Courting Contentious Content.

Julian Assange painted portrait - Wikileaks (Photo credit: Abode of Chaos)

Are we subject to a type of censorship that curtails freedom of speech and prevents honest debate of issues of vital importance to civilisation?

In the West, we pride ourselves on our tolerance. This is especially the case in Europe and even more so in the UK, a land noted for its cultural diversity and its acceptance of the beliefs, customs and traditions of others. In order to protect those institutions, beliefs, sensibilities and creeds that differ from our home-grown varieties, government has implemented laws intended to prevent prejudice and insult. But, because of the undeniable threat of terrorism, they’ve also set in place watchdogs to detect activity that may be considered a threat to the State.

It’s my belief that the combined effect of these two factors is to stifle serious debate about religious bodies and/or traditions and customs.

Let me illustrate my point. If I wish to write a feature, or even a piece of fiction, highlighting perceived dangers presented by extremist groups, my first recourse is research, so I can get my facts right. So, I start to  investigate terms like Al-Qaeda, mujahadeen, taliban, islamist, the Army of God, Ku Klux Klan, etc. In common with most modern writers, my first port of call is the web. But wait: if I start typing such words into my search engine, am I going to immediately become a target for the anti-terrorist organisations that filter such words from our emails, texts and online searches? The danger certainly exists. And, I suspect, for many that’s sufficiently worrying to prevent them even taking the first steps.

In writing this piece, I wanted to ensure I spelt the words correctly (many of them have variant spellings, after all). For me, spelling is the prerogative of the SOED, a 2 volume version of the Oxford English Dictionary, which comes as a printed book of 20 volumes with 3 additional volumes to account for more recent words. My copy of the smaller book was printed in 2007. Al-Qaeda has been active since 1988, but doesn’t feature in the SOED. So I went to the web. I used the roundabout route of searching for Al-Jazeera, a respected broadcasting company, and was directed to the inimical Wikipedia. From there, I was more comfortable searching for the other terms.

But you see my point? Fear of the heavy-handed authorities descending on the house to remove my computer for forensic dissection, especially in light of the fate of such protectors of free speech as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, makes me, and many others, wary of even investigating certain topics.

The other cause for concern in writing about such matters stems from the potential outcry and threats of death that may result. We have only to recall the cases of Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses (a book I actually read at the time, forming my own ideas about the real reason for the fatwa), and of Jyllands Posten, the Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the Islamic prophet, Mohammed. But it isn’t just Islam that poses such problems. There’s evidence that raising the subject of Christian, Budhist, Hindu or any other form of religious extremism can cause serious problems for those daring to criticise such organisations.

Even at a less heated level, the criticism of many religious groups, no matter where those beliefs originate, is invariably seen as an attack on faith and belief, so that simply questioning these issues often results in tirades of abuse, threats and even physical atttack.

Those of a rational turn of mind are effectively silenced by a system that was ostensibly put in place to protect the rights of minorities. It’s become very difficult to even venture an opinion on the validity of faith, the truth about religion, or the real value of certain rites and rituals unless the writer couches such ideas in the most delicate language.

Fear of causing offence, coupled with very real concerns over both official and extremist responses, has effectively neutered those who wish to hold open and honest debates about certain religious beliefs, traditions and customs. It takes a brave writer to raise these contentious issues. I suggest that the balance of the law has shifted dangerously toward censorship of those who employ reason and rationality and is now overprotective of those who wish to maintain what are often erroneous and frequently dangerous belief systems. This fear stifles the very necessary discussion of subjects that are often directly responsible for much injustice and harm in the world. What do you think?

Related articles

• Zemanta Power User - Stuart Aken
• Stephen Lloyd MP writes... Can good Religious Education build better communities?

When is Theft Not Really Stealing?

Image via Wikipedia

Theo: You do the boss a favour, staying at your desk over your lunch break to field an important call for him, and, whilst you're captive, in what's generally your own time, you surf the net. It's company policy that you can do this during your lunch break, provided you don't enter inappropriate sites, of course. You come across an article you've been wanting to read; research for a private project. So, without the time to read it there and then, you print off the five pages with the colour illustrations, on the firm's laser printer so you can take it home to read in comfort. Is that theft?

Dave: What, taking five sheets of office paper and a bit of ink they'll never even notice? You're kiddin', right?

Theo: The question is this: Is it yours to take?

Dave: Hell, man, you're doing the boss a favour in your own time. He owes you, doesn't he? Any case, I bet you waste more paper and ink than that nearly every day by mistake.

Theo: So, you don't think it counts as stealing?

Dave: No way.

Theo: The same, I suppose, goes for those odd paper clips, rubber bands and envelopes you take for personal use?

Dave: Look, everyone does that. You can't call it stealing. The amount they pay for stationery, they'd never even notice, would they?

Theo: And the private letters placed into the post tray to be stamped or franked?

Dave: Maybe in an emergency. You know, when it needs to go today and you don't have a stamp or you can't get out the office for some reason. Once in a while won't do any harm, will it?

Theo: What about that photocopying of the club's agenda for that meeting you've arranged tonight as secretary? A copy of three pages for each of thirty seven members. How about that?

Dave: It's for a good cause, isn't it? I mean, I know the boss doesn't give to that cause, but the firm chooses a charity every year to support, so they don't mind a bit of giving, do they?

Theo: Not, then, a matter of principle? More one of expediency, I suppose?

Dave: Horses for courses, mate. What harm's it do. That sort of thing doesn't hurt the company. Any case, everybody does it.

Theo: And because everybody does it, that makes it acceptable, or right?

Dave: Well, you can't really call it stealing, can you? I mean, stealing's important things, things that cost, not little bits and pieces like that.

Theo: So, just to get this right: everybody does it and they're only small things?

Dave: That's right.

Theo: So. A hundred employees take a hundred sheets, together with the accompanying ink, what, every week, month, year?

Dave: Now you're being daft. Not everyone does that much, do they? I mean that's ten k sheets and a lot of ink. No. It's not like that; it's just occasional and not all the staff do it, do they?

Theo: Not everybody, then?

Dave: Well, no. Some folk aren't interested in that sort of thing. They take other things instead.

Theo: Ah, you mean time? For example, the quarter of an hour they spend talking at the water cooler when they're being paid to work? Or the few minutes each day they arrive late? Or maybe those odd minutes they need for shopping over lunch? That sort of thing?

Dave: That's right. Most people do that sort of thing.

Theo: And that's not stealing, even though they're paid for that time?

Dave: You think the bosses work every hour of every day? Think they're working when they have a  'meeting' on the golf course? Think they're working when they fly business class to some conference they could do by video call?

Theo: I understand your point. So, what you mean when you say the everybody does it, is that the practise of petty theft is rife throughout the structure of the workplace and is accepted simply as a part of daily life?

Dave: Well, I wouldn't put it like that. But, yeah, I suppose that's really what it is when you look at it. I mean, no one works every minute of every day doing what they're paid to do, do they?

Theo: I expect not. In fact, I suspect it would be bad for their mental health if they did. But, my point here is more about what we call such things. What we label this activity. The bosses see their own small thefts as 'perks', the natural reward for their level of commitment. How do the ordinary workers see their own small acts of stealing?

Dave: Most of them see it as getting something more out the bosses, if they think of it at all. You're making more of it than it really is, Theo. It's just part of working life.

Theo: You're probably right. But what that means in reality is that workers, and their bosses, actually approve, even if only by not disapproving, the daily general theft we've discussed.

Dave: Life's too short to worry about things like that.

Theo: But, what concerns me, Dave, is whether the casual acceptance of such petty theft allows some people to consider rather more valuable items taken to be also acceptable. We don't have time to discuss this now. But I'd like to plant the notion that it's the general acceptance of small theft as unimportant that allows some folk to go on to steal the work of others, to see such theft as something normal and of no harm to anyone.

Dave: It's a thought. But, like you say, we best get back to work. The boss is looking over here and glancing at his watch.

Stuart's Odd Definitions (SODs): Solicitor

Image via Wikipedia

I'm adding a little dark humour and devising some definitions of my own. Since I generally rely on the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) to inspire my 'real' definitions for the Daily Word Spot, I thought I'd use the acronym SOD for my own odd definitions. Here's the second of what will become an irregular series.

Solicitor: noun - an individual for whom law is a money tree, someone more interested in law than justice, an encourager of conflict, a partner in a firm set up to rob honest folk of their hard-earned cash, any member of a gang devoted to separating law-abiding citizens from their inheritance, a frustrated actor, a person willing to ensure the guilty go free if enough payment is received for the service, a member of the House of Commons who ensures that laws are made and kept as complex as possible so that the man in the street will be forced to employ him or her to interpret them.

Okay, so I might be being a bit hard. I do actually know a couple of people who are or were solicitors and who manage to remain pleasant people. But they are few and far between, I fear. I'd be interested to learn your experiences of the legal profession.

1825 - The first public railroad using steam locomotives was completed in England. The network of public transport first slowly and then rapidly expanded to carry people all over the country at reasonable cost and in growing comfort. Then, in the 1960s Dr Beeching, at the behest of the Conservative government then in power, wrote a report, which resulted in over 6,000 miles of track being taken out of service, along with more than 3,000 stations. The motivation for this was purported to be that most people would own cars and the railways would therefore become more or less obsolete. Of course, this was a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the removal of usable public transport from many locations ensured that people would be forced to buy and use cars instead. I often wonder how much money passed from the motor manufacturers into the hands of the politicians and others responsible for the decline of our railway system, which was, at the time, the envy of the world. Of course, the railways are no longer a public corporation but privately owned companies now struggling to replace the lost custom and upgrade the service to cope with increasing demand. Another wonderful decision made by our government that only ever thinks short-term.

1945 - The World Bank was created with the signing of an agreement by 28 nations. It has since become an institution with the potential to do enormous good. It's a shame it's been so frequently hijacked by the unethical and the exploitative to make some seriously damaging decisions, especially as far as environmental matters are concerned. Yet more politicians buggering things up, eh?

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Libel or slander?

Libel or slander? 

Libel: noun – in Civil and Admiralty Law, a document bearing a plaintiff’s allegations and establishing a suit; in Scottish Law, a formal statement setting out grounds on which a civil or criminal prosecution is made, an indictment; in Ecclesiastical Law, the first pleading, or the plaintiff’s written statement or charges, in a plenary case; a small book, short piece of writing; a leaflet or pamphlet publicly posted or circulated and  defaming the character of someone; a false and defamatory statement; some thing or circumstance that tends to bring undeserved discredit on a person, a country, an organisation, by misrepresentation; in Law, a false and defamatory statement in writing, film, or other permanent form; the act or offence of publishing such a statement.

Slander: noun - utterance or spreading of a false or malicious statement about a person, intended to injure or defame; in Law, a false and defamatory oral statement; the act or offence of making such a statement; Discredit, disgrace, or shame, especially as incurred by transgression of moral law; disrepute, opprobrium; a source of shame or dishonour; a discreditable act or person; a cause of moral lapse or fall.

In the legal definitions, ‘libel’ involves letters (publication of some sort), ‘slander’ is said, spoken.

So, you can shout slander from the rooftops or you can libel through written, recorded, filmed or any other permanent means; in either case, you’re open to a law suit.

Pic: Bullrushes in Driffield, East Riding of Yorkshire.

Why is Assisted Suicide Illegal?

Cover of Terry Pratchett

It has long struck me that the ‘authorities’ take serious liberties with us as individuals. Don’t we all ‘own’ our lives? If we don’t have control over the outcome of our lives, then what do we really have that we can call ours?

My assumption (and I’m ready to be corrected on this) is that the major religions see our lives as ‘gifts’ from their particular gods and therefore not something we should be allowed to spend as we wish. But, for those of us who don’t have a god complex, and see no need of some divine power to oversee our existence, this requirement for servile gratitude to a higher power as an imposition. When such belief is enshrined in law to make our lives the property of the State, it becomes more than an imposition; it infringes our rights.

I believe that our life here is the one and only, and there is no afterlife in any sense that we can understand. We have one chance to live, or not to live, as we will. So, it’s perfectly logical and sensible for us to determine the manner, time and place of our death, when we are given that opportunity.

Of course such a liberty would be abused, and of course some individuals would use such freedom to end the lives of others and disguise this as a self-administered demise. But such evil behaviour already exists regardless of such freedoms. And, of course, it is a given, in my view, that a decision to end your life is taken under the understanding that you have considered the feelings and needs of those who love and depend on you.

We have the means to prolong life artificially, frequently by placing the individual into an impossible position over which he or she has no control. We keep alive mere shells. If you don’t believe me, visit any accommodation devoted to the preservation of the elderly demented. You will see there the remains of people who once were vital, alive and whole, people who could contribute and lead full lives before their demise. They exist only as shades of their former selves with no awareness of who they are or what is happening around them. The very essence of being human is the capacity for self-awareness. Once that has left, the shell is no more than meat. We hear so often, ‘You wouldn’t treat an animal that way.’ And, of course, we wouldn’t and don’t. It seems we reserve this living hell for the humans we love. It seems a strange form of love to me. And, I suspect this form of ‘caring’ has more to do with the needs of the carers than with the poor individuals in their care.

I have no wish to linger on this Earth once I’ve lost the capacity to think. It haunts me to imagine that I might be made to drift on in an unliving existence once my mind has gone, so I’ve signed an Advance Decision (available from Dignity in Dying) to ensure that I’m not kept alive artificially once that time comes. And I’ve made clear to my wife and my daughter my wishes in this regard.

Dignity in Dying has patrons as well-known and respected as Sir Terry Pratchett, Jasper Conran, Sir Terence English, the Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Ian McEwan CBE, The Rev. Prof Paul Badham and Janet Suzman, to name but a few. According to a recent survey, 92% of non-religious and 71% of religious people support assisted dying, but there is a vociferous counter argument to such compassion coming mostly from the extreme religious community who sponsor the Resistance Campaign with a Charter opposed to any help for those who are dying in agony. And some 50 or more MPs have signed the charter; these are people who are suppose to represent the views of their constituents, yet they are arrogant enough to go against the wishes of the 80% of the population who want a change to the law to allow assisted suicide in the UK. If you want to challenge your MP on this issue, I advise you to go to http://www.writetothem.com/ , where you will find links to your MP via your postcode. If you visit Dignity in Dying first, you'll have an idea of how to go about this. We have a situation at present which allows those who are dying in pain to be kept that way for as long as is humanly possible, on the spurious grounds that we are somehow not qualified to make a decision about the end of life for ourselves.
I’d far rather be able to legally decide the date of my death. That way I could plan it, inform those who cared that it was going to happen, and prevent the inevitable shock and distress that comes with the unexpected death of a loved one. Seems far more civilised to me than this dreadful habit we’ve developed of clinging to life at any cost, regardless of its real worth. Surely the measure of life is its quality, not its quantity?

Let me go when I’m ready to go, and remove the legal barrier that currently makes it a crime. My life is just that; mine. It belongs not to the State, not to any religion, not to any god you care to name. It is mine, mine alone, and should be mine to end when I so desire.

I know many people will be troubled, incensed even, by these thoughts. I’m sorry for that, but it doesn’t make my case any less valid. If you’re one of those who believes we are the children of some divine power, prove it to me. Not by quoting passages from dubious sacred works (such books are the words of man, not of any divine being, and therefore of no more value than any other story) but by demonstrating the love and concern of your creator by examples that have no negative counterparts. After all, any creator with a concern for the created can hardly be considered a positive force if what is created is also destroyed with equal energy and disdain.

I’d love your feedback on this topic.

Human Rights: Human Responsibilities.

Image via Wikipedia

A recent event prompts me to ask a serious question. The British Parliament, in order to conform to European Law, has decided to allow convicted prisoners the vote. It is doing this simply because it would otherwise face costly law suits under Human Rights legislation.

My question is this:  We have a Bill of Human Rights. Why do we not have a Bill of Human Responsibilities?

Everything in nature has an opposite – good/bad, dark/light, big/small etc. Surely we should understand that our laws need to reflect natural laws? If we have a written statute that guarantees human beings certain inalienable rights, is it not sensible to have similar legislation dealing with human responsibilities?

The Bill of Human Rights is constantly used in courts to back up the often spurious claims of offenders, criminals and other anti-social groups and individuals. It seems to me that if a person wants the backing of the law, they must conform to that law themselves. By breaking that agreement, they surely place themselves voluntarily outside the protection of the law, don’t they? No one forces an individual to break the law. Okay, I accept that in certain countries and under certain regimes there are laws which we, in the so-called free world, hold as abhorrent. It is possible for such laws to be excluded from any international agreement on responsibilities.

I suggest that the UN, as the most fitting international organisation, should set up a discussion with all the nations of the world to discuss the idea of a Bill of Human Responsibilities, which, once enacted, could be used to counter the spurious claims of terrorists, murderers, rapists etc who use the Bill of Human Rights to gain undue rights. It might also make people a little less likely to commit certain crimes if universal legislation existed to outlaw harm to others.

I’d be interested in all opinions on this and invite your comments and observations.