Online Opinion

Sunday, 5 March 2006

Believer or Nutter?

So Blair seems to believe that only God has the right to judge him. This seems to be taking a leaf out of Bush's book, who claims that God wanted him to invade Iraq. Now if an ordinary member of the public killed one person (let alone one hundred thousand) and justified it as "doing God's will" we'd lock him up in a nice, padded cell...

Thursday, 9 February 2006

Before Destroying the Green Belt, Release Existing Stock

The green belt is once again being threatened, this time by the Tories, who propose building there to help first time buyers. That's always the excuse - first time buyers. Yet the lack of affordable housing is driven primarily by the demand for buy-to-let and holiday homes, rather than lack of buildings. Those seeking buy-to-let properties are generally wealthier and see rising house prices as guaranteeing a return on investment.

I've advocated introducing a tax on second house ownership before. Perhaps there are other methods of tipping the market in favour of low-income would-be home-owners. But unless some action is taken, new build - on the green belt or elsewhere - is going to end up in the hands of the buy-to-let crowd, not first time buyers. Perhaps that's why the Tories are so keen.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006

Freedom is a two-way street

Back when Rome was airing in North America, I came across a comment on the Internet. The young man had just seen the first series' last episode, and declared a desire to punch the actor who played Brutus. The same chap had earlier threatened violence against George R.R. Martin, for killing off a favourite character in Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series of novels. If this case ever came to court, would a jury view this as incitement to violence, even terrorism, or simply a way of blowing off steam.

The answer should be obvious, but recent events suggest otherwise. While a young Canadian would deservedly get the benefit of the doubt, this benefit would apparently not extend to those protesting a (to them) serious offence to their Islamic faith.

Having initially adopted a softly-softly approach, politicians and police are now talking about charging those who carried placards threatening or glorifying violence. Admittedly many of the placards were thoroughly offensive, but this is just as much an over-reaction as the more extreme protests themselves. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to make statements that are foolish, over the top, and, yes, offensive to others.

Incitement to violence is a crime, and there are circumstances in which people can validly be prosecuted for it. Waving a hyperbolic placard isn't one of them.

Monday, 6 February 2006

Freedom to Offend

This last week we've been gifted a little glimpse of the future. Our government wishes us to live in a world where offending religious sensibilities is a criminal offence. Okay, the offence needs to be shown to display or cause hatred. That seems to be little deterrent to the religious zealot.

The now-infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons have caused world-wide protest, death threats, censorship, and at least one death. The claims against them appear to be that (a) portraying the prophet is offensive, and (b) that portraying the prophet as a man of violence is offensive.

Lets look at those charges separately, starting with the latter. Violence has frequently been performed in Mohammed's name. From Saladin to bin Laden many have justified violence against the infidel, especially to cleanse their holy land. Not to mention the violence regularly carried out against the lewd, adulterous, homosexual, or drunk. Mohammed's teachings have been used to justify many offensive acts. Let Islam address its own attachment of violence to the prophet before it complains of others pointing out the link.

As for the former, Muslim social mores cannot be a basis for free speech. Islamic thought has found everything from women's hair to homosexuality offensive. The remainder of the world cannot take this into account. Our freedom to dress, speak, and love as we will demands that those of strong religious conviction confine their morals to themselves.

None of this is specific to Islam, of course. Christian extremists are just as keen to enforce their morality on the rest of us. Normally, such zealots invoke mirth from us. Surely we should treat Muslims exactly the same?

As for the cartoons themselves, I have no idea if they are offensive, or whether they were published deliberately to offend. I haven't seen them. I'm not allowed to. That's the major objection. Thoughts and ideas can be offensive, and need to be combated. If we are denied access to those ideas in the first place, we cannot decide for ourselves.

Personally I find many religious convictions to be deeply offensive. To a lesser extent, much of the content of certain UK newspapers is equally offensive. Should I have the right to suppress the publication of such material? Of course not. Instead I should (and do) confine my response to the arena of debate. Censorship serves no one.

Tuesday, 5 July 2005

Isn't It Terrible?

So, Live 8 is over. The first of the Edinburgh marches has passed off (largely) smoothly. The people involved have gone home and returned to their normal lives. I wonder how many by now have already had the chance to do something positive, but failed to do so - perhaps because they've already "done their bit".

Geldof's politicing has two great dangers. Firstly, it portrays the single big day as the way to make changes in the world. For fund-raising that's true. For political lobbying, it could not be more wrong. To see the truth of this, look at Live Aid's short term success and complete lack of impact on long term politics. Secondly, Geldof implies that only politicians can make a difference, which is bollocks.

Imagine if all the people this Saturday who said "Isn't it terrible? Somebody should do something" actually went and did something. Not necessarily anything big. Buy a Fair Trade coffee not Nescafe. Buy shoes that weren't made in a sweatshop. Wrote to their MP once a month asking what he had done for the world's poor. Donated 50p to a charity that provides clean water to those who don't have it.

Estimates for Live 8's worldwide audience vary enormously. A couple of billion is a common figure. Imagine if every month each of those 2 billion made just one small gesture to help beat poverty. How much would that help change the world? So, don't just say "Isn't it terrible?" Do something. Anything. That's how to make a difference.

Thursday, 16 June 2005

eBay 8

So, Bob Geldof has accused eBay and (some of) its sellers of profiteering because a few people were trying to sell unwanted Live 8 tickets through the web site, some for large sums of money. If that wasn't bad enough, this morning we're treated to the likes of Janet Street-Porter (a woman who once boasted on television about abusing beggars) calling on eBay to "show some responsibility". There's the faintest whiff of hypocrisy in the air here.

I may be alone in this, but Geldof's complaints seem somewhat hollow from a man who's idea of fund-raising is to target fourteen year-olds. I'm not going to the concert because, other than the reformed Pink Floyd, there is nothing much there for me. I'm too old. The line up is aimed at kids. Running it as a text lottery is aimed at kids. Stating that multiple entries increases your chance of winning is aimed at getting lots of money out of kids. This isn't charity or political protest - this is Big Brother capitalism.

The scenario is easy to see. Some poor sod in Manchester or Glasgow has just found out that his darling fourteen year-old has spent a couple of hundred pounds on text messages, and has won tickets that they can't possibly use. ("No, you aren't going to London on your own. No, I can't get the time off work to take you.") So he tries to sell the useless tickets to someone who might actually use them, only to run into the irrational ire of Saint Bob.

I suspect Geldof's main complaint is that this episode shows up the hollowness at the heart of Live 8. Far from being a massive charity or political event, it's a giant pop concert. The people who want to go care little for the G8 summit or raising money for Africa, and little wonder. Geldof and Ure might have good intentions, but they're woefully short of actual plans. Call on the papacy to push contraception for AIDS prevention and family planning? Silence. Taxes in developing countries to pay for additional aid to Africa? Not a word. Sales tax structured to make non-fair traded products twice the price of the fair traded equivalent? No response. Perhaps some of the millionaires on stage could donate a large chunk of their worth to Oxfam or Save The Children? Steady now...

Meanwhile on eBay, it isn't hard to find tickets for sale. Most of them, inevitably, are free. "Buy this blank CD for two grand, and I'll throw in an unwanted pair of Live 8 tickets absolutely free!" You have to love the Internet.

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Forward to a New Europe

The French (and any moment now, Dutch) rejection of the European Union Constitution provides Britain, and especially Tony Blair, with a historic opportunity. While the proposed constitution was in many ways a good thing - codifying existing EU practice, providing a basis for enlargement - the rejection appears to have been based on two main problems. Firstly, that it is too centralist. Secondly, that it provides protection for the free market at the expense of nations' own economies.

The opportunity for Blair, as the de facto president of the EU for the coming months, is to draft a constitution that is generally acceptable. And since he is, at least theoretically, a socialist and the rejection has resulted from a failure to convince the European left, the opportunity is to draft a constitution that places socialist, liberal, left of centre policies at the heart of Europe. Such a constitution practically writes itself : A decentralised Europe, with policy decisions taken at the lowest practical level, and higher levels existing to provide co-ordination and dispute resolution. The rights of individuals protected. Democratic accountability guaranteed. Heck, if he needs help with the wording, I'd be happy to help.

Unfortunately, what Blair will actually try to push through is the enshrinement of the global free market and bureaucratic centralisation - the very policies that France and Holland have already rejected. What a wasted opportunity.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.