We put a lot of trust in the Police giving them the rights over citizens to stop, question, bugger, hold a person without contact for seven weeks or use their discretion an issue a warning. Those are very special powers and privileges granted to individuals who are selected and trained to understand and uphold the law of our land.
We as citizens in a free democratic society are expected to do our bit to uphold the law and keep our society safe. To report behaviour outside of the law, to answer questions and freely give information that will assist in every way possible the exercise of the Police's work to keep law and order. It is our civic duty, necessary to keep our society safe for all of us.
However individual Policeman do not seem to think this obligation applies to them. When questioned as to who it was within their own ranks that killed a person, suddenly the law that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them and they can choose to remain silent and not incriminate a friend, a fellow officer.
What? They are in some special protected elite above and beyond the law? Any Officer self-evidently refusing to freely supply information they are clearly known to have that will help determine who was there at the time a citizen was killed by a member of the Police Force should be immediately stripped of his uniform and any residual privileges. This is contemptible and he is an insult to the force and the community that put him their to uphold the law our our land. There is no greater obligation than to serve your society.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Monday 26 April 2010
To Burqa or not
Rightly we pride ourselves on our tolerance, whether Rockers, Goths, Punk, hoodies or religious extremists. If a woman wishes to wear a burqa, foregoe her individual freedoms and is happy for her male escort to provide any necessary assurance and to vouch for her then fine, no problem.
If on the otherhand she does want to enjoy the freedoms our society offers all women and to go about on her own, in her own right but still wear a burqa that provides her with a cloak of complete anonymity then we have a cake and eat it type of problem.
It is not a matter of facial recognition at high security risk locations, airport lounges but a simple matter of the assumptions we all hold on how we move about in this society of ours. When you enter a public space, you, knowingly or not, monitor your surroundings and the people present within it. If it has more hoodies than you are comfortable with you may well choose to withdraw or you will enter cautiously with a safe retreat in mind. That public space maybe anything, a bus, pub, restaurant, shop, a park or its bench. You are always alert to your surroundings and aware of the feel of the people you will be mixing with.
In big spaces with large congregations of people we are accustomed to tolerating a wide band of oddities, people we are unsure about when can choose to skirt by them of make sure we are in the thick of people we are comfortable with. People who conduct themselves within the norms of the society you are in.
As the spaces get smaller and the density of people gets less so the criteria for feeling comfortable increases. We need a face we can recognise again, we need to be able to form a view whether someone is relaxed, fearful, calm or kicking off, the sex of a person and whether the person is of the type and nature that the clothes worn suggests. We do a lot of visual inspection as the price we pay to move freely and comfortably around in those non-private spaces.
This is the contract we all subscribe to, so we can enjoy the freedoms that our society offers us. That is why hoodies seem threatening, so difficult to assess their facial state of emotions and that is why the burqa is an confrontational assault on our tolerance. It goes against the grain of our culture. Not rascists, not religious bigottism, just simply challenges the basis on which we are free to move around. Whether born here, recently arrived, new convert or centuries old custom, all are welcomed, but just live within the norms of the communities you choose to move around in.
So certainly not outlawed but it is unreasonable to wear a burqa and still expect the full rights and privileges of those who do conform to the norms of society. Therefore in all those small shops, restaurants, pubs do not be surprised if your custom is declined nor no one choose to join you in a bus of train whilst you go about arrogantly wearing your burqa in defiance of the society you live within. It is not for you to decide to bend your country and society to suit the personal whims no matter what religious, cultural or racial justification you call on.
In big spaces with large congregations of people we are accustomed to tolerating a wide band of oddities, people we are unsure about when can choose to skirt by them of make sure we are in the thick of people we are comfortable with. People who conduct themselves within the norms of the society you are in.
As the spaces get smaller and the density of people gets less so the criteria for feeling comfortable increases. We need a face we can recognise again, we need to be able to form a view whether someone is relaxed, fearful, calm or kicking off, the sex of a person and whether the person is of the type and nature that the clothes worn suggests. We do a lot of visual inspection as the price we pay to move freely and comfortably around in those non-private spaces.
This is the contract we all subscribe to, so we can enjoy the freedoms that our society offers us. That is why hoodies seem threatening, so difficult to assess their facial state of emotions and that is why the burqa is an confrontational assault on our tolerance. It goes against the grain of our culture. Not rascists, not religious bigottism, just simply challenges the basis on which we are free to move around. Whether born here, recently arrived, new convert or centuries old custom, all are welcomed, but just live within the norms of the communities you choose to move around in.
So certainly not outlawed but it is unreasonable to wear a burqa and still expect the full rights and privileges of those who do conform to the norms of society. Therefore in all those small shops, restaurants, pubs do not be surprised if your custom is declined nor no one choose to join you in a bus of train whilst you go about arrogantly wearing your burqa in defiance of the society you live within. It is not for you to decide to bend your country and society to suit the personal whims no matter what religious, cultural or racial justification you call on.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Ready for Duty
Damned if you do and damned if you dont. The Army accepts recruits from either sex but (surely this is another case for sex discrimination) females cannot be used as canon fodder as can the males recruits. I would have thought that it was self-evident that the Army does not offer a safe 9-5 Monday to Friday job. By definition the job requires being posted at short notice to anywhere in the world and then doing 24/7 what it takes to meet objectives set including putting your life at risk. This applies equally to support staff asto frontline soldiers.
So in a joined up society how can a single mum be excused from army duty because she has the care or her child to sort out! Seems a bit of a cake an eat it syndrome. Yes I want the pay, perks and security of an army job but excuse me leave me out when the going get tough.
Yes we want a caring and supportive society that looks out for those at risk and vulnerable. Nothing more vulnerable than a sick child and of course it needs its mother and its mother is wired to prioritise the care of her child. Maybe choosing the Army as a career move was a square peg into a round hole misfit. Nothing to do with sex discrimination, just the Army is not right place to be if you have a child to bring up, on your own. A single dad in the Army would be in the same place, conflict of interest, humanity says he must give the time to his child as and when needed and that is incompatible with the demands of a go anywhere do anything army fighting unit. You cant fudge over it, the issues just dont mix.
Sex discrimination has nothing to do or say about sexual equality. What it does say is any woman should not be denied an opportunity just because of her sex. Fair enough the Army should accept all applications irrespective of sexual orientation but that doesnt mean to say that all persons that could apply should apply. They must make their own judgements on whether they can meet the demands and expectations of the employer whoes benefits, employment, that want to take up.
No doubt the Army is riddled with chauvinist, sexists pigs who take pride in their contempt of all things girly and child minding. Maybe our Mum Soldier ran into one when she asked for compassion and consideration from her employer whilst she sorted out a sudden unanticipated problem with her child and didnt get an appropriate response. A horrid response and has to be routed out but that does not mean she has a right to expect that of her employer and it is stark staring bonkers that the legal system has supported her. Employers do not have any duty to support their employees social short-comings. If they choose to to widen their employment catchment, well done and goodluck. But it is not a right nor a right that a sane society would ever enforce.
No doubt the Army is riddled with chauvinist, sexists pigs who take pride in their contempt of all things girly and child minding. Maybe our Mum Soldier ran into one when she asked for compassion and consideration from her employer whilst she sorted out a sudden unanticipated problem with her child and didnt get an appropriate response. A horrid response and has to be routed out but that does not mean she has a right to expect that of her employer and it is stark staring bonkers that the legal system has supported her. Employers do not have any duty to support their employees social short-comings. If they choose to to widen their employment catchment, well done and goodluck. But it is not a right nor a right that a sane society would ever enforce.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
The Political No Vote
Politicians are besotted with their own narrow view of how democracy works. They think the People vote for a Party and therefore the Party Leader. Not true.
To forego my independence I need assurance and the trust that someone speaks for me, I am even prepared to give up my own limited view and accept the majority decision as to who is best to speak for all of us, including me. Not a Party. Not a Party Leader. A person, of our community, a person who reflects my own society and the people within it, who understands the working lives and concerns of all those around me in my locality. That is called democracy. Someone selected and able to speak on my behalf and my concerns.
Of course the Political Parties put forward a 'local candidate' but the candidate's first and primary loyalty is to the Party that sponsors them and the Whips ensure they pay their dues. I don't get or want to vote in a political party. That is a convenience for those once elected to arrange and organise their business once elected, nothing democratic about that. The Party is selected, elected and organised by party faithfuls, nothing to do with representation of the wider community there. The Party Leader is selected from within the faithful circle by the faithful as the person most likely to bring them electoral success. Nothing to do with democratic representation there either. The Party and the Leader are only about the promotion of a narrow view with a populist brief to make it attractive to a wider audience. Nothing about promoting a vision of the community I live within.
To win over voters and to give them the power they desire, a manifest is offered with a commitment, if successful, to fulfil it during their five year term of office but it is worthless, worse than worthless as it raises expectations of objectives impossible to ever realise. You cannot commit yourself to a course of expenditure today when tomorrow you might discover you are unemployed, divorced, made homeless or win a million pounds on the lottery of life. Life is just too uncertain to be able to offer any such meaningful commitments. As soon as they take up power they discover the actual position inherited is of a totally different magnitude than they envisaged and its a certainty that other world events will throw all their best intentions completely awry during the course of their term. But the 'manifestos' are easy on the ear sound bites that can promoted and taken up in simple terms by the various media where differentiation can be marked out and maybe win over those elusive voters.
This is a long way down from the path origins where men with a strong political view and vision on how society is and might be shaped offered to promote that goal whilst sustaining the community putting him forward. It was an administrative convenience that men of similar view grouped together, formed a collective, which became a Party. That Party found it had access to money, power and influence, something they never relinquished and subverted the men of vision in the process.
This total domination of the electoral process by non-representative Political Party's and now more recently quasi-Presidential leaders, (no longer collective decision taking then) have usurped my rights to democratic representation. Not from apathy or lack of political interest, this is why I shall not be voting.
To forego my independence I need assurance and the trust that someone speaks for me, I am even prepared to give up my own limited view and accept the majority decision as to who is best to speak for all of us, including me. Not a Party. Not a Party Leader. A person, of our community, a person who reflects my own society and the people within it, who understands the working lives and concerns of all those around me in my locality. That is called democracy. Someone selected and able to speak on my behalf and my concerns.
Of course the Political Parties put forward a 'local candidate' but the candidate's first and primary loyalty is to the Party that sponsors them and the Whips ensure they pay their dues. I don't get or want to vote in a political party. That is a convenience for those once elected to arrange and organise their business once elected, nothing democratic about that. The Party is selected, elected and organised by party faithfuls, nothing to do with representation of the wider community there. The Party Leader is selected from within the faithful circle by the faithful as the person most likely to bring them electoral success. Nothing to do with democratic representation there either. The Party and the Leader are only about the promotion of a narrow view with a populist brief to make it attractive to a wider audience. Nothing about promoting a vision of the community I live within.
To win over voters and to give them the power they desire, a manifest is offered with a commitment, if successful, to fulfil it during their five year term of office but it is worthless, worse than worthless as it raises expectations of objectives impossible to ever realise. You cannot commit yourself to a course of expenditure today when tomorrow you might discover you are unemployed, divorced, made homeless or win a million pounds on the lottery of life. Life is just too uncertain to be able to offer any such meaningful commitments. As soon as they take up power they discover the actual position inherited is of a totally different magnitude than they envisaged and its a certainty that other world events will throw all their best intentions completely awry during the course of their term. But the 'manifestos' are easy on the ear sound bites that can promoted and taken up in simple terms by the various media where differentiation can be marked out and maybe win over those elusive voters.
This is a long way down from the path origins where men with a strong political view and vision on how society is and might be shaped offered to promote that goal whilst sustaining the community putting him forward. It was an administrative convenience that men of similar view grouped together, formed a collective, which became a Party. That Party found it had access to money, power and influence, something they never relinquished and subverted the men of vision in the process.
This total domination of the electoral process by non-representative Political Party's and now more recently quasi-Presidential leaders, (no longer collective decision taking then) have usurped my rights to democratic representation. Not from apathy or lack of political interest, this is why I shall not be voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)