The UK: Our democracy is crumbling

This kakistocracy is debilitating

We are coming to a point where the contract of trust between the people and their government is presenting hairline fractures and it will most certainly break. Many of us law-abiding citizens having chosen our representatives in the hope that they will pursue our best interests are learning differently from that prospect.

There are too many things I disagree with the UK government about, but I take it on trust and faith that our democracy is supposed to have safeguards, checks, and balances. Yet, I watch how the House of Commons has become a supine accessory and conspirator against our freedoms, liberties, wellbeing and progress.

An unquestioned authority

For instance, we in England have been in some sort of lockdown since January, the easing of the restrictions with a roadmap announced in February appears to suggest many of these restrictions will remain in place until June. The House of Commons literally gave unchallenged fiat to the executive to act with very little accountability for their actions, all on the premise that we are dealing with the pandemic and it is for our safety.

Then last week, a lady returning home from visiting friends was abducted and murdered, only to find that an elite member of the police was implicated in this dastardly crime. It begs the question if we are endangered by the police force that is supposed to protect us, we are by terms endangered and our trust in institutions will be sorely diminished.

A crumbling democracy

On this matter, the inalienable right to protest at this situation is a fundamental part of our democratic system. Yet, with the pandemic restrictions on gathering in public places, the people who have felt so strongly about the matter have in an act of civil disobedience go out to protest and have clashed with the police, so being arrested and fined.

Whilst indeed the police must enforce COVID restriction laws, to have that in conflict with and superseding the right to protest is inexcusable. That the protesters could have find an accommodation with the police where they could safely protest and have police protection is not only unfortunate, we might as well be the Democratic People’s Republic of England.

I fear, there is going to be a breakdown in law and order, the government can only push our backs onto the wall before the people decide, enough is enough and the tinder of insurrection is lit to inflame the country into an ungovernable mess. If there any wise heads in government or thereabouts, I hope their voices are heard and acted on. There may be trouble ahead.

Thought Picnic: Live your life freely and we'll live ours

Celebrating my partner

When I published a tweet, this morning congratulating my partner on his birthday this morning, that was all I intended, to celebrate him as my significant other and hopefully, make it a special day amongst my community of friends.

Obviously, the pictures attached to the tweet were happy and romantic as one should expect between people in a relationship. That such expressions appear to be a rarity to some is entirely no fault of ours, we are just living our own lives.

Invariably, people in love would most likely kiss regardless of gender pairing. If in an ordinary setting we observe two people kissing without attributing any roles to them, we would immediately conclude they are in love.

Dear @Brian07j,
I wish you a very happy birthday, you're the best, have an extraordinarily wonderful day. Love you with all my heart. pic.twitter.com/32mjOMvZHO

— Akin Akíntáyọ̀ 🏳️‍🌈 #European (@forakin) July 7, 2020

Not that strange

If we dispense of the seemingly traditional stereotypes to our schooled inclinations from limited exposure, ignorance out of the lack of knowledge of the existence of things, prejudice, bigotry, or the absence of the ability to explore life beyond our worldview, two males kissing or two females kissing would not seem that strange, they are simply expressing love for each other.

It might come as a surprise to some that same-sex attraction embodies the fullest spectrum of human interaction, it is not limited to the physical, but it includes the heart, the mind, the soul and every other human endeavour. That means same-sex pairings are capable of friendships, relationships, falling in love, entering into civil partnerships and getting married.

Blog - Birthday Renewal Invitation Anniversary Nativity - VII

Our legal standing

There are jurisdictions in the world where there are constitutional protections on sexual orientation against harm and discrimination, whilst also providing them with the full legal framework of matrimonial and spousal rights, even in South Africa. That many other countries have not caught up to that ideal does not invalidate the reality of what it portends and how people who have those rights choose to exercise them.

Now, I am not here to proselytise or pursue an agenda, that is not my purpose, there are activists and advocates doing the amazing work of ensuring the fundamental human rights of the broad LGBTQ+ community. What we would not do is hide from the world.

We belong in our communities whether we are accepted or not, we will thrive in our lives and careers regardless, and for what it is worth, we would proclaim and celebrate the lives of our significant others because that is who they are significant, purposeful and relevant.

No apology tendered

In the end, even if the apparently abnormal to you, but normal to us and many who seek the greater human diversity cannot be countenanced by you, the very least you can do is, ‘Live and let live.’ We are asking no more from anyone than to enjoy the pursuit of happiness without let or hindrance, the freedoms you enjoy in your lives are those we seek to be accorded to many ostracised, stigmatised, vilified, persecuted, prosecuted, maimed, and harmed for who they are, and that is always and forever a just cause to stand for.

We make no apology for the love we share; we are whether you believe the science or espouse a myopic belief system as natural as anyone else, probably different, maybe individual, usually unique, or disputably alternative, but never chimeral. We have existed since the beginning of time and will continue to exist for as long as humanity thrives. We are here to stay and will not be obliterated or diminished.

In closing, our hearts are warmed by the support, the messages and the goodwill that has been shown us and the many birthday greetings to Brian. We cannot thank you enough and we work towards a better world where no one needs fear for who they are or who they love.

Àwọn adití ajá - Deaf dogs

The Facebook forum

Facebook presents an interesting forum for interaction, the exchange of views and ideas, but there is also a very unpalatable side of the Facebook discussion.

It is probably not a discussion as such, the broad church of social discourse is generally friendly, however, when we begin to challenge the norms, espouse the liberality of expression and fight for the expansion of human rights, for the open-minded, it flourishes, but it also gives vent to the primal and uncouth tendencies of others.

Nowhere is this matter as volatile as one that involves religion or more particularly homosexuality.

He stands out

I am a Facebook friend and a personal friend of a gay rights activist whose shares a lot of views that many might term controversial.

There is no doubt that I have felt sometimes uncomfortable with some of his views, but I appreciate that we can have differences and different perspectives, my occasional disagreement will never tend to disagreeableness, that is the function of respect we have for each other, we can agree to disagree without damaging our relationship.

He stands out as someone who has always had the courage of his convictions and has never been afraid to express them boldly, forcefully and forthrightly.

On controversy they feed

Then, there are people who contribute to his page who for whatever reason, out of envy, jealousy, rage, inferiority, bitterness, nastiness, bigotry, hypocrisy, you name it, they cannot stand him, they revile his homosexuality and his freedom, yet they congregate to fulminate, to vituperate and vitiate the atmosphere of free human expression.

Mostly, they are religious fanatics of no scholarship apart from what they have been spoon-fed, who are versed in the letter but have no spirit in themselves, hypocrites seeking validation in places where they rush to be offended, they ogle liberty but are caught in the limitations of their thinking.

Offence sates them

On one occasion, my friend posted a status where he both excoriated and baited them, they came in droves to drink their poison, to which I wondered why anyone would choose to seek where to have their sensibilities offended when there are other places to have salubrious engagement with like-minded people, I left a barb at the end and it snared them.

I had touched a raw nerve and with that came a pack of dogs laden with abuse and invective. It became funny and pitiful and they railed and cursed with reckless abandon. Poorly written sentences and much else, I decided to deliver a rebuke in a language they hopefully will understand or seek someone to interpret this for them because a few appeared to be of the Yoruba tribe.

So as not to be misunderstood, I wrote with the exigency and scrupulousness of diacritical marks and accents, quite necessary for remove ambiguity from clear intent.

A ticking off

Ọ̀rọ tí ta wọ́n lára, wọ́n ti yẹ̀kẹ́ èébú. M'bá ti só fún wọn kí wọ́n lọ sílé lọ gbèsì wá, ṣùgbọ́n ọmọ àbíìkọ́ niwọ́n, wọn ò lágbà nílé láti gbẹ̀kọ́. Àwọn mọ̀lẹ́bí adití ajá tí ò lè gbóhùn olúwa rẹ̀ mọ́.

This translates to - "I had touched a raw nerve that they have now become abusive. I would have suggested they seek homely advice before responding to me, but they are unschooled and have no mentoring guidance from home to have had the benefit of any good manners. They are a horde of deaf dogs completely oblivious to the master's voice."

The context carries best in Yoruba and if any of them had any gumption, the very least that should result from their reading this is to reflect on themselves with an utter sense of shame.

Thought Picnic: Celebrating freedom without offence

My society

I was walking home last night when in a recess of a building just off the main street I saw two men canoodling in a deep embrace on anticipation of possibly greater pleasure later on.

Whilst it was a somewhat unusual sight because not a few streets away is the gay village where they could have been in a bar or club up to much more than could not be printed here, I was gratified.

Gratified that I live in a civilised society that allows the full expression of self without the fear of sanction or harm. Maybe just half a century ago, this simple act of affection between two consenting adults would have attracted the charges of outraging public decency and gross indecency, we have really moved on.

The offended mind

Now, some people might well be seriously offended by this sight, the problem in my view is theirs rather than of the men. The free world we live in makes allowances for diversity and co-existence in the face of difference and what is out of the ordinary.

It was my guess that the men would go home together to be up to whatever they may wish in bed without harming anyone, society or humanity at large.

It is with that in mind that I tweeted yesterday, “The hallmarks of civilised society: Two men kissing on the street and no fear that anyone will be bloodied by an irate mob.”

The hallmarks of civilised society: Two men kissing on the street and no fear that anyone will be bloodied by an irate mob.

— Akin Akíntáyọ̀ (@forakin) April 7, 2016

Beyond these lands

That tweet was in recognition of another man who happened to express love in a same-sex liaison with another, Akinnifesi Olumide Olubunmi [Graphic Content] who died on the 18^th of February from the injuries he sustained from an irate mob in Ondo State, Nigeria. They took the law into their own hands to rid their savage and primitive community of the homosexual and celebrated their conquest on social media.

Akinnifesi Olumide Olubunmi is one of many same-sex attraction people, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual or gender neutral people who have been set upon by the mob or adherents of bigoted and extremist belief systems, thinking they are cleansing their communities by murder and the blood of other fellow human beings on their heads and their hands.

Sometimes, we fail to appreciate the liberties and freedoms that have come from escaping intolerance, ignorance and bigotry.

In response to my tweet, someone remonstrated and posited a fallacy about whether I would want my son doing that.

My response:

My son is my son, my duty is to love and support him through any situation in his life including his sexuality. https://t.co/F9m04wFXxb

— Akin Akíntáyọ̀ (@forakin) April 7, 2016

Dishonourable parental conduct

The perceived sense of honour we arrogate to ourselves at the expense of people who in a difficult, diffident and uncompromising world need our support is shocking. We would easily sacrifice our wards to belief systems, to traditions and bizarre customs rather than protect them from harm and stand proudly with them against a hostile world no matter the cost.

Parents disowning their children because the kid is different, others taking their girls to abattoirs of female genital mutilation when there is no medical need for this outrageous practice than to satisfy a primitive custom. Parents believe religious quacks that their children are practitioners of witchcraft and giving up the children to brutalisation and evil wickedness in the name of exorcism rituals. Worse still is the ones who murder their children in what they term honour killing.

There is no honour in murder, to love differently might leave us disappointed, but that is no excuse for murder. How will any honour be restored by shedding the blood of your child to restore your status in your community, such thinking is not only warped, by such actions you cannot be deserving of anything but the toughest sanctions without the option for parole or mitigation.

It is not that the battle for the freedom of expression has been totally won, many battles remain amongst us and beyond us, I celebrate the fact that anyone can choose to love who they want as adults and not fear to express that love openly – that is the hallmark of a civilised society and we must all strive towards that state of living and let live; the amicable coexistence of our human diversity.

Opinion: Some universal concepts from the SCOTUS sexuality opinions

Clarity of opinions

I have always felt that on matters of social justice when cases are brought to challenge a perceived infringement of rights, justices do take their time to give their opinions which might become case law if those opinions go unchallenged afterwards.

When it comes to the issue of the separation of religion and state, the justices in the United Kingdom have been lucid and comprehensive in the views they have expressed that one cannot but agree with them.

Just last week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that many will say have a rather conservative leaning on many issues ruled on the matter of same-sex relationships and the recognition of such relationships, again, I see a universal application of their thinking joining case law when such issues arise elsewhere in the world – the arguments are well made.

Liberty for all

There are many SCOTUS opinions, opinions being the majority verdicts searchable at the Cornell University Law School Portal, many of which I cannot cover but going by the opinions of Justice Anthony Kennedy who apparently has been at the centre of gay rights for the past decade, there are gems to take away.

It is clear that in the 21^st Century, we are faced with issues that must compel us to promote liberty, ensure dignity, remove inequality and excoriate humiliation, these are the core elements of that govern every civil rights causes and it must stand paramount in quest for civilising our humanity daily.

I have a liberal to libertarian slant on these matters and I have liberally quoted from my sources at NPR and Cornell University Law School to support the views and understanding I have of the opinions.

We are not in a police state

The SCOTUS in a 6-3 decision in 2003 struck down the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” law that criminalised some sexual acts in Lawrence v. Texas, this was a case where two gay men engaged in consensual sex in a private home were arrested, charged and jailed – more background here – liberty and freedom formed the basis of the opinions.

“Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the state is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the state should not be a dominant presence.”

Clear as this is, it suggests that the state should be limited in its access to dwelling places and private places except where it is warranted, it however should not be a dominant presence in our lives that it begins to operate like a police state – if a person is not a resident of a police state, then the state must constrain its surveillance into private affairs.

Autonomy or regulation

“Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

This again builds on the foregoing except if the state intends to regulate thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct – then the question arises as to how far the state will be allowed to regulate such for certain people until it arrogates the responsibility to regulate it for all.

This becomes pertinent when moralist laws are promulgated predicated on religion, culture, traditions and much else, the state must not extent its function to civil society to then encroach on the individual liberties of the people.

Mandating moral codes

Before, this view is extrapolated to support licentiousness, the SCOTUS goes on to develop this thinking.

“It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives.”

Here, the court acknowledges in 1986 that centuries old laws had deemed homosexual conduct as immoral and agreed that the concerns of opponents of homosexuality were not trivial.

However, in the following excerpt, the SCOTUS returned to the role of guaranteeing liberty.

“The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

Here, the court curtails the power of the state by saying it should not take what the majority views as immoral and legislate on that view to create criminal law. As with the court, the state should rise to the responsibility of guaranteeing liberty for all and not be manipulated to mandate moral codes.

I see this view as quite pervasive and universal in the separation of religion and the state except where the state is governed by a theocracy and all the citizens of that state follow the same beliefs, tenets and doctrines. Where the citizens are not of similar and equal beliefs, it behoves the state to err on the side of secularity guaranteeing freedoms and liberties rather than codifying moral views into laws.

Protection and dignity

In United States v. Windsor, which was brought to challenge the Defence of Marriage Act of 1996 where the surviving spouse of a legally married sex-same couple in another country, then recognised at the state level in the country of their residence was not given federal estate tax exemption at by the Inland Revenue Service.

There are broader issues particular to the United States but there are universal concepts to take away from the opinion offered by the SCOTUS.

“In authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.”

The key words where are protection, dignity, lawful conduct, legal acknowledgement, intimate relationship and equality.

Whilst communities around the world differ, they are evolving and whatever historical roots and systems those communities might have, the institutions they hold dear are coming under more persuasion towards more equality and this has applied throughout history on matters of privilege, citizenship, gender, beliefs, disability, sexuality and much else.

Laws injuring protection

Society strives towards egalitarianism where the equality of opportunity is not defined by status but through ability, character, merit and basic rights.

“DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.”

Here, the SCOTUS opines that there should not be an overarching statute that seeks to injure a class that already receives protection from such injury.

It goes without saying that the quest to protect a minority should of essence eventually have the support of a higher power to ensure that minority receives protection within the domain of that higher power – a process of time but where that protection is refused there is just cause to challenge that view as a matter of fairness, rights and justice.

“This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

Here, the SCOTUS questioned an overarching law promulgated to disapprove, discriminate and impose a disadvantage on a class, thereby stigmatising those who belong to a class already given protection.

Eliminating inequality

“When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code.”

The SCOTUS is clear in this by saying a federal law is writing inequality into the constitution, having same before that, “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

“The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

In general, the law does not just affect the principals, it affects the innocent offspring of that intimate relationship which is by no means illegitimate, but legal, valid and recognised as the community has evolved in its understanding of such relationships.

Unnecessary burdens

“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.”

Not only do they have their lives burdened but unnecessarily burdened by reason of government decree – this burden is what the SCOTUS sought to remove by declaring DOMA unconstitutional.

Whilst we might generally agree that marriage constitutes the union of a man and a woman, the broader and wider definition of marriage today as society has evolved now is the union of partners regardless of the pairing of genders – it is the recognition of an intimate relationship of people who have committed to have that relationship recognised and with it will come all the accoutrements and benefits of having had that loving, intimate and committed relationship in life and in death.

In Africa and beyond

In Africa where the advent of anti-homosexual fervour and the promulgation of homophobic laws is gaining traction, the communities have yet to reach that level of guaranteeing liberties in such a way that their lawmakers do not preoccupy themselves with mandating moral codes and criminalising views the majority consider immoral conduct, but the opinions stated above will almost eventually lay the basis of arguing the human rights issues of minorities beyond just the matter of sexuality.

I am of the view that when the core purpose of protecting the liberty of all is the guiding principle of the courts above all else, in the hands of good human rights lawyers, no law will remain in our statute books that seeks to discriminate, denigrate, disapprove or stigmatise an African because they believe differently, act differently, or espouse views and lifestyles that are different and thereby all Africans will have equal access to justice, fairness and be protected from menace, sanction or injury to live in peace regardless of who they are.

Dogged by Goth prejudice

Knowing nothing about Goths

We have at times found ourselves in the primitive state of allowing our prejudices to becloud our better judgement.

If we are then challenged about those prejudices, we attempt to defend the indefensible whilst successfully making fools of ourselves.

I am not entirely familiar with the Goth sub-culture but I know that they look threatening enough in their black robes, long hair and piercings in all sorts of places – that is their choice of appearance.

At liberty as adults

In fact, I remain a strong advocate of the thought that we should never be embarrassed for doing what we as adults decide to do within the law and with mutual consent of the parties involved.

Some of those activities, many might find reprehensible, but then we have the choice not to countenance the situation or try and think through the matter, just look away.

Some instances might be difficult like the case of a Goth couple, the male, Dani Graves, 25, and his mate (fiancée) Tasha Maltby, 19, had taken to appearing in public with a dog collar on a leash round the neck of the lady.

Unusual as this might seem to the public, there is no law against anyone willing to be restrained in that manner – the fundamentals being willingness and informed consent. The lady prefers to live a dogs life - her prerogative.

Live and let live

Now, being an advocate for personal freedom and the freedom from mental or obvious shackles, I am sorry that anyone would want to adopt such a submissive posture – but each one to his/her own.

I would then hope that people will and can restrain themselves from heaping opprobrium on either party no matter how strongly they feel about this depiction.

It so happens that this couple was ejected from one bus and not granted leave to board another bus both operated Arriva Yorkshire.

Their defence was there were fears for passenger safety especially if the bus were to brake suddenly.

Their advice was that they would only allow the lady to board their buses if she removed her dog lead.

Easy Questions for difficult answers

Two questions arise from this development.

Are dogs allowed on Arriva Yorkshire buses?

It would appear dogs are allowed to travel free of charge on Arriva North West and Wales buses which are part of the Arriva Group. There probably is a similar kind of deal in other regions and maybe the handlers have to pay a fee to travel with their dogs.

Who would be affected if the bus did brake suddenly?

I would suppose everyone would be affected, a real dog on a lead or a person on a dog lead along with every other occupant of the bus.

If this does give that much serious concern I would suggest that seat belts be mandatory to all occupants of a bus sitting down and dogs should be in restraining harnesses rather than mere leads to travel on buses.

In fact, it would be preferable to have no standing in buses; all buses should have all seating carriages.

Prejudice expressed apology extracted

That however is, the objective part of this discourse because the obvious prejudice was expressed in these words as the driver literally manhandled the couple – “We don't let freaks and dogs like you on”. That was in England in 2008.

I rest my case as an apology from Arriva Yorkshire wends its way to the seriously offended couple.

Some video about the issue.

Deserving neither liberty nor safety

Losing the protection of our liberties

Sometimes I bewildered about who is becoming the extremist in this unceasing War on Terror or War on Terrorism, could it be the terrorists or our governments?

The indicators versus the reactions are just too outlandish for contemplation, one sometimes wonders if the terrorists have not now achieved well beyond the nominal goal of curtailing our freedoms and overrunning our liberties with impunity.

A few years ago, it was the shoe bomber that lead to security staff asking us to take off our shoes at the security screening posts, one would have thought we were about to enter a mosque.

Last August it was the alleged desire of some terrorists without passports or air tickets to take down transatlantic planes with everyday cosmetics and whilst an outright ban on cosmetics would have left us no different from women in Purdah, the inability to take through drinks might just eventually lead to the inability to use toilets on the plane, just in case the contact between bodily fluids and toilet disinfectants causes noxious fumes.

Thankfully, the ban on hand luggage was relaxed as sense eventually prevailed.

The vigilant public

So, a number of vehicles have been apprehended before their lethal cargo was detonated to create great havoc. None of the two vehicles in London were noticed by the security measures we have in place, rather, the public observed smoke coming out of one car and another had been towed away for wrongful parking.

Luck, rather that methodical data mining or some counter-terrorism measure sifting through yottabytes of data and CCTV footage got these culprits and nipped a possible carnage in the bud.

Out goes the argument for identity cards preventing terrorism; it is a consciously alert and observant community with clear social responsibilities enhanced by trust and NOT a nannying state that overcomes terrorism; our vigilance must be cultivated and nurtured to the good of society - they should not take advantage of the circumstance to and unwarranted suspicion in our multi-cultural communities.

However, because one such vehicle approached the airport in Glasgow by ramming into the entrance as a burning object, we cannot now approach airports in our cars - there is a car ban. The drop-off/pick-up culture has met a sudden demise, as our cautious application of preventative measures encroach seriously on our rights of access and movement in the quest for some temporary safety.

The perception of temporary safety

Generally, we would all acquiesce to this curtailment whilst the Home Secretary goes into overdrive enacting new laws to protect us by denying us a few more of the rights people spilt blood for in the 20^th Century.

One cannot expect a commonsense approach to the threat of terrorism as the authorities are caught in a no-win situation - to do nothing is to be careless and when something is done, it is irrational but made to look sensible.

There is probably an amusing perspective to all this, which is how the threat of terrorism is able to create governmental hysteria or paralysis coupled with paranoia whilst the government tries to create a calming atmosphere for the general public.

If airports and aircraft are really the soft targets for terrorists, these bans are hardly working, we should just ground the planes and tell passengers to stay at home - even the Carbon Nazis would rejoice that the sudden reduction of carbon pollution.

But like the oft-attributed and oft-misquoted saying of Benjamin Franklin in 1759 - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - how that rings truer today than then.

So, our governments give us temporary safety from terrorist threats by untrammelled curtailment of our essential liberties, we find that we are neither in safety nor in liberty and frankly, we deserve neither.

Who is winning this war?

Celebrating Guantanamo Bay at Five

The legacy of the war

We have traded our liberties for a chance to make our democracies our Big Brother. We have terrified ourselves that air travel is now the joy of masochists, the appearance of a gloved hand is the pleasure of an intrusion of a different kind.

We decried their assault on our way of life and then housed their brothers out of the reach of due process, they got a new name and what is the Geneva Convention when you can offer a Pentagon Conundrum.

Then for holiday photos with inspiration from the house in Cuba, a man in a poncho transmitting electricity like Benjamin Franklin’s first experiment.

The only detail they haven’t asked of us is how many pints of blood course through our veins, but it would not be long before your life is The Truman Show to every peering voyeur that works for that government agency that your taxes fund.

Privacy is word that means your government is the custodian of confidential matters with which they dictate your place in society, if you deviate from the script you are a terrorist to be hunted down in a fashion that hounds would find humane.

There is a war, a war on terror, a war that presents greater terror to our peace than the terrorists every imagined.

Did, Benjamin Franklin not say - Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Of all we have given up, we have a party to attend – Camp Delta - Guantanamo Bay is 5 today, let us celebrate our bondage in the quest for safety, we are indeed free to be bound. Let’s Party! However, below are your directions - The Road to Guantanamo.

Being fooled out of my liberty for temporary safety

Hating our freedoms

Each time I hear that mantra about terrorists hating our freedoms, I look at how we have systematically moved beyond what terrorists might have intended with how we have curtailed our own freedoms in the quest for safety.

In the Netherlands, until about a year ago, it was OK to walk around with a photocopy of your identity like passport and offer the real thing when specifically asked at a later date.

For people who are not Dutch citizens, their identity is really kept in their passports and they have to carry that around with them amidst the clamour about illegal immigrants and crime, nobody has thought about the additional consequences of the loss of such important documents – they just want to see your identity, no other questions asked.

Air Travel Gloom

Months ago, I spelt the end of the joy of air travel with those outrageous restrictions predicated on people who were going to blow up trans-Atlantic flights that they would probably have boarded without passports, tickets and by mixing baby milk and toothpaste, scenting it with some celebrity piss water.

We now have uniform European regulations about what you can carry on board a flight; my advise, check it all on, forget the hand baggage stuff, they even take my cane off me so that I can hobble through the screening machine.

Besides, considering the Islamophobia that surrounds some of these benign rules, we pay homage by having to take off our shoes, just as if I were entering a mosque.

Now my bank

Nothing really got to me more than when I got this letter in the weekend requiring me to visit a branch of my bank within 10 working days to show my identity and give my signature to be recorded in some secure system – probably available to some secret service personnel anywhere in the world.

The fact is, if the data is collected, no matter the assurances at collection, it can be unscrupulously accessed, laws can change granting untrammelled access to the data on the premise of protecting our security.

The veiled threat, even though I have run the account for about 7 years and it has probably handled transactions that total over half a million Euros, is, they will be forced to block my account with the comforting statement – We naturally assume that this would not be necessary.

The kind of statement you can expect if the matron at Guantanamo Bay called round to pat your head, or maybe, give you a dunking.

Identity card flawed logic

This follows the premise that having an identity card prevents terrorism, as if the document has a bleeper that indicates a terrorist is in the vicinity.

The other thing would be if banks have been offered a watch list such that you walk into the bank and before you know it, truck loads of armed personnel are shooting down the door to cart you away a cadaver victim of excitable but suspect intelligence.

None of this stuff bodes well for our civil liberties and we are lead like helpless sheep to the slaughter of all was won and blood spilt for in the last century.

Fooled out of liberty

I should now expect a visit to the bank that handles my mortgage, then one to the bank that handles my credit card, I wonder if I have to go to Brighton to get certified to use my American Express card – where would all this end?

Then, I suddenly, I wonder if I am deserving of my freedom or liberty as our parliamentarians allow the politics of fear, the lifeblood of the war on terrorism to obliterate the essential context of Benjamin Franklin’s words of over 250 years ago.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” – What do we have left of our liberty and how safe do we feel?

Beyond that, I would give Abraham Lincoln the last word on this matter, in the midst of all that is being done to ensure we are no more caught unawares by terrorist, are we being fooled or taken for fools?

“You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time”

Bush learnt that lesson last week; hopefully, more people would refuse to be fooled anymore by this phoney war of power trips and marauding police states in Western democracies, in the name of the war on terror.

References

Liquid Bombers Prove: “They hate our freedoms”

Freedom, the prison of civil society

An admission in remission

The end does not justify the means

When President Bush yesterday admitted to the existence of CIA secret prisons along with the consideration that information obtained from certain of the imprisoned has since prevented terrorism attacks, I thought I could see in the background Niccolò Machiavelli being introduced as Press Secretary (Minister of Propaganda would be too 1930s to contemplate.).

The thought that hardened terrorists would voluntarily divulge information to Americans about plans they might have painstakingly arranged to bring ill to America does take a bit of imagination.

The Gitmo Workbook

In fact, the Abu Ghraib abuse which appeared routine as a means of warped entertainment and in reality blatant torture appears to have come of the Guantanamo Bay workbook since the man-in-charge there was brought in to toughen up the regime at Abu Ghraib.

Somehow, we just have found it difficult to believe protestations of Americans about not torturing their prisoners; caught in the web of the broad terror principle and this Machiavellian notion that subscribes to extraordinary rendition, the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the military tribunals and the unwarranted eavesdropping on Americans.

Immoral grounds

One by one, each of these has been completely discredited if not declared illegal, but we have torturously drawn water from stone as this admission now comes into the light of day.

One more admission is required, by whose authority was the CIA agents shopped to the press?

In all, everything that allows America to maintain the high moral ground in this war on terror has been lost to hubris and bluster, the former is the delusional confidence in the projection of American power and the other can easily be championed by Donald Rumsfeld.

Where truly we have been saved from some terrorist attack we are grateful for those mercies, however using the fear of terror to justify actions and activities that would not stand the scrutiny of basic terms of justice and fairness whilst we are continually stripped of our liberties for the sake of our supposed safety is nasty, unconscionable and Machiavellian – the end will never justify the means.

We have become our own terrorists

Why? Because we become the terrorists we are trying to fight, we deny ourselves the power of our democracies just as the terrorists would have liked to do and our so-called freedoms are rolled back into the bondage of a police state, worse than where those terrorists came from.

As it stands, the only leadership quality America now serves is in having funds and having guns, it is left to others to play the deft hand of real diplomacy in the New World Order.

The end to presidential voyeurism

War against the presidential juggernaut

Somehow the presidential mandate in the United States cannot be accused for not putting up a robust fight in protecting the American People – whatever that means; it is an emotive appellation that deludes the group it refers to into a fall sense of security as their rights get trampled on.

Many bloggers including myself have derided vehemently the assumed untrammelled powers of the Presidency post 9-11 to abrogate legislative and judicial oversight under the premise of being the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war.

The one that has received the biggest brick-bats is the exercise of presidential privilege in the unwarranted surveillance of American citizens, the revelation of which caused stirs and the government in no mean terms condemned as unpatriotic and the most top secret activity in the war against terror.

The new un-American

The concern here is that the War on Terror has become a blanket term to separate acquiescing citizens whose complacency regarding their liberties and freedoms have been encroached upon with impunity and are assuaged with occasional coincidentally well placed security alerts from those who question the rationale behind many of those alerts and the intentions of the government.

The apologists are on the verge of calling the thinking ones un-American, time will tell if the ghost of Joe McCarthy does not return to haunt Americans, this time not on Communist activities but on trying to retain liberties, freedom and privacy over the behemoth of the State.

A timely judgement

Now, judgement has been returned in a suit filed in January 2006 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the National Security Agency (NSA).

After weighing the government’s well-rehearsed mantra on state secrets, presidential war time claims of prerogative and powers as well as supposed value of the exercise against the issues of the first and fourth amendment, the separation of powers and existing laws regarding surveillance, the judge found in favour of the plaintiff.

On a broader scale, this is in favour of the sleeping majority who have allowed the machinery of government, especially this on to run roughshod over their rights which as a matter of course is enshrined in their constitution but never tested except in times of adversity.

Beyond that, it shows that the government should not take advantage of one situation (9-11) to exercise power in over other circumstances (constitutional rights) with the premise that all issues are related to some all-consuming desire to ensure national security – this is the whole aberration of the War on Terror.

For the world at large, hopefully, it would really help buttress the case of civil liberties where other governments appropriate the War on Terror and the American unconstitutional practices to clamp down on their people aspirations for the American freedoms of old.

Illegal, unconstitutional – STOP NOW!

In a 44-page judgement, the judge has declared surveillance without warrants unconstitutional and asked for them to be stopped forthwith. It is a definitely a setback for the Bush administration, but as expected, the government would appeal the ruling – this in the light of the fact that the Supreme Court has already told the President he does not have a blank cheque.

That cheque is written in the ink of the US Constitution, though pre-signed by the American People is only to the amount approved by the legislature, only then can the executive cash that cheque with the oversight in processing of the judiciary – that is the working of democracy – something we always get preached at us from the White House every time we try to catch breath.

What is strange is this landmark ruling does not to be hitting the headlines as much as other news stories like the tobacco industry getting away scot-free for deceiving customers with their advertising. How we get our priorities in a twist, at times.

Iraq is far away from a Gettysburg Address

The address of great import

Four months after a battle in which 7,500 soldiers perished, an afternoon was chosen for the dedication of the soldiers’ cemetery.

The program, elaborate as it was included an oration that last two hours after which the president was to give dedicatory remarks.

In 10 sentences of 272 words, his words were few but its message was loud and clear, if not laden with meaning beyond the reading of the message.

Those remarks are now referred to as the Gettysburg Address and it ended with the following words …

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” – Abraham Lincoln

Knowing the cause

From these closing remarks, Abraham Lincoln drew some specific inferences that matter in terms of history, occasion, politics, governance, freedom, liberty and civic duty.

They matter in that they establish in clarity the context in which our democracies must operate and how those who exercise authority should defer to the magnitude of their responsibility.

First, that we should recognise those that went before us in creating the society in which we now live and engage in fervent promotion of those values they espoused for the future in which we now live.

Second, that the cause of freedom for which life has been lost must never be derogated to goals that deprive us of those hard-earned liberties.

Third, that the things that make us united and the things that underpin our moral tenets offer opportunities of greater freedom.

And lastly, these are the things that give meaning to our democracy.

Not ready for a Gettysburg address

When I review these inferences, it begins to make sense why Iraq after four months of elections a leader has not emerged for the government for the people.

The country is in so much tumult, people are still dying that the “cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” cannot materialise for adequate reflection.

Whilst we are still counting the dead, one cannot get to the point where “these dead shall not have died in vain”.

The nation of Iraq is an amalgam of disparate tribal and religious entities in conflict and far from agreement, the expected “new birth of freedom” looks patently stillborn.

So, even though the people have spoken, they have not yet been heard such that “that government of the people, by the people, for the people” has not taken root to allow for it to endure.

However, it is the earnest desire of many, especially now, the people of Iraq to see that their dreams and desires for peace, freedom, liberty, justice and good governance does “not perish from the earth”.

Looking for a Gettysburg moment

Whilst Iraq has exceeded in numbers the count of the dead and injured in battle as compared Gettysburg, they are far from a Gettysburg moment.

The closing remarks of the orator (Edward Everett) clearly indicate that Iraq is seriously unfinished business in need of a greater appreciation of what has past, what is now and where we are headed for the future.

“But they, I am sure, will join us in saying, as we bid farewell to the dust of these martyr-heroes, that where so ever throughout the civilized world the accounts of this great warfare are read, and down to the latest period of recorded time, in the glorious annals of our common country, there will be no brighter page than that which relates the Battles of Gettysburg”

The battles of Iraq for now have no particular end in sight; tectonic plates of opinion and process need to shift for that sight to be acquired.

References

Powerpoints on the Gettysburg Address

Madhatters cap on civil liberties

Humphrey, not Bogart

One would not look out of place in the 1950s being not what you might call trendy. Well, once I found myself seeking a Nigerian “restaurant” in Amsterdam South-East which has a train-station facing façade of modernity and newness which concealed an interior which might have been a 1982 throw-back with a sign “Welcome to Beirut”. Out of place, out of heart, out of my comfort zone.

The point, I wear hats, a boater in the height of summer, a bowler in deepest cold winter – these represent extremes that include a trilby, a fedora, and a bushman’s hat made of kangaroo leather – so soft and tender – yea, a panama but never a top hat – just one under ten for all occasions and weather.

The solemnity of retail therapy in a milliners or hat shop is refreshingly enlivening, a time to be enjoyed as you test the patience of the shop-keeper – but I like the idea of them making it if I cannot find what I want – delivered 2 weeks hence.

Not an obsession, but half of them are bespoke from a milliners in Cologne; a dear couple who have been master milliners since before 1969.

Hats for pats

Very occasionally, one sees a bowler on display, however, when last I was in England, the other three people I met wearing bowler hats were landed gentry who had come up from the country to see their attorneys or accountants. Three times my age and three hundred times as wealthy.

In Amsterdam, it is probable that after asking 10 people you could almost narrow down whom I am. Man, suit, cravat, pouchet, hat and cane (mostly for my back after long walks) or sturdy full length umbrella.

The distinguishing part being the hat – in some quarters, I might be dandy – I think I am just well turned out.

When indoors, obviously, the hat comes off; however, taking the hat off is not required of ladies and caps are just not so.

M’ lady, the hat comes off

So, this lady visits a pub in England and she is advised to take her hat off, not so much as a matter of courtesy but because her hat obstructs views of the Closed Circuit TV system in the pub. Utterly, utterly uncouth – I cough.

Maybe, that is understandable for both crime prevention and the recording of events if an altercation breaks out.

They have 13 cameras inside the pub – blimey! The sanctum of English conviviality; the English pub - has been invaded by modern technology.

Nothing wrong with trying to maintain a sense of security for person and property, but it is also now a dangerous place for a fling.

Surveillance, definitely not security

Imagine a partner filled with scorn being able to subpoena the tapes in some legal battle, and before long VHS or Betamax would have a revival as a legal pub license would require retaining recordings ad infinitum.

That is just one social angle, I have not returned to the UK since February 2001, I hear they have one camera per 14 people making it the Big Brother country in the world. [1] [2]

Even so, it is quoted that you might appear 300 times on camera in any one day in London. It is surveillance for the sake of more tape leading to the rape of civility.

A fine day for a fine

There is a thin line between the need for security along with crime prevention and the unwarranted invasion of privacy as one caught a caught a man “jerking the gherkin” in a secluded station car park – Episode 4.

We all are used to those cameras that flash your crime as you go a smidgen above the speed limit; however, there was the case a lady who was under the speed limit but was nabbed for having her hands off the steering trying to look beautiful.

How have our liberties departed

One fears for what it all means, but I dread the day when someone walks up to me with a compliment, “Suits you, sir” and then asks me to take my hat off, on a London street – I lament – Oh! How have our liberties departed.