Tag Archives: human-rights
Oct 12, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Following last week’s post on Hinkley C, prompted me to ask if nuclear energy was a solution or a problem? What is nuclear energy? Is the energy sources of a State separated from its political system? The supply of nuclear energy has led to contentions between the State and its energy suppliers, particularly those involving the cost of nuclear energy. The State relies on electricity for much of its commercial energy and even more so for its supply of domestic energy. Electricity is now a source of global energy for any developed and developing State, both domestically and commercially. Nuclear energy supply¹ and the storage of nuclear waste², already electoral issues in the western world, are increasingly global political issues. Read more of this post
Sep 14, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: I never paid a great deal of attention to the issue of forbidden drugs and legislation but age has not only enfeebled my body but also my brain. Some time ago my attention was caught by an article linking cannabis and ageing (the original can be seen here) and it was curiosity that drew me to read the article rather than any desire to smoke pot.
This week I had a conversation with an artisan who does some work for me, and he was making the case against the legalisation of cannabis. This started me thinking about the subject for another post. Is there a connivance by the government to make Aldous Huxley’s 1962 prediction a reality?
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley
Jul 13, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: I would venture that there never has been a time in history of mankind when there was not a wealthy Aristocracy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica opens with the definition that aristocracy means, ‘government by a relatively small privileged class or by a minority consisting of those felt to be best qualified to rule’.
Of course the vast majority of people supporting this ‘privileged class’ have no desire to rule, they are only interested in their own welfare. However, the even smaller privileged class¹ that they currently support most certainly do. Furthermore, be they capitalists or socialists, or even the demos (whoever they may be), the ruling elites always claim that they represent the views of ‘we the people’.
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. (Aldous Huxley – Berkeley 1962)
Written nearly 500 years ago and preceding Aldous Huxley’s remarks, the prescience of Étienne de La Boétie ought to be remembered for his essay The Politics of Obedience — The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Both are now largely forgotten by a demos that loves its voluntary servitude under a controlling oligarchy. However, searching for a political system on which there would be a consensus in the nature of a more perfect union is a fruitless task, as is any reliance on ‘we the people’ seeking political solutions to their subjugation. Read more of this post
Jun 1, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Many years ago I remember reading about a group of scientists (or perhaps not yet scientists), who affirmed the (known to them) expected results of a scientific experiment. The information (affirmation) was a false lead and the experiment was meant to find out how much scientists are biased by ‘expected results’. That scientists can be biased was a revelation to me (at the time), perhaps contributing towards my innate cynicism regarding scientific results¹.
10 Correlations That Are Not Causations: How Stuff Works
May 4, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) was introduced in 2011, the coalition government argued that fixed-term parliaments would have a positive effect on our country’s political system: providing stability, discouraging short-termism, and preventing the manipulation of election dates for political advantage. Yet the ease with which Theresa May was able to trigger the early election in light of her 21-point opinion poll lead over Labour over Easter (2017) appeared to cast doubt on its ability to deliver these aims. Read more of this post
Apr 27, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: I decided to publish a previous post of mine (at least in part), the original has been changed and can be read here. The reason for this reprise being my wish to include the new references at ¹⁄²⁄³ in the post. I’ve also changed an article to one that doesn’t require a subscription or any ‘extra’ reading and made changes to the text, making it compatible with my current posts.
Perhaps the question to ask ourselves is, “Whether or not there is an alternative?”
Apr 6, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Perfidious Albion¹ was a phrase much used by Napoléon Bonaparte, who would know the epithet as La Perfide Albion. There has been an enmity between Britain and France at least since the loss of the Angevin Empire by the English (or should that be the Norman invaders) and the 100 years war. It may even be the English insistence on calling themselves Anglo-Saxons, a term used by the French in a pejorative way.
I am sure that the French teach their history as proof of perfidious Albion, with the Fashoda Incident added for good measure. The Fashoda Incident was not taught when I was at school. If it was a mentioned at all would have been overshadowed by General Gordon and Churchill (that hero of the English right and enemy of the British left) participating in the last cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman.
The English view of the French is hardly helped by those other Anglo-Saxons during World War I saying, “Lafayette, nous voilà“. Those other Anglo-Saxons who consistently fail to acknowledge the French contribution to the American Revolution. Something the British (or should that be English) also choose to deliberately ignore, even when teaching Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown.
Perhaps, joyously received by the French and resentfully by the British (including the English), was General de Gaulle’s now famous “Non“ to the British application to join the EU. De Gaulle was probably right about one thing (see cartoon below) and that was the English thwarting of European dominance by France — except Charlemagne who may (contrary to popular belief) not have spoken french. The English at this time were real Anglo-Saxons and had their own problems which, had he chose to, Charlemagne could have probably resolved. There are many claims that de Gaulle was the prophet of Brexit ensuring the recognition of the Anglo-Saxon intentions to the EU and the perfidy of Albion was understood by all.
Mar 30, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Last weeks post prompted me to research secession¹, whereupon I was surprised by the increase in the desire of various factions within States to secede (although living with the vestiges of the British Empire, I shouldn’t have been). There are as many and varied reasons for secession as there are methods of seceding, equally there are many are arguments for and against secession. Secessionist sentiments are in all of the major and minor political ideologies, with some having successfully seceded in the past 250 years or so and some failing to do so.
Read more of this post
Mar 16, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Interpretation of the rule of law brought about the English Civil Wars, vexation over it created fertile ground for the American Revolution and it is (probably) the main cause of the present split between the UK and the EU (Brexit). Last week I posted about ‘The Rule of Law‘, and on the Sunday before posted an article from the Oxford Human Rights Hub (OHRH)¹. The OHRH compared the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) support for the ‘Rule by Law’ and its meritocratic abuse with the democratic ‘Rule of Law’ espoused by governments in the West.
To my mind there is a very fine line between the two with personal wealth and influence being the key to justice under both, with the OHRH claiming that the distinction between the two is more than semantics. While both police law’s rules, the OHRH states that the formulation of the rules have quite different intentions. The human rights element is considered intrinsic to the ‘Rule of Law’, however the OHRH states that in China — ‘Rule by Law’ is less about ensuring compliance with the law than about ensuring the top leadership’s control over its bureaucracy in the CCP.
Peter Oborne wrote in his 2008 book that politicians now despise the values of traditional institutions that once acted as restraints on the power of the state — the independence of the judiciary, the neutrality of the Civil Service and the accountability of ministers to the Commons. Decades earlier in 1979 James Anderton stated that from the police point of view, what will be the matter of greatest concern will be the covert and ultimately overt attempts to overthrow democracy, to subvert the authority of the state.
Both point to a desire by politicians to increase the authority of the State and by the police to enforce the laws that do so. Increasingly the State in UK is introducing laws that increases its authority while purporting to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of its citizens. In doing so, the public administration of the UK State moves inexorably closer to that of a supreme authority who ‘Rule by Law’.
Mar 9, 2019Posted by on
This week on Facebook: Last week the case of Shamima Begum caused me to consider the Rule of Law, this led me to the rule of law as being a modern concept, despite the connection with Aristotle (1). The rule of law is regarded as being fundamental to the governance of the UK and is taken by some to be included in the Magna Carta, or implied by it (2). What Magna Carta (the document) actually proscribes is entirely different from that which it is generally proscribed to it (3).
The significance of Magna Carta lay not only in what it actually said but, perhaps to an even greater extent, in what later generations claimed and believed it had said. Sometimes the myth is more important than the actuality. (Lord) Tom Bingham — The Rule of Law (p19)