorism

First they put away the dealers,

keep our kids safe and off the street.

Then they put away the prostitutes,

keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,

then they beat and bashed the queers,

turned away asylum-seekers,

fed us suspicions and fears.

We didn't raise our voice,

we didn't make a fuss.

It's funny there was no one left to notice

when they came for us.

***

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." (frequently misattributed to Edmund Burke.)

***

14:50 Wednesday 16 July 2008, Cafe, Murray Library, Sunderland

My sister visited Auschwitz-Birkenau last weekend. I am filled with tears simply imagining the experience. I wish never to visit the place which is as close to hell as I ever need to hear about. Besides, my credentials go a long way to excusing me the ordeal. As a lifelong pacifist, a Quaker for 25 years and a vegan for nearly 15 years, it would be difficult to mistake where I stand on issues relating to the wickednesses perpetrated in that evil place. On most of the occasions when I have visited Amsterdam I have been in the Anne Frank House, which I have also browsed online. I have visited the holocaust memorials in both Paris (several times) and in Berlin (where I should also like to visit the new memorial to the gay people who were murdered by the Nazi regime). Also in Berlin I have twice visited the harrowing Topography of Terror exhibition next to the Martin Gropius House. In both Sunderland (Crowtree Centre) and Newcastle (a gallery off Pilgrim Street) I have attended holocaust exhibitions. I have not only attended the anti-apartheid demonstration outside the South African Embassy in London when white-skinned people ruled South Africa, but I have also picketed Barclays Bank in Durham for its collusion with the apartheid regime. Perhaps more controversially, I make a point of reading the website of the far right British National Party in order to understand their poison. I have attended anti-racist training workshops, although I have never led any. However, I have led gay-awareness and mental health awareness workshops. My daughter has multiple disabilities, and as one response, I use British Sign Language. During the first five years of my life I was brought up in close proximity to a Jewish family (Marion and David Bernard and their three children) in north-west London. As a counsellor I have examined in detailed, and hold up for ongoing examination, my opinions, attitudes and thoughts. As a Quaker, my beliefs are subject to perpetual examination. Superficially, then, my credentials appear kosher. However, I have written almost nothing about any of this in a way that positions me in relation to other people - I rarely stand up to be counted. I am, in fact, indistinguishable from the narrator or Niemöller's poem. Neither do I do much that makes a practical, positive difference. It is not sufficient that I have a preference for the light of truth and love, and that I reject the darkness of ignorance, fear and hatred. I have lost sight of the fact that it is my duty to be creating light, and my responsibility to be shining as a beacon against the darkness of falsehood and hypocrisy. Compared to the bleak days of the 1930s and 1940s, I live in blessed times. Compared to the darkness that enshrouds the populations of Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, the UK is "summertime, and the living is easy" ... but I have, for too long, chosen to sit on my hands. My comfortably-won credentials do not, in fact, excuse me from visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau. The first question for me to ask now is whether I am able to stir myself into action before making that grim pilgrimage.

An existential morality

From the material below I shall create a new weblog posting.

To the extent of my privilege I am existentially obliged to live not only true to my nature and values, but also to improve the world. Why? Because my existence exacts a significant price on the world. Unless I mitigate my existence, I shall leave the world a worse place.

I do not believe that I am privileged to be alive: I had no choice in the decision (or 'mistake') that brought me into existence; I choose not to end my life just yet. I am privileged in that I live in the 21st century AD not BC; that I live in the UK where I have many freedoms, including that of speech, and not in Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Colombia; that I live in the economically-developed western world, not in the economically developing world; that I have climbed out of an economically-impoverished and socially-marginalised community in Brent into a professional, intellectual, middle-class life-style. I have no doubt that I am privileged, as are many other people. My privilege gives me power that I can choose to use as I wish. A person with less privilege may have little if any power at their disposal.

My existentialism demands that I live my life true to my own nature. I believe that many people internalise values that are not their own, fail to examine those internalised values, and live their lives at variance from their true nature.

Rights belong to formal or informal legislative frameworks. There is nothing inherent about human rights, consumer rights or birthrights. God-given rights are only for those who believe in a god, which I do not. I claim no rights, although the law of the state and the framework of the community and society in which I live grant me rights. I am granted the right to life until that right is withdrawn (for example, were I to be found guilty of a capital offence).

One of my values is respect for life. I live this in that I am a full pacifist, I oppose capital punishment around the world, and I am a strict vegan. I also respect a person's desire to die.

I recognise that my continued existence is costly. The world is a worse place for my continued existence: my carbon footprint being a topical example; I consume resources such as copper in the cables that power this computer; people feed me by sowing, reaping and processing soya beans; my GP prescribes me blood pressure medication; my daughter is taught at school. Being a westerner, I consume much more than the average person. Being a westerner, and therefore have privilege, I command more power than a refugee in Africa or south-east Asia. Whether I like it or not, the west rests on the bounty of the Earth and on the backs of the world's poor. I feel obligated to mitigate those burdens in the ways that are in my power and that I choose.

Some thoughts about a non-religious ethical framework

This post is in the process of being moved to its own website:

http://www.newethicalframework.googlepages.com/home


Some thoughts about a non-religious ethical framework

Introduction

It is my fantasy that in times long past, when life for most people was uneducated, tough and frighteningly easy to lose, the various Christian churches played an important role in developing an ‘ethical framework’ that has led to what is currently the aging ‘ethical scaffolding’ of UK and western society. However, despite their former value to society, the role of churches passed its sell-by date at least a century or two ago. Our world is not the simple, fixed world of Genesis, although there are many in different churches who would have it otherwise. Our complex world is the creation of Copernicus, Galileo, da Vinci, Newton, Lavoisier, Priestley, Lyall, Hume, Watt, Stephenson, Armstrong, Darwin, Curie, Rutherford, Einstein, Marconi, Freud, Crick, Watson, Pauling, Sagan, Hawking, Berners-Lee, Gates and ten thousand others.

The vacuum left by the departure of the churches from the centre ground of social existence has long now been occupied by a consumerist materialism (including the use of legal and illegal stimulants), the consumption of passive and voyeuristic entertainment (Hello-style journalism and television), and an obsession with glamour and celebrity (including royalty), sport and get-rich-quick competition. I believe that the ethical values to which these concerns point serve well the organisations that profit from them, and serve poorly the needs of ordinary people to negotiate the hurdles, perils and disappointments of life, and to live satisfying and fulfilling lives.

It is also possible to hear much criticism of some churches for providing too little public steer on issues of the day, and yet encounter other churches (e.g. fundamentalist Right and the conservative Amish in the US; Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK), and religious sects (e.g. the Taleban in Afghanistan; radical Madrassas in Pakistan) that insist on such a rigid steer that individual people are granted little freedom, and non-followers may be at risk (e.g. attacks on doctors who run abortion clinics in the US; Islamic terrorism). A new ethical framework would encourage searching for information and understanding when considering contemporary issues, would prize compassion, and would provide the principles for addressing the issues.

Although a non-religious ethical framework would in time replace past religious ethical structures, it would also build on many aspects of their insights, ideas and philosophy. For example, the Mosaic 'commandments' and the Christian 'beatitudes', although expressed in a manner unattractive to many people, address a wealth of important ideas such as respect for self, for family members, for community, for people who are disempowered or powerless, for strangers. Lifting rocks that now overlie the variously-identified virtues and vices (for example, the 'seven deadly sins' and their complementary virtues), long-mocked because of the sham and hypocritical authority to which people were made accountable, reveals a treasure trove of personal values. Buddhism is built on an impressive foundation of ideas and values. However, this is not to suggest that a non-religious ethical framework would be merely an eclectic hotch-potch of recycled ideas. It is important that the framework would be underpinned both by a deep existential philosophy, and some congruent theoretical principles.

Sin

Within a new ethical framework there would be only a weak concept of sin. Instead there would be both the recognition that most people most of the time are doing what they think best. If they are acting in ways that others consider to be wrong, there is likely to be a reason for it. However, the person who is acting in a manner than meets with the opprobrium of others may be acting out of a lack of compassion for other people. One of the central tenets of a new ethical framework would be the explicit balancing of looking after self with compassion for other people: neither total selfishness nor total selflessness are sufficient. Therefore the concept of sin would be largely relegated to a need for a rebalancing. Similarly, a new ethical framework would avoid generating a sense of guilt. Not only would there be no concept of original sin, but the entire framework would try to avoid opportunities for feelings of guilt. A new ethical framework would be tolerant of personal weakness (e.g. transgression and superstition).

Law

A new ethical framework for society would not replace legislation. This is important for several reasons. First, legislation is usually about requirements and prohibitions, whereas a new ethical framework would attempt to be empowering. Second, legislation is mostly made at the national, regional and local levels, often reflecting the will of the people, whereas a new ethical framework would attempt to be universal. Third, most legislation is about protecting other people (recognising that to eveyone else, I am also 'other people'), whereas a new ethical framework would focus on self , and would almost certainly propose much higher standards of conduct than is usually required under legislation. It might be hoped that a new ethical framework would, in time, influence legislation.

Texts

A new ethical framework would not be a code, or rule, by which to live. It is important that the spirit of the framework, not the words used to describe it, is what is prized. Therefore, there would not be one text alone that defined the ethical framework. Indeed, in a general sense, every text ever written, every image ever created, every movie ever made, would contribute to the understanding of the framework. For example, the written works of Adolf Hitler show us something about what can go so badly wrong, how people can so easily be scapegoated, and how easy it can be to slip into that way of being. The 'Godfather' movies may show us that a thoroughly despicable ordering of society offers attractions that may beguile. However, much more specifically there would need to be some comprehensive texts that outlined, explained and described the framework. Like some temples and shrines in Japan, and like many dictionaries, these texts would be extended, revised and updated with regularity and frequency. These texts would be publicly available online. There may need to be simple texts for people with little education, whether young or not, texts aimed at educated adults, and texts for more academic people, as well as co-ordination between the texts. There would also need to be a vast, annotated 'reading' list pointing people to existing works that could help to explore specific issues. Included in this list would be the religious texts of the major religions the world over: the Tao Teh Ching, the Baghavad Gita, the Bible, the Koran, the later Sikh Gurus, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and so on. Each annotation would caution against revering individuals in such a way as to sanctify, or worse, deify, them.

Values

I should like to contribute to the development of a new, positive, dynamic, responsive ethical framework, wrested from the clutches of institutions such as the church, state and corporate capitalism. This new ethical framework would be based on the altruistic values of charities, the internationalism of NGOs, the work values of trusts and co-operatives, the environmental values of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the relationship values of person-centred counselling, the social awareness values of minority cohesion groups, the justice values of community action groups, the self-improvement values of the WEA and the Open University, spiced with a celebration of craft and artistic endeavours of all kinds.

Putting together the above, how is it to be presented? The written and oral traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, condensed into rigid canons, have become weapons with which to defend and attack. That is a bad model. Deification of a person or a cabal is an even worse idea. The new ethical framework would need to be flexible enough to be expanded/contracted and changed to respond adequately to circumstances. It would be in the hands of many, and not merely an elite, but neither would it be merely populist (no 'beauty-contest' cell-phone voting).

Some words describing the ethos of the ethical framework

Harmony, resonance, spiritual, inspiration, aspiration

Compassion, love, truth, authenticity

Diversity, heterogeneity, pluralism

Path, way, journey

An ethical framework for the everyday and for seeking deeper meaning

One of the faults of much organised religion is that it attributes greater significance to people who are able to engage more fully in religious activities and who are able to run the organisation: popes and bishops, imams and rabbis, priests and monks. A new ethical framework would not focus on the individual but on processes. A person might involve themselves for much of the time at an everyday level of ethical awareness, for example taking decisions informed by their ethical principles. That same individual might spend some time seeking after deeper meaning. On other occasions that some person might lead others in their exploration. Although many religious clergy might claim that they are no more special than any member of their congregation, that is not how most people view them. The new ethical framework, in focusing on processes, would refuse role titles, and would only describe processes. These processes would include:

everyday functioning

seeking truth / meaning

leading others in their search for truth / meaning

Person and self

A deep respect for self would be good, so that self-aggrandisement at the expense of other becomes no longer necessary. Self-development would become a permanent aspiration, and counselling would be seen as a valuable activity in which to participate. The material, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs (Maslow) of each person would be elevated. Without safety, food and a place to live, a person has little opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Relationship to others

To replace the sneering, contemptuous, cynical, exploitative attitude that appears to pervade public discourse worldwide, a new ethical framework would focus on one's relationships with family, community and society, alongside a deep respect for people. Courtesy and politness, as found in Japan, would be prized. Fundamentally permissive, a new ethical framework would prize social diversity, and would consider social conformity to be unnecessary and often unhelpful. Nationalism in any form would not be encouraged at the everyday level of processing, and at other levels of processing would be discouraged.

A respect that acknowledges their experience, their story, their aspirations, their reality. The Kantian ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and justice would serve well, providing a framework for looking after family, neighbour, community, society, the world community and the natural environment. Attitudes of self-respect, humility and giving dignity could replace the Pop Idol -type aspirations that has come to infect the 21st century West.

Relationship with the natural environment

There would also be a deep respect for the natural world, including land, sea and air, animals and plants. To pollute would be as though to soil one's own home. To treat living things callously would be as though to treat one's parents, siblings and children with contempt.

Spiritual dimension

Esteemed places are already reserved for wonder, awe and mystery. Superstition, however, will play no part in this new, humanist ethic, neither pagan astrology nor theistic beliefs. Souls, an after-life and reincarnation will be acknowledged as concepts that distract and make truth more elusive. From dust my body was formed, and to dust it will return. From oblivion I was created, nurtured into awareness, until I am annihilated. De facto, I live the interval between oblivion and annihilation in a spirit shaped by interaction. Like piano strings resonating to sounds in the environment, my spirit resonates with the spirits of others, and maybe in turn causes the spirits of yet others to resonate. Spirit may live on, through dance, images, music, words, and for a short while in memory. However, at death my life is over: there is no longer an 'I', no 'me', no awareness. No place for the concept of an immortal soul.

Nor is there any requirement for a god. The concept of a deity is unhelpful as it turns away from the spirit. Therefore there would be no need for mediators of religion in the form of priests, bishops or popes. However, a new ethical framework would be permissive, for whilst not requiring theistic and other religious beliefs, neither would it exclude the believer. A new ethical framework would also permit a personal morality to sit within the framework.

Why I do not call myself a conservative

I describe myself as a liberal person. I am happy to be described as very liberal. I was recently challenged to be clear about what I mean by liberal in contrast with conservative.

Phenomenology
As a counsellor, I recognise that everyone constructs their world, the world, in their own, unique way. I do not believe that there is a correct way to understand the world. I am happy to admit that there are more and less functional ways to understand the world. For example, to believe that the moon is made of cheese may be imaginative, but is probably inaccurate. If, like Wallace and Grommit, one were to visit the moon in the hope of finding hunks of Wensleydale cheese lying around, the chances of coming away disappointed are high. I believe that many people are ignorant about many aspects of the world about which they hold views, and just as many people make only pitiable attempts (if any) to find out the facts. In this sense, therefore, the uniqueness of their construct is based on ignorance and prejudice. However, even were this not the case, every person would still have a different life story, a different set of experiences, a different collection of interests, giving them a different way of describing the world: a childless couple who are career-focused is likely to describe the world differently from a single-mother with five children; a white, male, middle-aged Surrey stockbroker is likely to describe the world differently from a young North African woman living in the banlieux of Paris; a dairy farmer in New Hampshire is likely to describe the world differently from a personal escort in Tokyo. As a counsellor, I would be unable to make a value judgment about the relative superiority of any description of the world. I believe that this position marks me out as liberal. To me, a conservative person is someone who considers either that there is a correct view of the world, or considers that their own view of the world has greater validity than the views of other people.

Family
In the UK, the Conservative Party identifies itself as party that upholds family values. What this position refers to, however, is a narrow view of family: a man, married to a woman, with a number of children born within that marriage. Ideally there will also be grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins and nieces in an extended family. There is something very 'blood' about this. There is also an 'ideal', from which many depart.

I am not an uncritical fan of the family. My family of origin fitted this narrow, 'ideal', view, and was dysfunctional and abusive. Dysfunctionality and abuse are also significant aspects of the family experience of many people who I have counselled. I have a preference for a Lilo and Stitch view of family: "Family means nobody gets left behind" even when the family consists of two sisters and an alien. For me, family consists of the people we live amongst, the people who frequent (albeit 'virtually' in some cases) our lives, the people we choose. Within my own extended family there are half-people, step-people, adopted people. There are marriages, divorces, second marriages, and cohabitees. There are 'aunties' and 'uncles'. There are straight people and gay people. There are Canadian, French, Monagesque, German and English/Welsh people. I celebrate this diversity, and reject the notion of an 'ideal'. I guess that on a significant plank of Conservative Party policy, I fall well outside the boundaries of their core support.

Nationalism
It is usually the case that conservative people feel and express a sense of national pride. In the context of a world of nation states, this national pride often expresses itself as nationalism (pledging allegiance to the flag, singing Rule Britannia or La Marseillaise) or nationalistic aspirations (the separatist/secessionist agendas of the Scottish National Party [Scotland], the Vlaams Blok/Belang [Flanders], Lega Nord [northern Italy]).

More liberal people, on the other hand, appear typically at least more skeptical about, and often even hostile towards, expressions of nationalism. In the UK at least, liberal views and politics are more likely to be associated with internationalism and expressions of support for supranational organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights. In Israel, as I understand it, the conservative people are keen to strengthen the borders they have delineated, whereas the more liberal people tend to look towards dialogue with the Palestinians and neighbouring states (although I am sure that the situation is much more complex than I am suggesting here). In the United States, as presented on news and current affairs programmes on television and the radio in the UK, the 'Neo-Cons' do not trust the United Nations, dislike the idea of US military personnel being tried in an international court, and appear to be indifferent about the effect of the US economy on global warming and climate change (that is impacting on the entire world); whereas "Since leaving office, Clinton has been involved in public speaking and humanitarian work. He created the William J. Clinton Foundation to promote and address international causes, such as treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and global warming." (Wikipedia: Bill Clinton), and Al Gore has become internationally famous for the high profile movie he presented against cavalier industrialisation at the expense of the world's climate An Inconvenient Truth.
... (to be continued)

Immigration
Conservative people typically have such a strong sense of belonging to a land that they usually appear to believe they have a right to exclude others. It is not hard to find conservative people talking about 'foreigners' who 'take our jobs and houses', and call for elected representatives to enact exclusionist immigration policies. Although at the extreme end of conservatism racist and xenophobic sentiments are easy to encounter, such attitudes do not characterise conservatism, which instead typically prefers that people 'live where they belong'. When conservative people have gone to live in a different country it has traditionally been as colonial superiors. Of the 270,000 'Brits' (hideous term) who live in Spain (as of January 2006), many make little attempt to integrate far into Spanish culture, perhaps not even learning more than the basics of the language, but instead choose to live in British enclaves in Alicante, Malaga, Murcia and Almeria, with their shops retailing British brands.

Liberal people, in contrast, tend to thrive in diverse, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic environments, grasp the necessity, for themselves and others, of economic transhumance, migration and emigration, recognise the necessity of accepting refugees and asylum seekers into more stable society, and value the resulting infusion of cultural energy.

Law and Order
Conservative people typically believe that there has been a decline in moral values leading to tensions in society - views expressed eloquently in the UK during the 18th (e.g. Hogarth), 19th (Victorians), 20th (the courtroom trial of Lady Chatterly's Lover, Mary Whitehouse, 'Back to Basics' [a Conservative Party campaign]) and now 21st centuries. A decline over the past three centuries should now have us in hell! Which, of course, is the picture that the conservative UK press would have us believe. For conservative people, the remedy is that there should be more police officers to enforce civil order and that punishment for transgression of civil order should be more severe (e.g. Conservative Party 'Short Sharp Shock' policy).

Liberal people tend to desire the liberalisation of society and its values so that fewer people are seen as being close to, at, or beyond the margins. The Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, under Campbell-Bannerman and Lloyd George (the foundations of the welfare state in the UK), and the introduction by Leo Abse (Labour) in 1967 of legislation to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting men, are examples of this liberalisation. During the 1992 Labour Party conference, Tony Blair attempted to appeal to both the liberal and conservative wings of potential Labour Party voters by using the slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" Liberal people are more likely to be interested in restorative, rather than retributive, justice, and are more likely to recognise the faults of imprisonment.

Money, wealth and property
That there is a divide between conservative and liberal people regarding attitudes towards money, wealth and property appears to be both self-evident and complex. The much misquoted biblical aphorism that the love of money is the root of all evil might offer a signpost. It is hard to imagine that many of the people who work in the upper levels of the banking, insurance and finance sectors of the City of London, or hew at the rockface of the Manhattan "goldmines", celebrate the same socio-economic analysis as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Examining the Times 'rich list' for 2006 regarding personal donations to political parties, of the top 31 most generous donors, 24 donated to the Conservative Party (approximately £7,000,000), 5 donated to the Labour Party (£1,455,000), 1 donated to the Liberal Democrats (£129,798), and 1 donated to the Scottish National Party (£100,000). The list also shows loans to political parties - Conservatives: £12,650,000; Labour £7,800,000. From these figures it is easy to conclude that the people with a considerable amount of money are more likely to donate some of it in support of Conservative/conservative values.

Monarchy, aristocracy, nobility, honours and hierarchy
Conservative people in the UK tend to be in favour of the British monarchy, whereas liberal people are less predictable about the extent to which they take an interest in and support the British monarchy. I have been a lifelong republican (not in the US sense of Republican), and dislike any attention being given to the Windsor family or the ceremonial roles carried out by an hereditary head of state. Several countries (Ireland, Germany, Greece and Israel) manage to elect a non-executive head of state, just as all UK universities manage to appoint a Chancellor.

Titles and hereditary peerages belong to a world of long ago. Although still important in the seventeenth century, the world of being born into a social station in life was already starting to dissolve, in part hurried along by the Civil War, but also ironically by the enclosures, which moved farm hands off the traditional pastures, and into the more egalitarian towns and cities. Whilst it is still required that commoners bow/curtsy to the aristocracy, about which conservative people are likely to be happy, compared to 350 years ago, Britain is a much more egalitarian country, about which liberal people are likely to be happy.

Relation to land

... (to be continued)

Gambling and share trading

I do not own company shares. I have never owned company shares. I have no wish to own company shares.

During my teenage years I was enthusiastic for all commerce to be managed by the people for the benefit of the people. I applauded when companies were taken into state ownership, and felt betrayed when state-owned industries were thrown into the ravening maws of fat-cat capitalists: British Gas ("Tell Sid") and British Telecom ("It's good to talk") ("Phone home" was from E.T.). During my twenties I realised a) that state-owned businesses were not as wonderful for their workforce as I had imagined (television images of grateful coal miners in 1947 when the National Coal Board took over the running of coal mines in the UK; of beaming nurses and relieved patients when in 1948 the National Health Service took over the running of hospitals, clinics and surgeries in the UK); b) that some companies could be ethical in their practice, for example Anita Roddick's The Body Shop; c) that there were better, less-hierarchical models for the structure of a business, such as charities, trusts (for example, The Guardian newspaper), collectives and co-operatives (such as Scott-Bader). I liked the idea of businesses being run by the workers for the benefit of the workers. I became a member of a co-operative (Earthcare, in Durham, UK), and was instrumental in forming a collective (Dragon Wholefoods Collective). I was also heavily involved with all manner of charitable / not-for-profit activities, projects and ventures (such as Durham City Centre Youth Project, outreach, chaplaincy). My CV from that time runs to pages. However, it was often my experience that I wanted to give greater commitment to these activities than many of the other people involved. In my late twenties, therefore, with many misgivings, I set up my own small business: Alpha Word Power. After a while, I began to employ people, initially part-time, and then full-time as well. It seemed that I was betraying my teenage roots. However, I never owned any company shares. While Margaret Thatcher's cellphone-toting, greed-motivated yuppies made their millions on the London stock exchange, I believed that share-ownership was immoral, that it was wrong. What I objected to fundamentally, and I also had further objections, was the idea that owning sufficient company shares gave someone the right dictate strategic policy. I have, to a small extent mellowed from this position. For example, I recognise the all-round benefit of John Lewis staff owning shares in the company for which they work [note to myself: this is not accurate - the business is technically a co-operative that is held in trust, all employees are Partners, have a substantive voice in the running of the business, and receive an annual bonus proportionate to their salary]. I believe that Google does the same. I am still on board, although rather less comfortable, with the idea of buying and owning shares in small, ecological ventures, for example building wind turbines and the like. To my way of thinking this really amounts to giving money to a cause in which one believes, with little expectation of the money being returned. The line gets crossed where the money is invested to make a profit. I can understand why it needs to happen: why businesses need capital, and people (and other businesses) with money are willing to buy shares. When I think of the money as a loan, then I can cope. However, when I think about people buying shares in order to profit from riding on the backs of the people who do the work (shop floor workers and managers) then I know that share ownership is immoral. However, it gets worse. As I understand it, much share trading is speculative about the price of the shares. When profiting from changes to the value of shares becomes the main purpose of share trading then it seems obvious to me that the plot has been lost. To me, this kind of financial speculation is little, if at all, different from gambling, and is therefore immoral.

Gaming and gambling

Gaming gambling, like buying sex, is immoral. Since childhood, I have believed gaming gambling to be immoral. In the early 1980s I formally opposed the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984 that was enacted by the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher to liberalise laws around gambling in the UK. I wrote to each member of the parliamentary Committee, chaired by Sir Ian Gilmour, expressing my unhappiness with the proposed legislation. Clement Freud, a Liberal MP who was a member of the committee, referred to me and people like me as "killjoys" (see Hansard).

During my teens I became aware that some poor, working class men would gamble away their wages, further impoverishing wife and children, sometimes condemning the entire family to a life of destitution. More recently I learned that some poor, working class women (for example in Sunderland) would feed the entire week's housekeeping money into gambling machines, getting themselves into debt and becoming prey to loan sharks. In using the word 'some', I do not know how many people, nor how widespread these behaviours are. However, I do know that gambling in the UK is so widespread that it is practically universal, and debt (resulting from consumption and gambling) in the UK currently exceeds GDP. (One of the features of writing weblog postings about issues that concern me is that I confront myself to produce evidence that supports or refutes my beliefs.) Online gambling (poker, for example) appears to be huge. In June 2005: "According to research group Forrester, 76% of the UK's 29 million adult internet users admit to regularly placing a bet either online or offline."

I have always considered succumbing to gaming gambling as evidence of personal weakness, making innocent people vulnerable to scams (the medieval 'three-cup trick'), confidence tricks ('get-rich-quick' schemes)and dishonesty (The Sting). When I was a child I felt disgusted when I learned that gambling machines and casinos pay out less than they receive. I considered their behaviour unfair, because I did not understand that they are businesses. When I was a child, I became gently enthralled both by the idea of 'breaking the bank' (restorative justice) and by the masculine courage of James Bond at the roulette wheel. (On a recent flight from Narita to Schipol I watched the Daniel Craig outing of a James Bond movie, and could not resolve the conflict for me that a character who is supposed to be the ultimate in 'cool' should behave in so pathetic a manner as to have to gamble on the gaming tables.)

In full respect of confidentiality, I can state clearly that there are many people in the UK who have a gambling addiction, and that this addiction, effectively indistinguishable from a chemical addiction, has been extremely problematic in their lives. I have met such people.

Of course gaming is business: it is part of the entertainment industry, as evidenced by the plethora of gaming shows on television. The gambling aspect of gaming has also attracted organised crime (e.g. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) and shows gaming, like drugs- and people-trafficking, to be a lucrative, but also unsavoury and seedy business. I do not know what proportion of gaming / gambling in the UK is infected with organised crime, and I may well be guilty of watching too many movies. I imagine that only a small proportion is significantly criminal; that a somewhat larger proportion, whilst legal, has criminal links / associations; and that much of what remains is legal, but may either be tainted or at risk. I believe that most people in the UK who gamble fail to, or refuse to, consider and address this issue; whereas for some the possibility of links to organised crime may add an attractive frisson.

I do not respect the motivation or activity of seeking to acquire wealth without earning it. This places gambling very close to robbery and theft, although in the case of gambling, each party is trying to rob the other. I confess to a strong Protestant work ethic. (When my father died it did not concern me that he left me nothing in his will. In contrast, I am challenged by the fact that my daughter will have little if any opportunity to earn her way through life, and will be dependent on whatever my wife and I can leave her when we die.)

Gaming positions itself within the entertainment industry, and I find it hard to respect resources being spent on activities that make no attempt to improve the world. I also find it challenging to respect money being spent on activities that make no attempt to improve the sum total of happiness in the world, and gaming creates many more losers than winners. This sets gambling in the same category as the military-industrial complex. Gaming is far from the worthy activities of education, scientific exploration, health research, health (physical, mental, emotional) support, charitable giving, economic development (whether in the the economically-developed or -developing world), environmental improvement, and artisitic and cultural expression.

I do not respect games of chance. The UK national obsession with horse racing, and the local enthusiasm for greyhound racing, are not only perversions in their exploitation of animals, but socially-accepted excuses for people to avoid working, looking after their families, and helping to improve the world. When I was a child, millions of people in the UK gambled every week on the outcomes of football (soccer) matches. The national lottery (begun under the Thatcher government) has to a significant extent replaced the 'football pools'. An effect of this has been that charitable giving by individuals in the UK has declined. (I shall check the figures.)

In 1979/80 I lived in Coxhoe, County Durham, UK. I was told by local people about how, during the 1920s and 1930s, large gatherings would be held for illegal gambling in West Cornforth woods, only a handful of miles from where I now live. Children would be posted at the edge of the wood to warn of any approach by the police ('polliss'). Only a mile from where I live are the remains of a grandstand that was built in the 1920s for a horse-racing track. The racing track was closed at the outbreak of the second world war, and the grandstand fell into disrepair. In the local pubs it used to be, and still is for all I know, a commonplace that a large platter of uncooked cuts of dead animals would be raffled. In Quarrington Hill, a village close to Coxhoe, the police raided a regular dog-fighting match. Every village around here has at least a little brick bookmaker's cabin. I have met local people (men) who are private bookmakers - taking bets on all manner of events. A short series of formal presentations, exploring some serious staff-focused activities at the university where I work, had to have a raffle that was drawn at the close of the event. At my daughter's school open day they have a tombola. How many times have I heard "I like to have a little flutter" - on the Derby, on the Grand National, on the pools, on the lottery, on the Thunderball - as though provided they do only a little bit of gambling it is respectable. Like some sap-poison in a tree, gambling seems to infect every vein of British society. However, the poison spreads far beyond the UK. News programmes often report match-fixing allegations in relation to one sport or another around the world. In Tokyo and Kyoto, I saw huge, barn-like shops, 'pachinko parlours', with seried ranks of glaze-faced men and women feeding ball bearings into machines, as though characters from Fritz Lang's Metropolis. When I eventually get to holiday in Arizona, in order to see the Grand Canyon, I shall fly in to Phoenix even though it would be cheaper and easier to fly in to Las Vegas, where, as CSI shows, there are gaming tables and gambling machines as far as the eye can see: a vision of hell that so many delude themselves into believing is a vision of heaven.

Why do people gamble? As evidenced by what I have written above, the answer I see most obviously is that a person hopes to gain from a gambling transaction. However, there are also many other answers. For some, the gambling in which they indulge is about the social activity, whether being seen in their flamboyant hats at Ascot horse-racing track, or dibbing numbers with their sisters and aunties at the local bingo hall. For others, it is about self-indulgence, and they will put five pounds, or fifty euros, or five hundred dollars, in their pocket for an evening's entertainment at the casino, amusement arcade or pachinko parlour - they hope that the money does not run out too quickly. For yet others it is about distraction, either from a demanding job or from problems that are difficult to resolve. For some it is about seeking self-esteem by trouncing other people - the so-called 'competitive spirit'. For others it is about thrill seeking - they enjoy the risk: it is almost that they enjoy losing a game because it heightens the tension for the next game. Perhaps these latter are the people who are also at risk of developing a gambling addiction. For many, their engagement in gambling is probably a response to some combination of each of the above. For each, however, gambling has meaning in their life. Remove gambling from the lives of most people, and their lives become impoverished to the extent of the meaning of gambling to them. This is why it can be so hard for a person with a gambling addiction, for whom gambling has come to mean more than almost anything else in their life, to relinquish the activity.

A Twentieth Century man

I have several dictionaries. Working as a counsellor, words and language mean much to me. William Shakespeare is my hero: I watched my first Shakespeare play (Twelfth Night) when I was ten years old. I have four generations of Chambers dictionaries: from the 1950s (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, recently acquired second hand), 1972 (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, a Christmas present), 1988 (Chambers English Dictionary, my own choice) and 2003 (Chambers Dictionary, also my own choice). I prefer Chambers because its definitions tend to be more liberal-minded, less conservative, less reactionary than other dictionaries. However, I have an extreme objection to Chambers' progressive acceptance and incorporation of the '-ize' suffix, an appendage that, in spite of my Classical education (I studied Latin for five years, Classical Greek for two years, and some years ago made a serious attempt to teach myself Biblical Greek), I consider to be affected (as in an affectation, used by someone who wishes to puff up their language, making themselves sound clever and important, like people using the word 'whilst' when they mean 'while') and/or elitist (its 'correct' use - to use it incorrectly flagrantly demonstrates 'ignorance' - is only when the word's root is from Classical Greek, and who but a Classics scholar is likely to remember which English words have a Classical Greek root?), and gratuitously unnecessary. Use of the '-ize' suffix sneers at both ignorance and dyslexia: it is anti-language. In contrast, use of the '-ise' suffix is universally applicable, and to be favoured by the proles, the hoi poloi, the sans culottes - the people who make a reality of democracy and democratic language.

I have a reverse dictionary that has been useful only very occasionally. I have a dictionary of words first used in the twentieth century. This latter, although of little practical use, is interesting. I have a much-used Roget's thesaurus, and much-less used Brewer's dictionary of phrase and fable, Brewer's concise dictionary of phrase and fable, and Brewer's twentieth century dictionary of phrase and fable. There are also the Oxford dictionary of quotations, and Oxford companions to both the English language and English literature. Beyond English alone, there are dictionaries of signing (BSL) and of other European languages. Were I to be required to shelve all these dictionaries in an attic, I should probably guess that they weighed in at about 50 kg. So why is my first port of call always the internet? Reading The Wisdom of Crowds, recently, I came across the word 'fungible'. The context in which the word was being used offered few clues about its meaning. I checked it out on the internet. As well as definitions, I read the Wikipedia entry. I felt enlightened. I then checked Chambers. The definition was clear and concise, just as I should expect. Yet had I not also read more widely, including the Wikipedia entry, my understanding would have been as thin as gravy made only with a vegetable stock cube.

The words and phrases that I use, and the thoughts that inspire my articulations, belong to the twentieth century. I was born in the middle, the heart, of the twentieth century, the century that provided the context and backdrop for everything I thought and said and did. I learned to speak and think twentieth century, and I have twentieth century preoccupations, such as a concern for technology, for communication, for identity, for democracy, for equality, for spirituality freed from the shackles of traditional religion. Whilst it could easily be shown that none of these is unique to the twentieth century, their assemblage certainly is. It is true that being born and raised in Western Europe, and in Britain in particular, I also became, and continue to become, progressively more aware of previous centuries; but this itself is the root and relativism of post-modernism, a philosophical framework that belongs to the second half of the twentieth century. Simply by being brought up in the second half of the twentieth century, without the requirement of an elite education, I have the capacity to identify with the industrial entrepreneurs of the nineteenth century, the enlightened free-thinkers of the eighteenth century, the radical Commonwealth republicans of the seventeenth century, and so on.

What of the twenty-first century? I am not sure. If the twentieth century could be characterised as a battle between the old and the new, between empire and new democracy, between generations, between the sexes, between enforced adherence to stereotype and searching for new identities, then to a large extent we won. At the start of the twenty-first century, Britain is much closer to France than to Britain at the start of the twentieth century. However, now those battles are over, apathy appears to have set in. Politicians bemoan the public's lack of interest in politics, whereas people vote in their millions for ghastly television trash such as Big Brother and the X-Factor. (Whilst Marx's aphorism about religion is widely misunderstood as a criticism of religion, when he was observing the solace that drown-trodden workers were able to find in it, his 'misquotation' could more aptly be applied to the early twenty-first century addiction to television soap operas.) People no longer appear to have much interest in raw spirituality, and the church pews tend to be occupied by people who have chosen to leave elsewhere and make Britain their home. Concern by adults and children alike for technology seems to focus on games consoles, and battles and wars that are fought look increasingly like computer games and disaster movies. Royal Mail, the UK postal delivery organisation is close to collapse because no-one writes letters any more - it is not that I am knocking e-mail, it is my sadness that the text-message culture hardly favours deep and careful thought.

What of the twenty-first century? The battles having been fought, apathy and lethargy won. I think that ordinary, everyday, twenty-first century Britain lacks a sense of direction, purpose and aspiration. Maybe that is one of the reasons I remain a twentieth century man.