Reality can be stranger than fiction. As the final votes from the federal election are counted the Australian Broadcasting Corporation predicts the governing Labor Party and the conservative Liberal-National Coalition will both have won 73 seats in the House of Representatives. On Saturday some 11 million citizens cast their votes, but in a twist of fate the decision on who forms the next government rests with a handful of independent MPs.
General elections don’t end in draws. It is an outcome so implausible as to make even works of fiction absurd. In the 2008 film Swing Vote a bizarre set of circumstances see red-neck Bud Johnson entitled to recast a spoilt ballot in the full knowledge that his choice will swing his state, and determine the next President of the United States. The seemingly ridiculous premise is not so distant from the reality now facing Australia.
Julia Gillard, the prime minister, and opposition leader Tony Abbott are scrambling to secure the support of independent MPs, for which each will certainly demand a price. So do these newfound kingmakers represent Australia?
Adam Bandt is a Green Party MP who just defeated Labor in one of its safest seats; yet he has worked extensively with trade unions and has already stated his support for a Labor Government.
Tony Crook is actually a member of the Coalition’s National Party, but in his state the Nationals have opted out of the Coalition, and it won’t get his support without making concessions to rural interests.
Both Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are also conservatives, and each used to be in the Coalition’s National Party. However Windsor has made a 20 year career beating Coalition candidates, and his support depends on improving broadband networks and renewable energy. Oakeshott demands reform of the Senate and improved funding for rural Australia.
Andrew Wilkie campaigns on issues spanning the political spectrum. A former intelligence officer who resigned over Australia’s participation in the Iraq War, he has previously been a member of both the Coalition (Liberal Party) and the Greens.
If all this wasn’t odd enough, finally there’s the walking contradiction that is Bob Katter. A self-proclaimed “wild boy from wild country”, Katter campaigned in a Stetson hat with adverts where the line “Yeeehaaa” would not have been out of context. Unfathomably, he’s a conservative but wants state subsidies and opposes privatisation and economic deregulation. He rejects computers, but wants improved broadband. He is a climate change sceptic opposed to carbon trading, but has said he’d follow the Greens in a hung parliament.
The next Australian Government will be decided according to the wishes of this handful of eccentric men. 11 million people voted, but a hung parliament means their wishes are yesterday’s news. Whether the government is from the left or right will now be determined by whichever side can best cave to the demands of a small number of unorthodox representatives. Some may say that’s democratic. I think it is a great argument to take the choice away from parliamentarians, and hand to the people the right to directly elect their government.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Inter Milan Have Taken Football Back to the Dark Ages
As in every other aspect of life, football is fundamentally subject to inequality. Not every club can have the same resources, money, following or talent as others. Out of this come elite clubs that seemingly swap trophies or champions league places year after year. This is a simple fact of life that never truly bothered me before. I was happy to see the champions league final of 2008 being contested by the worlds most talented players and managers. I was even happy, despite being a Celtic fan, to see Rangers reach the Uefa Cup final the year before.
Rangers were the underdogs. They couldn't afford to bring in players of the quality of the opposition they met at every stage of the competition. The tactics they employed were designed to disrupt the play of technically superior attacking players, and it worked. Well, until the final.
Back to the 2008/09 champions league and Inter Milan were beaten 2-0 by Manchester United in the second round. Mourinho took note, and in the next year he refreshed his tactics, seemingly inspired by Walter Smith, (although much more likely by his previous Champions League victory with Porto, another underdog side). So with a squad of international talent, with former champions league winners, millionaire players and a team with an indisputable claim to being an elite club, Mourinho adopted what many critics claim as anti-football tactics. And herein lies the problem, my complaint, to what Mourinho has done to my favourite game. He has made it acceptable to both fans and chairmen to pay players in excess of £80,000 to repress expression of their talent and of the opposition.
It is wholly acceptable, and desirable, to see the likes of Walter Smith's Rangers throw men behind the ball in a bid to win games against the odds. It is not, in my view, for clubs on a par with the opposition to do the same. How would the sport look if all the other top clubs adopted Mourinho's tactics? It's always easier to defend than to attack in sport. In a World Cup stunted with goaless draws, can we now look forward to a Champions League of similar caution?
Rangers were the underdogs. They couldn't afford to bring in players of the quality of the opposition they met at every stage of the competition. The tactics they employed were designed to disrupt the play of technically superior attacking players, and it worked. Well, until the final.
Back to the 2008/09 champions league and Inter Milan were beaten 2-0 by Manchester United in the second round. Mourinho took note, and in the next year he refreshed his tactics, seemingly inspired by Walter Smith, (although much more likely by his previous Champions League victory with Porto, another underdog side). So with a squad of international talent, with former champions league winners, millionaire players and a team with an indisputable claim to being an elite club, Mourinho adopted what many critics claim as anti-football tactics. And herein lies the problem, my complaint, to what Mourinho has done to my favourite game. He has made it acceptable to both fans and chairmen to pay players in excess of £80,000 to repress expression of their talent and of the opposition.
It is wholly acceptable, and desirable, to see the likes of Walter Smith's Rangers throw men behind the ball in a bid to win games against the odds. It is not, in my view, for clubs on a par with the opposition to do the same. How would the sport look if all the other top clubs adopted Mourinho's tactics? It's always easier to defend than to attack in sport. In a World Cup stunted with goaless draws, can we now look forward to a Champions League of similar caution?
Sunday, 9 May 2010
What the prime minister should have said: A statesman's statement
"Good afternoon.
I am proud to have been part of a Labour Government these past thirteen years.
The country is a better place than when we arrived here in Downing Street in May 1997. Britain today is undoubtedly a fairer, safer, healthier, more prosperous and a more tolerant society than it was then.
Devolution has allowed Scotland and Wales to determine what is right for them, and strengthened the bonds of our United Kingdom. It has defeated the narrow nationalists who cannot see these nations are stronger together than they would be apart.
The National Minimum Wage has ended what amounted to slave labour.
Tax credits help those on low incomes and working families to reap the rewards of their hard work.
Free nursery places for 3 to 5 year olds ensure no child is left behind before they even start school.
We have ended the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament.
We have extended statutory maternity pay and paternity leave.
We have given the elderly free tv licenses, and our winter fuel allowance ensures our senior citizens need never worry about keeping warm in their homes.
We have created civil unions, given legal recognition and equality to all families whatever their make-up. We have ended state discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.
With partners across these islands, we have achieved peace in Northern Ireland.
We sought a historic fourth term to further these achievements, and to tackle those issues which must still be addressed. We believe we offered the best government for Britain. The results are now in and the new Parliament is hung. The people have not endorsed either party’s platform. The next government has no automatic right to get its way. Consensus must be sought.
Some in my party have said with no outright winner we should attempt to form a progressive alliance to keep the Tories out.
But the people have spoken, their intent is clear. With more seats and more votes, we must accept that the British people have chosen to give the Conservatives a chance to form an administration.
We must remember that governments come and go, that the honourable duties of loyal opposition are infinitely better than clinging to power as a dishonourable government.
In ordinary times seeking to hang on would be foolish. To do so in a time of economic uncertainty, in a time of war when our troops risk their lives for democracy, would be a betrayal of those we serve. We owe it to the British people to put the national interest before that of our party.
Serving as their Prime Minister and Chancellor has been a tremendous honour. I am eternally grateful for having been given the opportunity to serve our wonderful nation. I am privileged to continue to do so as a representative in parliament, holding the new Government to account.
If you will excuse me, Her Majesty has kindly granted me an audience."
I am proud to have been part of a Labour Government these past thirteen years.
The country is a better place than when we arrived here in Downing Street in May 1997. Britain today is undoubtedly a fairer, safer, healthier, more prosperous and a more tolerant society than it was then.
Devolution has allowed Scotland and Wales to determine what is right for them, and strengthened the bonds of our United Kingdom. It has defeated the narrow nationalists who cannot see these nations are stronger together than they would be apart.
The National Minimum Wage has ended what amounted to slave labour.
Tax credits help those on low incomes and working families to reap the rewards of their hard work.
Free nursery places for 3 to 5 year olds ensure no child is left behind before they even start school.
We have ended the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament.
We have extended statutory maternity pay and paternity leave.
We have given the elderly free tv licenses, and our winter fuel allowance ensures our senior citizens need never worry about keeping warm in their homes.
We have created civil unions, given legal recognition and equality to all families whatever their make-up. We have ended state discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.
With partners across these islands, we have achieved peace in Northern Ireland.
We sought a historic fourth term to further these achievements, and to tackle those issues which must still be addressed. We believe we offered the best government for Britain. The results are now in and the new Parliament is hung. The people have not endorsed either party’s platform. The next government has no automatic right to get its way. Consensus must be sought.
Some in my party have said with no outright winner we should attempt to form a progressive alliance to keep the Tories out.
But the people have spoken, their intent is clear. With more seats and more votes, we must accept that the British people have chosen to give the Conservatives a chance to form an administration.
We must remember that governments come and go, that the honourable duties of loyal opposition are infinitely better than clinging to power as a dishonourable government.
In ordinary times seeking to hang on would be foolish. To do so in a time of economic uncertainty, in a time of war when our troops risk their lives for democracy, would be a betrayal of those we serve. We owe it to the British people to put the national interest before that of our party.
Serving as their Prime Minister and Chancellor has been a tremendous honour. I am eternally grateful for having been given the opportunity to serve our wonderful nation. I am privileged to continue to do so as a representative in parliament, holding the new Government to account.
If you will excuse me, Her Majesty has kindly granted me an audience."
Friday, 7 May 2010
The Hung Parliament must not strangle democracy.
Ordinarily, Britain doesn't do hung parliaments. For all the talk of legitimacy demanding the victors carry the support of more than half the electorate, an election yielding a government without the parliamentary might to quash the combined strength of all other parties is viewed as a failure.
British democracy has evolved a public desire for strong government. Britons have been content for it to be provided by the party gaining largest support, even one most of them did not support. Perhaps uniquely, our democratic system is based not on powerful masses tolerating a minority’s dissent, but on the dissenting masses tolerating the largest minority ruling.
That system may seem absurd, but it is built on noble characteristics: Trust in our rivals, a confidence that absolute legislative power will not corrupt them to the point of endangering the system. Mutual confidence in each other's self-restraint and moral judgement has served us well; the system has survived massive government majorities, deep reforms never strayed into revolution. Ultimately an effective government without majority support has been preferable to an ineffective minority administration, or one claiming majority support on the spurious grounds of cobbled together policies plucked from the manifestos of numerous parties, whose combined programme was never submitted to the electorate.
Support for proportional representation is fashionable. They say first past the post is a relic, a hangover from the long gone era of two party politics. That is naive. Our system grants the people the power to determine who forms government. The price is sacrificing group interests to those of the country, namely stability and efficiency.
Other countries without our history of moderation and restraint cannot abide such a system, the potential for abuse of power is simply too great. PR is their safety net, guaranteeing moderation by forcing compromise. It works, but it also ensures elections merely give politicians bargaining chips to trade in negotiations for government; the voters do not choose the government themselves. PR transfers power from people to politicians.
Britain's system is far from perfect, there is urgent need for change. Westminster does not provide the democratic legitimacy it should, but its shortcomings can be remedied while retaining its virtues. Open primaries would ensure local people choose the candidates, ending the complacency of MPs in safe seats. A Senate could deliver greater proportionality and hold strong governments to account. Direct prime ministerial election would grant everyone a meaningful say in who takes executive power. Separation of powers would free parliament of the corrupting influence of government patronage. By such means we could truly transform British democracy.
This election is inconclusive: The clear rejection of one government has not carried to the clear election of another. In this rare Hung Parliament the Liberal Democrats may barter for proportional representation. That is undemocratic, ensuring all elections repeat yesterday's placing the power to form government in the hands of party leaders. Advanced democracy requires such power rest with the people, not the politicians. Proportional representation could entrench hung parliaments, strangling democracy.
British democracy has evolved a public desire for strong government. Britons have been content for it to be provided by the party gaining largest support, even one most of them did not support. Perhaps uniquely, our democratic system is based not on powerful masses tolerating a minority’s dissent, but on the dissenting masses tolerating the largest minority ruling.
That system may seem absurd, but it is built on noble characteristics: Trust in our rivals, a confidence that absolute legislative power will not corrupt them to the point of endangering the system. Mutual confidence in each other's self-restraint and moral judgement has served us well; the system has survived massive government majorities, deep reforms never strayed into revolution. Ultimately an effective government without majority support has been preferable to an ineffective minority administration, or one claiming majority support on the spurious grounds of cobbled together policies plucked from the manifestos of numerous parties, whose combined programme was never submitted to the electorate.
Support for proportional representation is fashionable. They say first past the post is a relic, a hangover from the long gone era of two party politics. That is naive. Our system grants the people the power to determine who forms government. The price is sacrificing group interests to those of the country, namely stability and efficiency.
Other countries without our history of moderation and restraint cannot abide such a system, the potential for abuse of power is simply too great. PR is their safety net, guaranteeing moderation by forcing compromise. It works, but it also ensures elections merely give politicians bargaining chips to trade in negotiations for government; the voters do not choose the government themselves. PR transfers power from people to politicians.
Britain's system is far from perfect, there is urgent need for change. Westminster does not provide the democratic legitimacy it should, but its shortcomings can be remedied while retaining its virtues. Open primaries would ensure local people choose the candidates, ending the complacency of MPs in safe seats. A Senate could deliver greater proportionality and hold strong governments to account. Direct prime ministerial election would grant everyone a meaningful say in who takes executive power. Separation of powers would free parliament of the corrupting influence of government patronage. By such means we could truly transform British democracy.
This election is inconclusive: The clear rejection of one government has not carried to the clear election of another. In this rare Hung Parliament the Liberal Democrats may barter for proportional representation. That is undemocratic, ensuring all elections repeat yesterday's placing the power to form government in the hands of party leaders. Advanced democracy requires such power rest with the people, not the politicians. Proportional representation could entrench hung parliaments, strangling democracy.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
A Glaswegian's world tour of Toronto
Winston Churchill described Canada as the linchpin of the English-speaking world: The master link in Anglo-American unity. From the view here in Toronto it is easy to see why.
A grid-iron city, its absurdly wide streets and endlessly long avenues are like rivers separating mountainous islands of towering glass and steel. The people are fascinated by hockey, baseball, basketball and that strange form of football which somehow mutated to include crash helmets and body armour. They have a ubiquitous politeness where everyone minds their ‘have a nice day now’-s and ‘thank you so much’-es. It is unmistakably North American: Yet the Victorian civic buildings, the liberal ideology, the union-jacks in the corner of the flags and the Queen on the money all make it simultaneously British. It is a strange view to the eye of a Brit, but one incredibly reassuring.
The experience of this Glaswegian in Toronto suggests there is substance to the claim that the British Empire’s greatest achievement was making itself redundant. The tragedy was our taking so long to realise it, causing some of the English speaking peoples to seek their nations’ freedom through force of arms. The transformation from empire to a commonwealth of free peoples and equal nations came too late for the organisation to include the United States or Ireland, but recent history has largely mended the acrimonies that led to their breaking away. The formal structures and symbols - monarchy, flags and anthems: They count for almost nothing. The bonds of a common language, shared outlook and culture are what truly link the peoples. Those links comfortably overcome any differences between the nations.
All English-speakers should be lucky enough to share the company of a single group of Canadians, Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, Irish and Brits. The people at our table were all from different countries, but not foreign ones.
Our cultures are based in a common ideology, one rooted in mutual respect for freedom of conscience and expression. It is a morality requiring the toleration of opposition and difference, the protection of the minority, the belief in equal status and value of all individuals regardless of social classifications. Not to mention an understanding that governments derive validity only by being comprised of the people they govern, elected by the people governed, and governing for those people’s benefit.
Humanity may be fortunate to have such a group of fraternal peoples in every region of the globe. The English speaking peoples certainly are.
To rip of Mr Kennedy: Mastering global travel has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. Necessity has made us allies. Our shared experiences, development and journey has made us family. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.
A grid-iron city, its absurdly wide streets and endlessly long avenues are like rivers separating mountainous islands of towering glass and steel. The people are fascinated by hockey, baseball, basketball and that strange form of football which somehow mutated to include crash helmets and body armour. They have a ubiquitous politeness where everyone minds their ‘have a nice day now’-s and ‘thank you so much’-es. It is unmistakably North American: Yet the Victorian civic buildings, the liberal ideology, the union-jacks in the corner of the flags and the Queen on the money all make it simultaneously British. It is a strange view to the eye of a Brit, but one incredibly reassuring.
The experience of this Glaswegian in Toronto suggests there is substance to the claim that the British Empire’s greatest achievement was making itself redundant. The tragedy was our taking so long to realise it, causing some of the English speaking peoples to seek their nations’ freedom through force of arms. The transformation from empire to a commonwealth of free peoples and equal nations came too late for the organisation to include the United States or Ireland, but recent history has largely mended the acrimonies that led to their breaking away. The formal structures and symbols - monarchy, flags and anthems: They count for almost nothing. The bonds of a common language, shared outlook and culture are what truly link the peoples. Those links comfortably overcome any differences between the nations.
All English-speakers should be lucky enough to share the company of a single group of Canadians, Americans, Aussies, Kiwis, Irish and Brits. The people at our table were all from different countries, but not foreign ones.
Our cultures are based in a common ideology, one rooted in mutual respect for freedom of conscience and expression. It is a morality requiring the toleration of opposition and difference, the protection of the minority, the belief in equal status and value of all individuals regardless of social classifications. Not to mention an understanding that governments derive validity only by being comprised of the people they govern, elected by the people governed, and governing for those people’s benefit.
Humanity may be fortunate to have such a group of fraternal peoples in every region of the globe. The English speaking peoples certainly are.
To rip of Mr Kennedy: Mastering global travel has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. Necessity has made us allies. Our shared experiences, development and journey has made us family. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Yes we can? About time he did.
Yesterday was the first anniversary of Barack Obama’s assuming the presidency of the United States.
His promise of change seemed destined to be fulfilled not only in the reality of an African American first family, but also through the overwhelming mandate from the public. Democrats won super-majorities in both houses of Congress, with blue representatives and senators elected from sea to shining sea largely on the President’s coat-tails. This White House was given a degree of political power to which previous ones could only have dreamt. Yet after a full year in office the hopes of liberal America remain unfulfilled.
There is of course truth to the old adage that politicians who campaign in poetry must govern in prose. Promises made before elections can often, in the cold light of day, be simply beyond the political or economic means of a government. The damning indictment of Mr Obama’s performance is not the failure to achieve change, but the President’s refusal to fully pursue the policies on which he was elected.
Tens of millions of Americans still have no or inadequate health coverage, despite it being a key focus of Obama’s victorious campaign. By ordering the White House to take a back seat and allowing Congressional leaders to take the lead, the issue has gone into its second year with widely disparate bills passing the House of Representatives and the Senate. The resulting negotiations will be long and arduous, with the real possibility that whatever compromise the leaders reach may be rejected by their respective houses. Change seems some way off.
Homosexual members of the US armed forces still face being thrown out if their orientation is discovered. These loyal officers and enlisted personnel, who are fighting, bleeding and dying for America in foreign deserts, deserve their commander-in-chief’s active pursuit of the change he believes in and promised. It is not enough for him to never move without having first garnered consensus, he was elected to lead.
In November the US has its midterm elections, thereafter the Republican Party will begin its selection for a presidential candidate and the race for the White House will begin again. As legislators are again plunged into the mire of electioneering, their willingness to pursue controversial issues will inevitably plummet. President Obama may already have seen an end to the most opportune period of his first term. He has achieved little with it.
A president seeking a second term may be asked what he has done to justify the voters granting it. The power of the president is the power to persuade, derived from the unwritten status of he alone as the elected representative of a single constituency of the entire American nation. Maintaining that authority matters; Americans expect their president to speak as the nation’s leader. Liberals will hope that President Obama finds his voice soon, but yesterday’s loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat, held for the Democrats since 1953 by John and Ted Kennedy, suggest liberal America grows impatient.
His promise of change seemed destined to be fulfilled not only in the reality of an African American first family, but also through the overwhelming mandate from the public. Democrats won super-majorities in both houses of Congress, with blue representatives and senators elected from sea to shining sea largely on the President’s coat-tails. This White House was given a degree of political power to which previous ones could only have dreamt. Yet after a full year in office the hopes of liberal America remain unfulfilled.
There is of course truth to the old adage that politicians who campaign in poetry must govern in prose. Promises made before elections can often, in the cold light of day, be simply beyond the political or economic means of a government. The damning indictment of Mr Obama’s performance is not the failure to achieve change, but the President’s refusal to fully pursue the policies on which he was elected.
Tens of millions of Americans still have no or inadequate health coverage, despite it being a key focus of Obama’s victorious campaign. By ordering the White House to take a back seat and allowing Congressional leaders to take the lead, the issue has gone into its second year with widely disparate bills passing the House of Representatives and the Senate. The resulting negotiations will be long and arduous, with the real possibility that whatever compromise the leaders reach may be rejected by their respective houses. Change seems some way off.
Homosexual members of the US armed forces still face being thrown out if their orientation is discovered. These loyal officers and enlisted personnel, who are fighting, bleeding and dying for America in foreign deserts, deserve their commander-in-chief’s active pursuit of the change he believes in and promised. It is not enough for him to never move without having first garnered consensus, he was elected to lead.
In November the US has its midterm elections, thereafter the Republican Party will begin its selection for a presidential candidate and the race for the White House will begin again. As legislators are again plunged into the mire of electioneering, their willingness to pursue controversial issues will inevitably plummet. President Obama may already have seen an end to the most opportune period of his first term. He has achieved little with it.
A president seeking a second term may be asked what he has done to justify the voters granting it. The power of the president is the power to persuade, derived from the unwritten status of he alone as the elected representative of a single constituency of the entire American nation. Maintaining that authority matters; Americans expect their president to speak as the nation’s leader. Liberals will hope that President Obama finds his voice soon, but yesterday’s loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat, held for the Democrats since 1953 by John and Ted Kennedy, suggest liberal America grows impatient.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Don't Be Surprised
An unsurprising event happened the other day which seemed to spark the media's attention for a few hours. The new bishop to the armed forces Stephen Venner came out in support for terrorists. Of course he doesn't agree with their aims (I sincerely hope not) but they "can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other". But is anyone surprised by this? Has not been the case that church and faith have continually stood against liberalism? The tyrannies of minaret and the cathedral, when faced with a challenge to their monopoly on morals and the progressive force for liberal democracy, not mutually supported each other in words and actions.
The Christian churches unanimously backed Franco's fascist coup in the Spanish Republic. The catholic church actually financed his insurgency and encouraged Irish catholics to join Franco's front lines and fight against the International Brigades, Spanish liberals and George Orwell. Three years later the only Nazi to be excommunicated from the church was Goebbels for getting divorced. It seemed antisemitism par-extreme, the invasion of neighbouring states, killing of civilians and eventually genocide did not contradict any Christian dogmatism, until of course t the Nazi's lost the war. Let's fast forward to the last decade skipping over Pinochet, Pott and Kooney. Which groups in society have spoke out against lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, contraception and women's rights. The idea that people have a morality without the guidance of the church is anti-theta to their teachings. The fact a progressive morality encapsulated in the forces liberal democratic states is not in line with the teachings of their holy book(s) A book which is viciously anti-liberal, narcissistic, homo phobic, chauvinistic and brutal. A book compiled by a half barbaric sect in the middle of a harsh and uncivilized world. This world view should be embraced (failing that imposed) on an individuals private life, an area which is of no concern of theirs. The Koran and the Bible have more in common that we are led to believe and it is only the secular force of liberalism which impose a neutral playing field between all ideas and protects individual liberty.
It should not surprise us one instance that those who believe in universal authority given to them by divine revelation see their own reflection in the Taliban's unquestioning allegiance to Allah, faith in metaphysical claims and adherence to arcane laws and practices. The Church of England can only look in envy at the unquestioning authority the Mullahs and the Koran have over the Taliban and indeed the Saudi Kings, the Iranian government, Mujahadeen, and countless other weak states, illiterate populations and indoctrinated combatants. It is not the first time the Churches have rallied together to condemn our morality and support other messianic religions. Head of the Church of England Rowen Williams supports Sharia' law for Muslims in the UK. Individuals no longer equal under law is an affront too 300 years or progressive liberalism. On a overt attack on homosexuality the Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argues floods that devastated many areas of the UK are a punishment from God for our moral degradation. For the Taliban the success of 9/11 and 7/7 are attributed more to the will of God than their meticulous planning.
Stephen Venner was asked if he was sorry for his comments. If you listen even half-attentively you'll notice that he's sorry that the Daily Telegraph misconstrued his interview. It probably was made to look inflammatory. However at no point does he deny admiring the faith of the Taliban, after all that his job is based on that very premise. The Church is fading as we grow accustomed to our democratic systems and our knowledge of the universe increases. No longer are we pitted against a godless socialist enemy but one who glorifies in it's faith. This sits uncomfortably with our acquiescent of religious institutions at home . We should not be surprised when the church, fearful of being ignored, seek mutual support in other co-monotheist religions.
The Christian churches unanimously backed Franco's fascist coup in the Spanish Republic. The catholic church actually financed his insurgency and encouraged Irish catholics to join Franco's front lines and fight against the International Brigades, Spanish liberals and George Orwell. Three years later the only Nazi to be excommunicated from the church was Goebbels for getting divorced. It seemed antisemitism par-extreme, the invasion of neighbouring states, killing of civilians and eventually genocide did not contradict any Christian dogmatism, until of course t the Nazi's lost the war. Let's fast forward to the last decade skipping over Pinochet, Pott and Kooney. Which groups in society have spoke out against lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, contraception and women's rights. The idea that people have a morality without the guidance of the church is anti-theta to their teachings. The fact a progressive morality encapsulated in the forces liberal democratic states is not in line with the teachings of their holy book(s) A book which is viciously anti-liberal, narcissistic, homo phobic, chauvinistic and brutal. A book compiled by a half barbaric sect in the middle of a harsh and uncivilized world. This world view should be embraced (failing that imposed) on an individuals private life, an area which is of no concern of theirs. The Koran and the Bible have more in common that we are led to believe and it is only the secular force of liberalism which impose a neutral playing field between all ideas and protects individual liberty.
It should not surprise us one instance that those who believe in universal authority given to them by divine revelation see their own reflection in the Taliban's unquestioning allegiance to Allah, faith in metaphysical claims and adherence to arcane laws and practices. The Church of England can only look in envy at the unquestioning authority the Mullahs and the Koran have over the Taliban and indeed the Saudi Kings, the Iranian government, Mujahadeen, and countless other weak states, illiterate populations and indoctrinated combatants. It is not the first time the Churches have rallied together to condemn our morality and support other messianic religions. Head of the Church of England Rowen Williams supports Sharia' law for Muslims in the UK. Individuals no longer equal under law is an affront too 300 years or progressive liberalism. On a overt attack on homosexuality the Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argues floods that devastated many areas of the UK are a punishment from God for our moral degradation. For the Taliban the success of 9/11 and 7/7 are attributed more to the will of God than their meticulous planning.
Stephen Venner was asked if he was sorry for his comments. If you listen even half-attentively you'll notice that he's sorry that the Daily Telegraph misconstrued his interview. It probably was made to look inflammatory. However at no point does he deny admiring the faith of the Taliban, after all that his job is based on that very premise. The Church is fading as we grow accustomed to our democratic systems and our knowledge of the universe increases. No longer are we pitted against a godless socialist enemy but one who glorifies in it's faith. This sits uncomfortably with our acquiescent of religious institutions at home . We should not be surprised when the church, fearful of being ignored, seek mutual support in other co-monotheist religions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)