A Letter – to Theresa May

A Letter to Theresa May

By Garry, also published here

Dear Theresa May,

Firstly, congratulations on your election win. Fair’s fair, your party won the popular vote. (Mind you, our ridiculous first-past-the-post system has given you the MPs to totally dominate Westminster, despite winning barely one-third of the vote, but that is another matter.)

Let’s talk about the extremist bill that was trailed in the news today. You and your party really scare me. While I fundamentally disagree with quite frankly many people, freedom of speech is of critical importance. Most politicians spout a painful amount guff, but I would not wish to prevent them from spouting such utterances.

A quote from Mark Easton of the BBC [1]

“Under the proposals, ministers would be able to silence any group or individual they believe is undermining democracy or the British values of tolerance and mutual respect.”

Let’s keep it simple and break this down.

“Undermining democracy”

What do you mean by “democracy”?  Do you mean that what comes from Westminster? With just over a third of the public vote, Westminster can produce laws that nearly two-thirds of the nation voted against, for the next five years. Is there another definition you have in mind? Westminster is ruled by a party carried the will of a minority of the electorate.

Looking back into history, many great social improvements occurred when the “law” no longer represented the common will of the people. This then leads to a tipping point, and our political system has to buckle.

“The British values of tolerance and mutual respect.”

What on earth are British values? There are no such things. I’ve travelled quite a bit, and what are often described as British values are simply common values that exists elsewhere in the world. They are human values.

If freedom to live your life reasonably as you wish without harassment is important, that precludes imposing values, even British ones (whatever they are – see above). If someone wants to live a certain religious life for example, they may choose to live in a community with others who want to live the same way. I believe that is respecting the choice of others to live differently to you. I bet you like the sound of that.

My deep concern is that many of my political peers are to be found within anti-capitalist groups and anti-fracking groups. They and I do not see the world the same as the Conservative Party do. We reject your world view, and will march, argue and protest that we would like to see the capitalism as exists now brought to its knees. We want to replace it with a system that is fair and distributes the resources we have so everyone isn’t left needy. We recognise that as a human race we are exploiting the world beyond its sustainable limits. We change direction or crash and burn.

The narrow scope of the law that comes from Westminster only support the status quo. There may be a time when doing the right thing for the people means doing the wrong thing in the eyes of the law.

Does this make me and my contemporaries extremists? Are the police coming for us soon?

I do not support  terrorism in any shape or form. However, given the laws already in place, the authorities have plenty of powers. They do not need new ones.

So I reject your bill and its principles totally. It seems you are trying to legislate ideas you don’t like away. It seems you want to intrude deeper into our liberties.

You and this bill will fail. You can’t legislate ideas away.

The instruments you propose will just be petrol on the bonfire.

We have just commemorated VE Day.

I wonder what they would make of your brand of freedom?

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802

Nelson Mandela on Globalisation

Quote

In the light of the secret negotiations which are taking place to create a TransPacific Partnership (TPP) and the TransAtlantic Free Trade Agreement (US-EU FTA, TAFTA), it is salutary to read Nelson Mandela’s assessment of globalisation, both as it has developed, and as it should have been created.  His speech printed below was made on receiving the Freedom Award From the National Civil Rights Museum in November 2000

Speech on receiving the Freedom Award from the National Civil Rights Museum, November 2000

http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS919&txtstr=22%20November


To stand here tonight as the recipient of the Freedom Award presented by the National Civil Rights Museum humbles and inspires us.What is regarded as having been achieved by me in the struggle for freedom and human rights is in fact the result of the collective efforts of hundreds and thousands of colleagues and comrades in the leadership of organisations I have worked in and with.It is, even more importantly, the result of the sacrifices, resolve and courage of millions and millions of so-called ordinary men, women and youth most of whom shall never even achieve a mention in the annals of history. One cannot but be humble for being singled out to be honoured for such a collective achievement.For a South African to be honoured here tonight in this place and by this body inspires as it reminds us again of the indivisibility of human freedom. Where the freedom and rights of people in one part of the world are violated we are all demeaned and diminished as human beings. Our freedom cannot be complete while others in the world are not free. Your award inspires us to continue the struggle for freedom and human rights. It reminds that the long walk to freedom is not yet over.Those of us who lived through most of the twentieth century can tell what high hopes for universal freedom were entertained in that century. The world fought two great wars that promised to end all wars and to end tyranny. The process of decolonisation, ending European dominance over the entire planet, got underway. World bodies were established to ensure a free and equitable world.The progress humankind achieved in the field of science and technology outstripped the accumulative achievements of all preceding generations. We were able to utilise the resources of nature and to produce far in excess of what was required to feed, clothe, shelter and care for the entire population of the world.

Yet we closed that century and entered the new millennium with the largest part of the human population still far from enjoying those fruits of freedom of which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks. Tyranny, oppression and abuse of human rights still rule in too many parts of the world for us to relent in the struggle for freedom.

Even in parts of the world where political freedom has been attained or where it has applied for long, the material fruits of a decent living have not always or universally accompanied that freedom.

The single most demeaning feature of our modern world is the persistence of massive poverty. The majority of the world’s population languishes in conditions of abject poverty and deprivation. This is in spite of the fact that we have the capacity to take care of all the world’s people. This is in spite of the opulence and privilege in which large sectors of the world live.

The divide between the rich and the poor, those who have plenty and those who suffer penury, is even widening in our contemporary world. And nothing threatens our collective freedom more than the persistence of this divide. None of us can sleep comfortably while our brother or sister goes hungry, cold, unsheltered, ignorant and ill.

We often talk about the globalisation of our world, referring to our world as a global village. Too often those descriptions refer solely to the free movement of goods and capital across the traditional barriers of national boundaries. Not often enough do we emphasise the globalisation of responsibility. In this world where modern information and communications technology has put all of us in easy reach of one another, we do again share the responsibility for being the proverbial keeper of our brother or sister.

Where globalisation means, as it so often does, that the rich and powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and weaker, we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom. Globalisation opens up the marvellous opportunities for human beings across the globe to share with one another, and to share with greater equity in the advances of science, technology and industries. To allow it to have the opposite effect is to threaten freedom in the longer term.

The right of a person to vote freely in democratic elections, to express him or herself without hindrance, to gather and associate as one wishes, to move freely in one’s land – these are precious freedoms that lift the human spirit and give expression to our God-given rights.

We must, however, at the same time as we cherish them remain constantly aware that those freedoms get devalued if they are for too long devoid of that dignity that comes with a decent quality of living.

That is the challenge to the freedom fighters of the twenty first century – the alleviation and eradication of poverty. Abject poverty is demeaning, is an assault on the dignity of those that suffer it. In the end it demeans us all. It makes the freedom of all of us less meaningful.

I thank you for this great honour. I wish you well in your work. May this century indeed be the one in which we achieve universal freedom and the universal enjoyment of those rights our glorious charters speak of.

I thank you.

Hat-tip Prue Plumridge and Occupy London for an inspiring reminder of the politics of Nelson Mandela 1918-2013.

Why should we be very concerned about the current US/EU Free Trade Agreement?

Some Fundamentals

Some Fundamentals

by julijuxtaposed

First posted on June 5, 2013

I don’t hold much truck with orthodox religion but I support the right of those who do to practise their devotion in so far as it does not encroach on others. Neither am I an atheist – though I must admit to sounding like one if you miss the nuance. To me, religion seems to have little to do with God and everything to do with politics.

Every time there’s a debate about anything professing to relate to ‘God’ or ‘Faith’ it’s always couched in the context of orthodox religion or atheism versus orthodoxy. The thing that both frustrates and makes me smile is that, besides neither having much to do with sacredness or divinity, both also hold positions of non-evidence-based certainty. To me, framing the existence or non-existence of ‘Gods’ in such narrow terms as described and prescribed by patriarchy and orthodoxy (no, they’re not the same thing, though it’s tempting and amusing to tease that they are, considering the massive overlap) is stale and unimaginative – and distinctly unhelpful.

Nevertheless, that is the rubric within which most of the world keeps itself confined – be it through education, governance or ‘holy’ wars.

Each religion is mostly interchangeable with another: they alter their costumes a bit and change dates and the names of people and stuff but the basic tenets; the widest meaning in the message is generally the same.

And all religions have been, are and continue to be vehicles of both peaceful and violent thought and deed. At their best, they offer beautiful interpretations of Life’s mysteries and frameworks by which to live.

And at their worst they each have their fundamentalists; extremists who have terrorised and do terrorise those who don’t share their values. Yes, the Qur’an has verses which can be interpreted as permitting or even promoting violent retribution and punishment. So does the Old Testament. No Abrahamic Faith is immune and, looking further east, neither are the Hindus, nor the Buddhists.

Most religious people are moderate people who have no drive to convert or correct the behaviour of others. Many followers of the orthodox faiths pick and choose their adherences with varying degrees of guilt or comfort, be it using contraception, eating pig, imbibing intoxicants, marrying out of one’s faith, neglecting Confession – yada, yada. One only has to witness the majority approval for secular governance within the ‘first’ world and the majority who aspire to it in other regions of the globe to appreciate this: equal, educated, free and well-informed people; people who can rely on consistent and fair laws and a sufficient measure of security, don’t want or need to be told how to live by either the representatives of elected authority or by those who claim to represent a Higher One.

And therein lies the rub, doesn’t it? It always comes down to that same, basic list.

Major swathes of the world’s populations are being sold short while religious doctrine replaces basic education and information is exchanged for censorship. If religious dogma is your main or only source of common knowledge and experience, then it is little wonder that superstition, prejudice and taboos prevail and fester. And to force it on children is in the least, a grey kind of magic. Religion within mainstream education should be facilitated through philosophy, not through doctrine. Faith schools? No thank you. Save it for the Temple.

Law, governance and culture have been traditionally shaped and dictated by patriarchy and it is as loathe to giving up its self-righteous control freakery as, say, Monsanto or certain banksters. It is curious how those who claim to be so devout are so much more concerned for the souls of others than for their own. That there is no such thing as vicarious atonement seems to have escaped from their founts of wisdom.

Of course, any moral militant can find things to hate in the modern, secularising world: the aspiration for equality; for living according to one’s individual desires and needs; for being free to draw personal boundaries, exercise preferences. And so they do. But History is replete with religious violence, isn’t it…? Terrorism perpetrated by citizen groups, ‘democratic’ governments and state sovereigns alike.

Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims: all brilliantly misrepresenting their faiths; all desirous of imposing their ideology on others; all so certain. It is politics, mediaeval style. No wonder the atheists are bemused and pissed off.

The problem here isn’t ‘God’. The problem is cultish and political bigotry and fear. It is the arrogant and ultimately fruitless notion that you are the manager of another’s soul and free will. It is the pitiful demonstration of people who look upon the world with narrowed eyes, lacking appreciation for the greater beauty, ferocity and mystery of the human animal; who cannot recognise the paradox of life: that simple things are often made complex by their explanation and that things which seem complex are often very simple.

What the bigots fail to realise is that while they are perfectly entitled to their rigidly narrow and conjured opinions – so is everyone – it doesn’t give them the right to legislate for everyone based on them. This is why a secular society is the best way to protect and govern with equal and fair effect: the only way to prove that the majority, the minority and all the individuals therein feel and know that their rights are valued equally. Secular governance doesn’t mean you have to bury your faith. It recognises that not everyone has a faith and that no one faith is superior to another.

Where We Are

Where We Are

by julijuxtaposed

First posted on April 29, 2013

Bedrooms: taxed.

Benefits: capped.

NHS: privatised.

Legal Aid: capsized.

Rights? Being scrapped.

 

Tramping down.

Clamping down.

Liars seeding,

Feeding

Lies to lies.

Trap and tap the populace,

So easily despised.

 

Thank the finest boys of Eton

For the food stamps you are needing.

 

Growth?

Offshore.

Investment opportunities galore!

If you are rich…

‘Ain’t life a bitch –

Getting tax cuts –

Profiteering from the poor?

 

Oh… and war.

 

Children homogenised.

Processed fate.

State-groomed serfdom –

Ripening hate.

 

Confidence: none.

Hope…

Nope.

Still…

 

Some things are new, under this sun:

Survival is living;

Taking is giving;

Judgement means caring;

And inequality?

Well, that’s for sharing.