The dust now seems to have settled on the result of the Scottish referendum on independence from the UK. For the time being, at least, Scotland will remain as a part of the union.
As to be expected, Elizabeth Windsor, Head of State for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the correct name for the union comprising Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England), made a statement on the matter. Part of that statement, issued from the monarch’s estate at Balmoral, Scotland, on 19 September, 2014, read as follows:
“For many in Scotland and elsewhere, there will be strong feelings and contrasting emotions – among family, friends and neighbours. That, of course, is the nature of the robust democratic tradition we enjoy in this country. But I have no doubt that these emotions will be tempered by an understanding of the feelings of others.”
There are those, of course, whose emotions will not be greatly tempered by the current monarch’s use of the term “the robust democratic tradition we enjoy in this country”. There is something extremely ironic in the use of such words by a Head of State who enjoys a position due to the historically privileged position of her family, who, moreover, is not, and has never been, subject to democratic election, has tenure of privileges and position for a lifetime, and is substantially reimbursed for all this from the public purse. Not much democratic tradition there, then!
I am not in a position to comment in detail about Elizabeth Windsor’s emotions and her promise that she and her family “will do all we can to help and support you in this important task to work constructively for the future of Scotland and indeed all parts of this country.” Of one thing I am certain, however, Elizabeth and the entire Windsor clan will take no part in doing something constructive about removing the undemocratic situation in which the family finds itself and to which it tenaciously clings.
*****.
Speaking of Elizabeth Windsor and her family, what is, or should be, their position vis-à-vis the so-called “bedroom tax” and any “mansion tax” brought in by a future British government?
After all, many of the homes the family live in have far more bedrooms than can possibly be required and most, if not all, are valued well in excess of what a mansion tax will set as a minimum limit. At a time when all major British political parties are speaking of further austerities within the public purse, is there not a case to be made for royal downsizing and austerity?
Indeed, is it not time for radically separating the tasks that a Head of State is required to perform from the ostentatious celebrity charade that is the Royal Family?
*****
Related to the above is the question of when was the actual beginning of this royal charade? In his currently running BBC television programme, “The Long Shadow”, the historian David Reynolds gives us a clue.
Reynolds reviews the post-First World War period and, particularly, examines how political and ideological divisions came about in the immediate aftermath of World War 1. He looks at the three competing visions that developed across the western world in this period – Lenin and communism, Hitler, Mussolini and fascism, and Woodrow Wilson and democracy. He notes the toppling of numerous monarchies throughout Europe.
Most interestingly, Reynolds comments on how, in the UK, politics moved towards the ideological centre and party coalitions were formed, with the consequences of mainstream policy formation and decision making. In the process, the German background of the existing monarchical line was airbrushed out of the picture and George V was repackaged as a “symbol of the nation”.
David Reynolds considers that the architects of this rebranding were various figures of the British “establishment”. This would necessarily include politicians, the Anglican Church, the judiciary and, very likely, the military. A single figure, the head of state – a monarch, was successfully transformed into “the royal family”. The myth continued but in a new guise.
This “royal irony” could be the mother of all ironies!
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized
|
Tagged austerity, communism, election, establishment, eurozone, fascism, head of state, human rights, independence, irony, judiciary, law, policy, privilege, referendum, Scotland, symbol, taxes, Ulster
|
This was the week when the Westminster Parliament resumed after the official summer holiday of the British political classes.
Probably for perverse reasons, the most interesting aspect of watching parliamentary proceedings is the Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQT). This session of Parliament occurs on a Wednesday morning. It was introduced during the administration of the former (New) Labour leader, Tony Blair.
The intention of PMQT is that it gives the opportunity for the Prime Minister (PM) of the day to be asked, and be able to respond, to questions of immediate political concern. The intention is that questions can come from the floor of the house with, of course, the PM being forewarned about them. The whole is meant to impress the idea that a PM is open to and able to answer relevant questions affecting the politics of the hour.
The appearance of spontaneity and transparency belies the reality. In truth the PM, having been made aware of the questions to be forthcoming in the house, has privately prepared for them. Indeed, the truth is murkier. The questions that are asked, certainly on the government’s side of the chamber, are formulated in such a way that the PM can score political points to the benefit of himself and the government and to the detriment of the opposition. Answers to the questions from the opposition benches are, however, another matter.
In seeking to ensure that fairness – if not the due democratic process – is observed, the leader of the opposition has the right of first reply on a number of questions asked of the PM and the answers given by the latter. This procedure sometimes leads to the kind of political thrust and parry that political debate should be about. It should be the time when the integrity of the parliament is resolutely respected. Sadly, and all too often, the process results in the very opposite happening.
PMQT can easily degenerate into a wholesale slanging match: questions are blatantly fixed and pre-disposed to biased answers; back-benchers on the government side resort to framing questions in order to curry favour with the PM or raise peculiar issue concerning their personal constituencies; opposition benches vent their collective spleen with wide-ranging invective across a broad range of issues that often have little to do with the particular matter under debate.
So too, the PM and the leader of the opposition, in occupying the greatest number of speaking minutes, also display the highest levels of anger and the deepest hues of red on their visages, as they harangue each other across the despatch box. In turn, the Speaker of the House frequently resorts to verbal violence for the purpose of restoring a modicum of decency and order to the proceedings.
In respect of the foregoing, it becomes somewhat inevitable that the PM does not get around to, or evades, answering the question that has been put. As well, he uses the time for what should be legitimate questioning of both the government and the opposition as a platform for disparaging opposition parties and policies. The present PM, the Conservative Party’s David Cameron, has been most adept at mastering this craft.
Of course, the House of Commons has been spared this drama (or is it comedy) during this week as the leaders of each of the three main British political parties have not been in attendance in the house.
The leaders of the three main British political parties can be likened to the three musketeers (where or where is the d’Artagnan equivalent – or do we see such a figure in Nigel Farage who, as I write, is making his way north of the English border with Scotland?). This week, the political leaders have been in Scotland, lending their self-avowed political importance and the weight and sharpness of their finely-honed swords to the “Better Together” side of the question of Scottish independence from the rest of the UK. Such ignominy!
There is something ironic, if not pathetic, about these three leaders seeking to give the appearance of togetherness on an issue that is about to cleave a proud Celtic nation down the middle. This is especially poignant when it is considered that at least one of them, David Cameron – the PM and the leader of the Conservative Party (so heavy and clumsy in cutting-up the opposition on the floor of the house) – has repeatedly stated that the matter of Scottish independence, or otherwise, is one for the people of Scotland to decide. Perhaps we have not learned the lessons of PMQT!
The foregoing was brought to my immediate memory and attention on again reading a section of a work called Pathways to Peace, which reads as follows:
Listen and be listened to so that all speakers can be heard, speak and be spoken to in a respectful manner.
Develop or deepen mutual understanding, learn about the perspective of others and reflect on one’s own view,
and
discover new insights.
The above comes from the Fourth Parliament of World Religions, held in July 2004, which brought together thousands of people in the Spanish city of Barcelona. The event staged various activities, all of which enjoined the same principles as mentioned in the above verse.
It is to the credit of the debate about Scottish independence that these principles seem to have been observed – on both sides of the debate. It is to be hoped that the same principles might one day come to be observed, in the practice as well as in the principle, in the House of Commons of the British Parliament.
*****
Addendum:
Whilst reading some of the comments that have been made about this blog, I came across several requests for me to include articles written by others. I am pleased that other writers may deem the blog worthy of literary co-occupation.
However, I wish to make to it clear that this blog consists only of those articles written by myself. In this way I can be personally responsible for the directions taken by the articles and for the specific content of them.
So, my thanks to each of those who have requested space to incorporate their personal writing within this blog. I trust, however, that you will understand my reasons for refusing the requests.
RSC
Royalty is above politics.
These words are often used in a collective defence of royalty with respect to political matters. If, therefore, that is actually the case – if the royals are indeed politically neutral – then why is secrecy needed in order to protect this neutrality? Would not the principle and practice of the political impartiality of royalty, particularly those royals at the apex of the system, be better served through a policy of transparency?
Readers of this blog may be aware that The Guardian newspaper has recently been engaged in a struggle to require public access to letters sent by Charles Windsor to government ministers. The British government continues to resist every court decision that has been made in favour of The Guardian in this matter. This is an affront to British democracy and a disgrace for the present government.
As a member of the Republic movement I am strongly of the view that the British public has the right to know if Charles Windsor – or any other royal for that matter – is trying to influence government decisions. Republic has recently launched a campaign against royal secrecy. In a letter introducing this campaign, Graham Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of Republic, said:
“Secrecy is the key to the monarchy’s survival – if we all knew what the royals were up to behind closed doors support would start to fall away”.
Opening up those doors is the inspiration and rationale for this article. The monarchy may be said to be above politics, but royalty is not beyond accountability to the British political system and the laws of the nation state whom they serve.
In line, therefore, with the Republic campaign, there are three simple demands of government in the handling of this matter: *
* Full inclusion of the monarchy within the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so that the royal household is legally obliged to respond to information requests.
* Repeal of existing exemptions from the FOIA that allow communications between other government bodies and the royals to be kept secret.
* Full disclosure of the royal lobbying and influence, including disclosure of meetings between royals and ministers.
The above are matters that deserve the serious consideration of politicians such as the Justice Secretary, Christopher Grayling, and the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright. Their present in-trays should include a review of the freedom of information laws, the releasing of Charles Windsor’s letters and an agreement with the above three demands.
There is an argument that states that, in consequence of Elizabeth and Charles Windsor being politically impartial, they have the right to discuss matters of state with ministers. Whether that should include matters of political policy is another matter. As well, it is Elizabeth Windsor who is the official British Head of State – not the royal family per se.
Hence the role of Charles Windsor in practical matters of British politics is, at least, arguable. He should be held accountable for his role in the British state, including matters to do with his estate holdings and charitable causes, rather than, as it seems, using his position to influence government policy and decisions – especially in those matters affecting him personally!
Notwithstanding, the present existence of secrecy in the above-mentioned matters ensures that we, the people, have no idea whether the royals are being impartial or not, or whether they are interfering in British politics. If the royals are indeed politically neutral, then let them prove it; if they have nothing to hide, then let the people know that their government isn’t being lobbied in secret by the royals. This is the 21st century, not the 16th!
The requests being made in the above, as well as the more general matters mentioned, though specifically to do with royal lobbying of a government, also pertain to the present state of British democracy. Is the British government acting on behalf of or against the people whose well-being is the first priority of its administration? This is not a matter of being pro- or anti-monarchical, it is a matter of lawful and just government.
We are citizens of this nation state of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the subjects of a monarch or royal family. Democracy is the defence of all the people who live under this system of government, not the selective attention to the privileges of the few. In this democratic nation state, royalty, as with government, serves the people – not the other way around.
The Guardian newspaper’s recent efforts with respect to public access to Charles Windsor’s letters to government officials, supported by the decisions of the law courts, should exemplify this fact.
Why is this not the case?
RSC
As part of a recent visit to Scotland, I had the good fortune to attend the opening of the Commonwealth Games at Celtic Park, Glasgow. As a Scot by birth, it was a little galling when England finished the games as the top medal-winning nation. In all, Team England collected 58 gold medals (174 in total), whilst the second-placed nation, my adopted Australia, claimed 49 (137 in total). Actually, Scotland did rather well to finish fourth, with 19 gold medals (53 in total).
One consequence of England finishing first in 58 events was that Jerusalem was played 58 times, each time accompanied with the stadium announcer’s words “the national anthem of England”. Now, this was a bit of a surprise to me. Certainly, home matches involving England’s test cricket team have been notable for what one commentator has called “a rousing rendition of Jerusalem”, even as Twickenham rugby stadium often echoes to the strains of “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot”. However, Jerusalem as the English national anthem?
For those who may be unfamiliar with Jerusalem, it is a poem by William Blake called “And did those feet in ancient times” (rather appropriate when linked with sporting enterprise), printed in 1808 and put to music by Hubert Parry in 1916, then given the title Jerusalem. It has taken nearly one hundred years to gain recognition, though still somewhat unofficial, as the national anthem of England.
It must be said, however, that there is some musical opposition for a new English national anthem. Notably, this comes from the 1st (1901) and 4th (1907) Pomp and Circumstance Marches of Edward Elgar – respectively “Land of Hope and Glory” and “Song of Liberty” (words by the poet A.P. Herbert), with truly Edwardian England music and words that would make any (English) national proud.
Another contender, no doubt, would be Cecil Spring Rice’s poem “The Two Fatherlands” (“I Vow to Thee, My Country”), set to music by Gustav Holst (1921) and which appears in his composition “The Planets – Jupiter, the bringer of jollity” (that would be handy at a soccer match featuring the English team, though obviously not quite so necessary at an event like the Commonwealth Games).
(For a republican, it is rather ironic that Herbert and Elgar’s “Song of Liberty”, whose first line is “All men must be free”, was used for the recessional at the wedding of Charles Windsor and Diana Spencer)
Actually, as a schoolboy in Wales in the 1950’s, I was subject to learning each of the above viable English anthems, as well as, of course, committing to heart the Welsh National Anthem, “Land of My Fathers” – in Welsh: “Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau”. Now there is an anthem of which to be proud (as the Welsh rugby union crowds at the Millenium Stadium, Cardiff, give testimony).
I suppose that Jerusalem will only gain overall recognition as the English national anthem when the masses who gather at Wembley and Twickenham resonate to its strains. Perhaps that is some way off and, it must be said, there are many who still favour using the British national anthem, “God Save the Queen (or King, as the case may be)”. I will leave the reader to speculate as to why this might be the case but, of one thing I am quite certain, the reason does not lie in the fact that those who sing it with gusto wish to downplay the importance of England in the overall British scheme of things. Quite the opposite may well be the case.
It has always struck me as rather illogical to sing the United Kingdom’s “God Save the Queen” at specifically English sporting events. Maybe it is time to let Blake and Parry, even Elgar, on to the field of play and give them a sporting chance of national recognition – at least in England.
Speaking of illogicalities, I thought that it was rather odd, to say the least, that, at the opening of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, the national anthem played was “God Save the Queen”. Now, it is true that the Queen, as the titular head of the Commonwealth (no longer the “Empire”, though there are those persons and institutions who would not acknowledge this fact), was present and took part in the opening ceremony by reading her greeting to the event,. However, these Commonwealth Games were not a United Kingdom event. They were the Scottish Games; Scotland was the host nation.
Therefore, should it not have been the case that the Scottish national anthem, “Flower of Scotland”, be played at the opening ceremony? Indeed, ought it not to be the case that, wherever the Commonwealth Games are held, the host nation’s national anthem is played at the opening occasion? That would remove any lingering thoughts about empire and deference to any one nation or head of state.
To return for a moment to Blake’s poem “And did those feet in ancient time”. It is a short poem from the preface to his epic “Milton, a Poem”, one of a collection of writings known as the “Prophetic Books”. It is worthwhile, and appropriate, to quote the poem in full:
And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God, on England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine, shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here, among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem, in England’s green and pleasant land.
The poem was inspired by the apocryphal story that a young Jesus of Nazareth, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea, a tin merchant, travelled to what is now England and visited Glastonbury during what is regarded as his “unknown years”. The legend is linked to an idea in the Book of Revelation (3:12 and 21:2) describing a Second Coming of Jesus, wherein he establishes a “New Jerusalem”.
The Christian church in general and the English Church in particular, have long used Jerusalem as a metaphor for Heaven, a place of universal love and peace.
In the most common interpretation of the poem, Blake implies that a visit by Jesus would briefly create heaven in England, in contrast to the “dark Satanic Mills” of the Industrial Revolution. Blake’s poem asks four questions (see the first half of the poem) rather than asserting the historical truth of Christ’s visit. Therefore, the poem is not implying that Jesus actually visited England during his lifetime (or since), rather, it is a critique of the conditions of industrial England that a divine visit would have encountered and wished to overturn.
(Incidentally, the final stanza, “Bring me my chariots of fire!” was used as the title of the award-winning British film “Chariots of Fire”. The movie’s narrative was about the British team who went to the 1924 Paris Olympic Games. It had a sub-theme which juxtaposed the religious principle of opposing the playing of sport on the Sabbath with national duty).
Against the political and economic background of today’s England, the question needs to be asked that, if Jerusalem were to become England’s national anthem, then to what extent would contemporary England be a reflection, or otherwise, of what William Blake had in mind? If those clouds above England were to open would there be showers of gold or chariots of fire?
RSC
After spending several months in its pages, I have finally and fruitfully finished reading the American philosopher Daniel C. Dennett’s book: Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin Books, 2006)
As the title indicates, the book takes the view that religion is one of the most potent forces in the world: bringing comfort to people who suffer and inspiration that results in both magnificent and terrible deeds. The author seeks to uncover the origins of religion and discusses how and why different faiths have shaped so many lives, whether religion is an addiction or a genuine human need, and even whether it is good for your health.
Though he is not himself a man of faith, Dennett argues passionately for the need to understand this multifaceted phenomenon called religion. In my view, the book offers a quite original and comprehensive explanation of religious faith. Whilst Dennett is somewhat wary of providing a specific definition of religion, he offers clues and explanations that are only fully understood as the book unfolds to a point where he provides further directions to explore and basic viewpoints to those seeking platforms upon which to build their personal understanding, acceptance or critique. In this context, the following quotation may be helpful:
“What we usually call religions are composed of a variety of quite different phenomena, arising from different circumstances and having different implications, forming a loose family of phenomena, not a ‘natural kind’ like a chemical element or species.”
It will be immediately obvious that Dennett is not offering a traditional definition of religion. He bases his understanding not on a concept of God or other-worldly being, or revelatory scriptures, or individual human experience. On the contrary, his perspective is to be understood only as the reader understands the nature of a ‘phenomenon’. As defined by the Oxford Dictionary (is there a higher source?) a phenomenon is: “1. a fact or occurrence that appears or is perceived, especially one of which the cause is in question; 2. a remarkable person or thing; 3. Philos, the object of a person’s perception; what the senses or the mind notice.”
It seems, therefore, that Dennett is saying that religion is something that begins with human thought, understanding and experience. It is something internal, and not external, to a human being. God is a construct of the human mind, rather than a being with universal and eternal existence; or, as people have generally understood, a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship; or, as Richard Dawkins has put what he specifically calls the God Hypothesis:
“There exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence whom deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”
Perhaps that is one reason why there are so many contrasting, if not contradictory, forms of religion and religious faith. It also may provide an acceptable explanation of why it is that religious belief has resulted in both the ‘magnificent’ and the ‘terrible’ deeds mentioned above. As Voltaire said:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
The explanation for these deeds is not some form of divinity existing in some inconceivable realm external to the universe, superimposing his/her will on the human creation, demanding loyalty and obeisance, if not love, and laying down sets of rules to be followed. No, the deeds, and the ideas that give rise to them (the ethics that flow from the philosophy), are products of the human consciousness, the evolution of the human animal and that being’s understanding of its existence, behaviour, desire; the revelatory and the remarkable; the perceivable and the personal; the awareness of the senses and the scientific.
In short, it may be said that religion as a phenomenon is the doctrine that appearances are the foundation of all our religious knowledge. Indeed, those who hold, as I suspect Dennett does, a ‘phenomenological’ view of existence, that is, that all human knowledge is confined to the appearances presented to the senses, religion is just one of a number of appearances that appeal to the senses. The implications and consequences of this view of human existence are quite profound, both in terms of our understanding of human history and what will be the future of humanity.
That is a discussion for another time, with Dennett himself or with other authors (Richard Dawkins, Don Cupitt and Sam Harris are several who readily come to mind). However, if I have understood Daniel C. Dennett correctly, then it is an understanding that I would have wished to have become much more familiar with earlier in my life. Thankfully, it is never too late to realise new perspectives and permit them to affect understanding and behaviour.
It was with the above understanding of religion’s background that I listened to and read some of this past week’s news and enjoyed conversation with friends.
There was a World Humanist Congress in Oxford, held at a time when state education is being handed over to any person or organisation that feels it can have a go – including doctrinaire religious groups. The British secular state seems under threat.
Earlier this week I had a conversation with a group of friends I have known since, several decades ago, they were young adults. Knowing me to be a former minister of religion who became a (now retired) secondary school teacher of the Humanities (including Religious Studies), I was asked where I currently stood with respect to religion in general and belief in God in particular. Some members of the group seemed somewhat surprised when I answered that my present views would now classify me as a secularist and, more than likely, even an atheist. (I would probably place myself at stage 6 of Dawkins’ seven-stage “spectrum of probabilities”, that is, a de facto atheist – see his The God Delusion (Bantam Press, pp.50-51, 2006).
A new minister of state for faith and communities has recently been appointed by the government. From where the government got that title is open to speculation – ‘faith’ and ‘community’ are certainly not indivisible! The minister appointed, Eric Pickles in his latest government reincarnation, talks about “militant atheism”, as if atheists up and down the country are taking-up arms and advocating violence against persons of any religious faith persuasion. Come to think of it, I cannot remember the last time an atheist was anything other than simply argumentative in the defence of secularism.
It is a different story, however, when we look at religious faiths and their origins, for example, the Abrahamic faiths – Moses (the lawgiver for Judaism) hears the voice of God on a mountain top; Paul (the formulator of Christianity) blinded and challenged by the voice of God on the road to Damascus; Mohammad (the prophet for Islam) has visions, hears voices and is visited by the angel Gabriel in his mountain cave.
Each of the Abrahamic faiths is a theistic religion, that is, it believes in a God who is real. Each of the foregoing historical figures contains an element of legend about him; each were subject to private ‘appearances’ which appealed to their senses; each went on to become the founder of a major monotheistic world religion; each effectively were given the status of infallibility within the religion they founded and the claim by their respective followers that theirs is the “one true religion”.
Even in non-theistic religions there is evidence of private appearances and appeals to the individual senses: Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) sitting under a Bodhi tree – a “tree of awakening”, and Confucius (Confucianism) being aware of and open to ethical and political, and later metaphysical and cosmological, streams in Chinese society.
In the view of Daniel C. Dennett, we live in an age when it is probably much easier to “believe in belief in God” rather than to believe in an actual God. That being the case, and when the dangerously misplaced zeal of fundamentalist religion is, again, a major cause of conflict, it is timely to be reminded that religion has more to do with what is inculcated on the human mind – what appears and appeals to the human senses – than it has to do with what is innately present as a consequence of the existence of a universal and eternal God.
Or, was Voltaire, again, nearer the mark in saying:
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”.
RSC
Posted in Uncategorized
|
Tagged evolution, existence, faiths, human mind, invention, phenomenon, philosophy, religion, secular, senses, supernatural, theistic
|
Warnings are given before the artillery strikes. Residents are advised to leave their homes before people and homes are blown to bits. But where can they go?
The Gaza Strip is a densely populated area of land, roughly 30 miles long and no more than 5 miles in width at any point, lying between Israel to the north and east, Egypt to the south and the Mediterranean Sea to the west. Blockaded by land and sea by Israel and Egypt, there is nowhere that the occupants of the Gaza Strip can go – except somewhere else in the Gaza Strip! As recent days have shown, even UN schools and reception centres are no longer safe from the Israeli bombardment.
The death toll in the Gaza Strip is rising. The artillery fire does not differentiate between children, women and men – those who are civilians and those engaged in combat. The ruling group in the Gaza Strip, Hamas, vows to fight on until their political aim of a Palestinian state on the West Bank becomes a possibility, if not a reality. For its part, Israel cannot ignore Hamas’ stated aim of eradicating Israel or the threat posed by the network of underground tunnels developed by Hamas in its war on the ground. Like all nations under threat, Israel feels the need to defend itself.
Meanwhile, in defiance of successive UN resolutions as well as internal opposition (but supported in their silence by the USA and the UK), Israel proceeds apace with its objective of building Jewish settlements on land designated as Palestinian – itself a major source of discontent and conflict in the region.
As a teenager I set myself the task of reading all of the novels written by the Jewish author Leon Uris. For me, the most inspiring of these novels was Mila 18. The title referred to a district within the Polish city of Warsaw during WWII. The district was a Jewish ghetto. As one article on the novel commented: “It was a time of crisis, a time of tragedy – and a time of transcendent courage and determination. Leon Uris’s blazing novel is set in the midst of the ghetto uprising that defied Nazi tyranny, as the Jews of Warsaw boldly met Wehrmacht tanks with homemade weapons and bare fists. Here, painted on a canvas as broad as its subject matter, is the compelling story of one of the most heroic struggles of modern times.”
My thoughts have gone back to this novel as I have followed the unfolding events in the Gaza Strip. It is certainly a time of crisis and tragedy in Palestine. However, no longer are the tyranny-defying residents in the ghetto restricted to those of the Jewish religious tradition; no longer are the Nazis the repressive force; and the means of destruction are much more sophisticated than homemade weapons and bare fists. The question of exactly which people are undertaking the heroic struggle, where courage and determination are on display, is very much open to interpretation.
Warsaw and its Jewish ghetto were eventually liberated. There seems no immediate escape for the residents of the Gaza ghetto. The story of Mila 18 serves as an inspiration for those who value freedom and justice in the face of oppression. However, as the Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland recently said: “Gaza children will grow up with hearts hardened. In trying to crush today’s enemy, Israel has reared the enemy of tomorrow.”
Mila 18 was not the only novel that Leon Uris wrote about the background and circumstances of the Jewish people. Perhaps his most well-known and widely read book is Exodus, a novel about the establishment of the State of Israel and Israeli independence. Apparently conceived as a way of enabling Americans to become more sympathetic to the State of Israel (therein lies a clue to the novel’s content and character, as well as the nature of its characters), the novel is concerned with the extent to which Jewish individuals and groups were prepared to go in order to bring into existence the modern State of Israel. Some of their methods would be branded as “terrorist” in today’s terminology and commentary.
Characters in the story behave in the present according to their reactions to the past and their visions of the future. The past is the repository of Hebrew history and tradition; the future promises the building of a fortress of resistance to all attempts to eradicate that history and tradition. Alienation repeatedly appears: victims of the Nazis manifest levels of alienation ranging from silent agony to madness. But there is also the vision to establish a nation free of trauma, a nation that looks forward and is not constantly glancing over its shoulder.
Therein lays a clue to the understanding of present day Israel; her national obsessions and contradictions, her strengths and weaknesses, the tolerance that brings harmony and peace but which is set over against the intolerance that breeds division and violence.
The subject of freedom is a central concern in Exodus; characters seek, with varying degrees of intensity, forms of liberation, and to some extent the novel links personal and political liberation. History itself becomes a theme of the work as Uris includes and provides a context for such events as the United Nations vote on whether or not to partition Palestine. Of course, much of the content in the novel is now past history or belongs to the realm of (absorbing) fiction, but the schizoid nature of Israel’s national persona remains and the oppression felt by the infant State of Israel now seems, in the days of the nation’s maturing, to be visited on her neighbours.
The residents of Israel will not soon forget the Warsaw ghetto experience, nor the nature and circumstances of the establishment of the Israeli state. However, it is to be hoped that, in time, Israel will come to realise that the ghettoization of her neighbours and the denial of their hopes and dreams is inimical to her own security and progress. It does not take the reading of two superb novels to come to that realisation, but it helps.
RSC
For the past several years, I have been a member of 38 Degrees.
This is a nation-wide movement that engages in lobbying action and campaigns in pursuit of what it perceives to be injustices in social and political matters, particularly tracking government activity on controversial issues. Recent campaigning by 38 Degrees includes opposition to zero hours, the so-called “gagging laws”, the closing of hospitals, disclosing of peoples’ medical records to private companies, the fight against “fracking” activity in the UK, and numerous similar causes and actions.
I recently received correspondence from 38 Degrees that asked the question: “Do you want to live in a world in which multinational companies can sue the UK government for raising the minimum wage?” To me, the answer was obvious. No, I don’t. Or, how about accepting a world where big tobacco companies can sue the UK for billions of pounds for introducing a plain cigarette packaging law? No, I wouldn’t want to live in such a world.
38 Degrees wished t0 point out that this could happen if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is passed. This secretive adulteration of a trade deal has been described as “basically a Christmas wish-list for big businesses – one with no benefit to ordinary people”, the vast majority of people in the UK.
The negotiations for this trade deal are currently going on within the European Union (EU) and, as is typical in cases of this kind, behind closed doors. The potentially devastating effects of this deal, if passed, will affect us all. That it is happening within the EU is, for those, like me, who are generally supportive of the work of the EU, disappointing. If passed, the TTIP could well be a major aspect of the “changed circumstances” of the UK’s relationship with Europe that may serve as the trigger for the British Labour Party to eventually support an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.
In itself, this possibility is worrying but, as a matter of transparency of government policy, the British public needs to be made aware of the negotiations which are taking place with respect to TTIP. Economic policies signed-up to by the British government and which are inimical to the national interest of the UK – whether they originate from within the EU or, just as damagingly, from the USA – require knowledge by and accountability to the British public.
As indicated, the effects of this trade deal will not be confined just to the UK for, as an EU initiative, they will be felt across Europe. In mitigation, and in response to massive people-powered campaigns across Europe, the TTIP team opened a consultation on an important aspect of the trade deal, what is called the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). This is a complex title for a nasty rule that will enable corporations to sue our government for putting their duty to ordinary people before the profits accruing to their businesses. In the very limited time available, 38 Degrees has been campaigning to have ISDS dropped from the trade deal.
Still, it is to be noted that this is the first time that ordinary people have had a chance to have any say whatsoever on any part of TTIP. There has been no need to be an expert on the matter as 38 Degrees provides information on it and how to go about joining the campaign against TTIP/ISDS, as well as the most effective ways of protesting against the trade deal and its implications.
I personally wrote the following to the relevant department of the European Commission:
“I write with a genuine concern about the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the implications it has for democracy in the UK, as in the rest of Europe. All economic activity in any country should be transacted with the agreement of government. In a democracy all governments are elected by the people. Therefore, the world of business should be subservient to the will of the people as realised through governments. With the inclusion of the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) TTIP reverses this order of priority. Therefore, ISDS should have no place in the TTIP.
“The idea of corporations being able to sue governments when the latter do not comply with business expectations or outcomes, is a matter for extreme worry and should have no part in any transactions of the British government (within Europe or otherwise). National governments need to exemplify the will of their electorates, not the determinations of interested individuals, self-interested groups or trans-national corporations. The people of the nations do not exist for the benefit of those whose primary interest in life is to accrue wealth and power!”
Of course, by itself my voice is a lone voice and ineffective. However, when that voice is joined by thousands of others a crescendo of sound is produced that cannot be ignored by responsible government or trans-national commissions. There is strength in numbers and the tidal force of peoples’ protest produces waves of crashing power.
Notwithstanding, the opposition is formidable – but also vulnerable. For example, just this month the US embassy in Berlin offered grants of $20,000 for campaigns in support of TTIP. Against such self-interested opposition will be the voices of hundreds of thousands of citizens across Europe.
The voice of the people still carries great force. In the matter of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with its manipulative Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement, this voice will reiterate the message that the people will not be held to ransom.
RSC
After returning earlier than anticipated from a visit to Australia recently, I immediately made an appointment to see a medical practitioner at my local surgery.
I had been advised to do this following a health concern whilst in Australia, one that involved a number of examinations and tests whilst in that country. As there is no NHS in Australia (health care is privatised), there was also a financial consideration to take into account.
Following extensive discussion about medical matters affecting me, the doctor who examined me at the surgery, knowing that I had the title “Dr” before my name (it was on my medical record with the surgery), asked me if I was a medical doctor. It would seem that, during our conversation, I had used sufficient medical terms and with some accuracy to lend credence to the possibility. I duly explained that the medical knowledge I may have shown was an accumulation of medical and hospital jargon and procedures (hence knowledge about them) over time.
I further informed the doctor that the doctorate in my possession was, in fact, for studies in a branch of theology – and one with very few implications for medicine (though my doctorate is of a professional nature modelled on the Doctor of Medicine awarded in the United States).
Over the years, in both my professional career and privately, I have welcomed the opportunity of conversing in matters theological with a wide variety of people. Not all of these people have had an academic background in areas of study to do with theology, but their conversation indicated that they were well read in the subject – or, at least, capable of putting across a point of view (not always the same thing).
To be sure, in these days of universal education, multiple printing houses, newspapers, educational radio and television, the internet and a wide variety of informative CD’s and DVD’s, it is possible to become quite knowledgeable about anything from gardening to astronomy – the former has little appeal to me, whilst the latter challenges me to the point of awe.
That is not to say, of course, that the day of listening and following the advice and practical example of the experts is over. This is certainly not the case.
I will always be grateful that I can be treated by a medical practitioner who specialises in medicine and surgery, or can view DVD’s produced by reputable academics about subjects that continue to stir the embers of academic enquiry that are still warm inside me, or, as a former teacher, I can have confidence that today’s children and young people will be taught by teachers who not only have an academic background in the subjects they teach but also have been trained in the techniques and skills associated with the teaching of those subjects – a topic of some concern in the UK at present.
It is probably for the above reasons, and others like them, that I would consider myself to be a person for whom the “glass is only half-full”. I believe that the glass can be further filled. Some might consider that this makes me a person who is never satisfied. In some respects that may, arguably, be a way at looking at a part of my character.
However, permit me to illustrate my viewpoint with reference to my academic background.
I left secondary school at age 15 – to be trained for an expected career in telecommunications – with a respectable but not particularly eminent Technical School Certificate. Whilst still a teenager, and in preparation for a new career in the ministry of the Christian Church, I resumed part-time academic study in order to matriculate for university and theological school studies – which I then undertook full-time for four years from age 23 (and a further 10 years part time after that).
As a married man with a family and holding-down two church appointments, I commenced post-graduate studies in my late 30’s. This process came to an end with the gaining of a doctorate in ministry and then post-graduate studies in education a year or two after reaching the mid-century of my life. Comparatively few of my first 50 years were void of study of one kind or another.
Whether it was the consequence of leaving formal secondary schooling at a relatively early stage, or simply a desire to acquire knowledge across a variety of disciplines, I was obviously not content with the academic glass being only half-full, or less. Other “glasses” associated with my life, for example, sporting achievement, remained at various levels as a matter of choice. I will leave others to be the judges of whether or not other major areas of my life, for example, as a husband, a father, a friend or a colleague, were glasses that remained half-filled (or less) or reached for the top.
I regard it as one of the privileges and joys of retirement to be able to look back over the life that I have so far enjoyed and to reflect on what have been the achievements, disappointments and all those things in-between – to measure the level of the various glasses that could describe my life. This process would be done in the hope and trust that sufficient life – in terms of time, energy, relationships and, yes, even finance – remains for me to do something about, if not remain content with, the measures already poured out.
Part of that enterprise will be the continuation of my pursuit of knowledge and, hopefully, the acquiring of some wisdom along the way. In this way I will be able to enjoy the conversations I have with family, friends, former colleagues and even the future unknown persons with whom I will cross paths or sit next to on a park bench.
Let me conclude with one example of the above.
Last week I accompanied my wife to the staging of the “Antiques Roadshow” at Kirby Hall, a former stately home – now mainly in ruins – in Northamptonshire. After lunch, and whilst Vicky explored the various stalls, I sat at a table in the open-air lunch area and was soon joined by two strangers, a mother and her daughter. The mother was of my vintage, but it was the daughter who subsequently proved to be the conversationalist.
From an initial comment about the acceptable level of the beef-burgers we each enjoyed for lunch, we graduated to a lengthy conversation that included: the areas of Northampton in which we each lived, stately homes, television programmes, politics, religion, pop music over the decades, the up-coming soccer World Cup and, no doubt, other topics I cannot remember due to the delightful engagement in the subjects I can remember sharing.
I am not sure how full would have been the conversational glass in the surgery of the medical practitioner I spoke with on my return from the interrupted visit to Australia. I am quite sure, however, had there been a glass on the table that could have measured the level and contentment of the conversation at Kirby Hall, then I feel sure that it would have been near the brim.
In the final analysis, I suppose the question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty depends on which of life’s numerous “glasses” is being measured.
RSC
I first heard the news when reading a letter from a friend in Melbourne. It was confirmed in Crikey – an Australian newspaper review. The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has introduced knights and dames into the Order of Australia honours list. It seems that it was something of a unilateral decision.
In announcing this decision, Mr. Abbott said: “This special recognition may be extended to Australians of `extraordinary and pre-eminent achievement and merit’ in their service to Australia or to humanity at large. I believe this is an important grace note in our national life.’’ “Grace note”? It is to be noted that, by general consent down-under, grace has not been a very notable attribute of Tony Abbott’s premiership so far!
The usual suspects have been mentioned as being eligible for the award – Hugh, Elle, Shane, Bob, Kath and Kim, Richie, and, of course, Kylie (Rolf may have mentioned in dispatches, but he is currently tied-up with the British Courts of Justice). So far, only two of the four new honours awards available for the current year have been bestowed. The first, a dameship, went to the outgoing Governor General of Australia, Quentin Bryce (incidentally, and most ironically, Bryce is an avowed republican); the second, a knighthood, has gone to the incoming Governor General, Peter Cosgrove.
As would be expected, in time-honoured colonial fashion, Mr. Abbott sought and received the permission of the British monarch in order to re-install this aspect of the Australian honours system. The Prime Minister said the Queen had approved his recommendation to amend the Letters Patent constituting the Order of Australia. Some things do not change. It would seem that the normal “dubbing” ceremony at Windsor Castle will not be necessary. Australians are renowned for their eschewing of formality!
The re-introduction of knights and dames into the Order of Australia has had its critics. The Australian Shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said the move showed: “The government was rushing back to the 19th century.” Opposition Leader Bill Shorten (the son-in-law to the former Governor General of Australia, Quentin Bryce) added: “It’s good to see the government has a plan for knights and dames – where’s their plan for jobs, health and education?” Australian Greens leader, Christine Milne, said Australia had gone socially backwards under Mr. Abbott’s government. “Bring on a republic,’’ she said.
There is no doubting that, for whatever reasons, there are those within both the British and Australian populations who are strong supporters of honours systems and lists. Historically, the vast majority of the honours’ recipients are “time servers” (civil servants, government people and the like) and those who already enjoy advantages over the rest of the citizenry. It would also include prominent sports and entertainment personalities, social celebrities and business entrepreneurs.
Of course, that is not to overlook those well-deserving citizens who have been accorded an honour by virtue of their community efforts and services in many walks of life, for example, education, local government and charitable/voluntary work. However, it is to be hoped that, in rewarding services rendered for these more altruistic motives, the rewards are not devalued.
It appears to me that awarding honours, royal or otherwise, to already successful and rewarded people is somewhat bizarre. If we – in the UK as in Australia – find it necessary or desirable to have an honours system, then it seems more opportune, relevant and fair to give the gongs (British slang for medals and decorations) as, more or less, consolation prizes for those who have tried hard but have not necessarily been successful. This could be one way of closing the values gap between the affluent, successful and highly placed and regarded and those who do not fit these categories.
It is also at least debatable that a royal honours list or system, such as exists in the UK, has links with the class divisions in society. I am reliably informed, for example, that if civil servants are nominated for a medal, their rank is brought into consideration. Lower grades get their MBE’s, middle grades their OBE’s and the top rankers get their CBE’s, CB’s and knighthoods.
The above paragraph calls attention to a more questionable aspect of the system of royal honours. They are still given the nomenclature of the now extinct British Empire (the BE in the above honours’ titles). One can, perhaps, understand this from a British perspective (we British do nostalgia better than most), but coming out of a “former” colony such as Australia, it seems to me to be quite out of context and anachronistic.
In a recent interview with the Daily Telegraph newspaper, the prominent television presenter and journalist, Andrew Marr, said that the honours system rewards wealthy people, such as newspaper editors, for jobs they enjoy. So, he says that he doesn’t want one. Though he admires the Queen – having made a BBC documentary about her – he said: “The one thing I still can’t get my head around is the honours system these days. It seems to me ridiculous that people should get honours for doing well-paid jobs they enjoy.”
Warming to this theme, he continued: “I think it’s absurd that people get an honour for being a broadcaster, or being a journalist, or being a newspaper editor, or fulfilling some important but routine job in government. I think it’s ridiculous that people get honours for being a successful footballer or DJ or rock star.” My admiration for citizen Marr has duly grown.
Watching the ceremonies associated with the conferring of royal honours is like watching a piece of theatre from the past. It has been referred to as “the theatre of the absurd”. According to the playwright, Martin Esslin, “Absurdism” is “the inevitable devaluation of ideals, purity, and purpose”. Absurdist drama asks its viewer to “draw his own conclusions, make his own errors”.
In the drama of life, and with reference to the royal honours system, the description seems apt.
RSC
It shares its name with mythology’s greatest female warriors. It is the world’s largest online retailer. Among its 120 most senior managers, only 18 are women – none of whom report directly to the big boss.
The big boss runs the company with a select all-male group of 12 – the S Team (Senior Team), all of whom have a direct line to the big boss. Including those who report directly to the S Team, there is 132 staff in total in the top two tiers of the organisation. But 13 of these are “executive assistants” and all are women.
Out of the remaining 119 senior managers, just 18 are female – 15% of the total. Two women sit on the board of the organisation, both of whom are non-executive directors.
According to the source of this information, who asked not to be named, within this organisation “there is a strong feeling that there is a glass ceiling for women who want to progress above senior manager or director level”. The organisation “has a problem with women and it needs to change”.
The most senior woman in the organisation acts as the controller and principal accounting officer. She is named as a member of the 10-strong team of company officers, but she reports directly to the chief financial officer, not to the big boss! The organisation has stated: “We have many women in leadership roles across our global organisation, including two members of our board”.
The organisation is, of course the online retailer Amazon; infamous for, amongst other reasons, its zero-hours worker contracts and taxation issues with the British exchequer. Clearly, as the unnamed source has said, Amazon has a further issue with respect to its dearth of females in executive positions.
Then I thought of another organisation that shares its name with the mythologies of the ancient world – the Roman Catholic Church! Where are the women?
(With thanks to Juliette Garside’s article, and the unnamed source, in The Guardian newspaper)
RSC
Robert Stewart Culbard 