Good for Lord Falconer. Glad someone”s standing in the way of the Sun and David Cameron in their attempts to get rid of the Human Rights Act. Why they think it will help them I”m not sure -but it seems to be one of those time where the “rights of society” is much vaunted and expected to not come at the cost of individuals. Which is all very well and good - how do all those Sun readers think it won”t come at a cost to one of them? All this talk is clothed as “good for the country” but it seems to me that it boils down to one thing: baying for blood - demands for “vengeance”. So the accusations run - “oh you”re being soft on “crime” - you”re thinking of the criminal”s rights and not ours!” And yes I heard Mr. Cameron say they”d “re-write” this Human Rights Act- but exactly what does that mean? Will it translate to - “yeah let”s not give anyone a fair trial because we know who”s guilty, and we”ll be really tough on crime: i.e. we”ll go for nasty sentences which won”t do any good but at least we”ll feel better” i.e. unadulterated vengeance. Next thing you know we”ll be back to the capital punishment days. After all - back in the day, the reason they”d give for topping someone off would be “but who cares about this criminal”s rights? We want vengeance”. As if somehow the victim”s rights are being considered by this type of revenge. Sounds like the old desert laws to me - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It”s one to talk about the application of the Act etc. it”s another to say ah well this human rights thing is not working - let”s scrap it.
Backing the Sun”s campaign sounds like a silly attempt to gain some votes. Sure you win some and you lose some. Someone is baying for blood so let”s give in to them - make us look tough. After all, Tony”s obsession with respect and ASBOs a bit hard to follow I suppose.
–

Lord Falconer is the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. In his speech to Parliament today he strongly defended the Human Rights Act, saying the government is “unashamed and unembarrassed” by the legislation. “We intend to mount a campaign for human rights - human rights not just for oppressed minorities, but for everyone“. At a meeting of human rights lawyers at LSE a couple of weeks ago he noted that the Government is planning two new guides to interpreting the Human Rights Act - given all the confusion and hoo-ha.

–

Further reading courtesy of the BBC

I should becomea full-time blogger methinks - so much to write!I have this list of things I want to write that keeps getting pushed to the next day and on and on..I am a procrastinator after all..
Anyways:

There”s a Pickled Politics thread today highlighting how Buddhism is apparently the USA”s fourth largest religion.

Browsing the net I found this on the Namgyal Monastery”s Institute for Buddhist Studies site and felt like reposting it:

The purpose of our life is to live happily and peacefully. We do not go to a store to purchase the idea that we want happiness and do not want suffering. The motivation that makes us willing to seek happiness and avoid suffering is innate. There are many simple things in our lives that indicate that the very purpose of our life is happiness. We are motivated to work for a living in order to ensure that we have happiness in our life. We may rest for two days after five days of a workweek. We take vacations and sometimes move from one place to another in the hope that our lives will be better. Some people are careful with diet and exercise as ways to achieve happiness. Even the little movements we make in order to get more comfortable stem from our innate desire for happiness. The success of our life is measured by our ability to live happily and die joyfully, not by mere accumulation of wealth, fame and possessions.”

The benefit of a blog - a toast to oneself.

So I had a fantastic birthday ( notable - i don’t tend to normally enjoy myself on birthdays for some reason ) so i thought i’d better note this down! ( and many thanks to everyone for their kind wishes)

I was taken to see The Mousetrap at St. Martin’s Theatre. The West End’s longest running play - ( 54 years ) by Agatha Christie - and simply superb. I’ve been wanting to go to this for years and it was worth the wait - I think I laughed louder than everyone else. Brilliant. I would definitely recommend it.. Good ol’ Agatha - what a brilliant social observer she was and so incredibly witty.

The thing i never get though is why everyone has always been so keen to portray her as some old biddy ( maybe the whole Miss Marple thing?) - you never generally see any photographs of her as a young woman. I must scan in some photos, and one of these days I’d like to sit down and write a bit more about her - having been a fan of her writings from early days ( 20 years ago now! Gosh). Her autobiography and memoirs are intriguing: who was the person behind the books? She was certainly adventurous and unconventional - given the era she lived in as well she was pretty remarkable. Surfing in Hawaii and then jumping on the Orient Express to go off travelling on her own to the Middle East shortly after her divorce.

St. Martin’s Theatre ( finished in 1916) is a very small lovely old theatre : it’s exterior has recently been refurbished and been returned to its ‘original glory’. A vision in red velvet inside. There are some amusing sketches on the walls from bygone days. Along the lines of ..’i've been coming for 25 years and i still don’t know who dun it!” Heh heh. Originally the Mousetrap was performed at the Ambassador Theatre next door but was moved to St. Martins in 1974. How long it will carry on running for? As long as possible I hope, till everyone in the world knows whodunnit..

So the discussion around “foreign policy” - Ministers saying but of course we wouldn”t change our foreign policy just because of some stupid terrorist threat, or what some stupid people suggested has something to do with the threat”. Right - if that”s the only reason you were going to change what is agreed by most people as a highly unethical “foreign policy” - (ooh i love that phrase - such a nice way of “externalizing” and removing the problem one or two steps away - “but dear, it”s foreign policy” doesn”t affect us here”) - clearly it”s not good enough.

How clever though - the reason we heard so much about this fine phrase of not changing policy “because we don”t negotiate with terrorists” - because then - if anyone does speak up about the lack of fit of being a democratic civilized nation and the shitty stuff that passes for foreign policy - why there”s a simple solution: Honey we don”t change policy to suit terrorists - okay? Even if it”s shit we gotta put up with it. We can”t be seen to be responding..

Well that might seem sensible except that it doesn”t seem to be understanding the point of terrorism. Which is to cause terror and gain power. If not “literal” power of the sort governments have - power nonetheless - power over how people see themselves, what they believe in, what they will do for those beliefs etc. - i.e. moral authority. As i”ve said elsewhere, terrorists and governments have much in common - a guy like Bin Laden has plenty in common with politicians who want power over “their people” - scaring your people, propaganda, etc. etc.

Terrorists are effectively similar to people who are career politicians - their end game is the same - terrorists use different means. ( and for those of you who believe the end justifies the means - think about this long and hard..) They”re all folks who basically in search of nation-states and the accompanying power and authority. ( remember what distinguishes the Nation-State from any other form of formal social organization - the monopoly on violence) So whilst some folks might not like my saying it like it is - some people use “legitimate” roots of gaining power within the existing model - and some - who feel they can”t get power in the system - find other ways of grabbing power. Power - also - manifests itself in different ways. Essentially the “War on Terror” gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted - to be seen as some sort of moral authority for Muslims. Machiavellian tactics in use here.

In any case - someone somewhere said if you magically wave a wand and change British foreign policy it wouldn”t mean the violence would end. Well - obviously, plumping for peace doesn”t mean all the violent idiots out there are never going to kill anyone any more. But it does mean that with less violence going about, we can spot the violence a mile off and say ah - this isn”t good, and in the process distinguish ourselves from these other criminals. otherwise one is permanently in the subjective state of oh well i can kill some people because I have justification, but these people cannot come and kill me which is fine for a lot of us clearly! but some of would rather be honest about the whole malarkey. In any case this is the basis for “law and order” in ordinary society “within” the nation-state - you can”t go about “taking the law into your own hands” because if you do, you are as guilty as the other party. Anyway, this is obvious so the people who don”t get it aren”t really interested I suppose. Still the point remains that in trying to condemn terrorism for the shitty thing it is, state-sponsored violence gets in the way of being able to do this properly. Pure and simple that”s what it is. Not this business of “justifying” terrorism - (which is actually what the countries are trying to do) but precisely the opposite - condemn terrorism and violence for what it is. If countries want to go about being violent - then obviously we ordinary individuals have tried but have not been able to stop them. Pointing to the cycle of violence which makes it much harder to stop future violence is hardly “justifying” violence - precisely the opposite - you want to stop ALL kinds of violence! if you wanted to justify violence you wouldn”t be much interested in stopping the overall cycle. I guess a lot of people are just too dumb to see that or frankly = not interested in the overall picture. They could just be honest about that.
And “justification” of violence is neither here nor there ( in a moralizing world it might be ) for those of us who”re interested purely and simply in providing a suitable environment to live in and enjoy ourselves however best we can - it doesn”t matter. We just want peace. I”m not bothered about “oh this person”s violence was good and this person”s was evil - that good and evil dichotomy is frankly nonsense and “religious” if anything. All this moralizing again simply reminds me of the sort of thing that terrorists are supposed to be about. “Oh we have a glorious cause for our violence. Some say it”s democracy** ( hah ) and some say its their religion.” Oh great. I”m not interested in either excuse thanks very much - no shrapnel or shards of glass in my skin is what i”m interested in! And being able to live to savour tomorrow.

Is this sooo difficult to understand? Surely not.

** Amusing sidenote: { ha- i suppose soon we”ll be hearing calls for “banning” democracy because their proponents have resorted to violence in their pursuit of it - in a similar way we hear that religion must be banned because of all the people who”ve resorted to violence in their pursuit of it..} Golly its the sort of oxymoronic thing where anti-war protestors stage a “war” with the other side to make their point. Oh then of course people would say “one should ban pacifism”. Really there”s no end to amusement - sit back and view the world..as long as we don”t take it seriously, you could fill a book with “can you believe they actually thought this one up..