Vatican puts horse's head in amnesty's bed

Here is a complicated one. The Vatican is being seriously authoritarian. It is leaning heavily on Amnesty international where it hurts. It has suspended all financial aid to them and is ordering all Roman Catholics to stop donating to it as well.

Why? Over Amnesty’s position on abortion.

Amnesty's Deputy Secretary General, Kate Gilmore, told Reuters that Amnesty does not take any particular position over whether abortion is right, or wrong and it was not trying to push abortion as a universal right - but it did defend its position in support of allowing abortion, when a woman’s health is in danger, or her rights have been violated, particularly where rape, or incest, was involved.

"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer"

Cardinal Renato Martino, said abortion was "murder", "And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy',"

The Vatican’s cash is the Vatican’s cash. They can do with it what they will. Explaining their position to their flock and asking them to back them is ok, but they should not be using their authority to bend them to their will.

Certainly a woman owns her own body and has a right to determine what she does with it, including conceiving, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church says about contraception.

Sperm and unfertilised eggs are just that and no more. Even if every single act of sex led to a conception it would still be the case that only a tiny fraction of a percent of eggs and sperm would ever result in a human being.

Also many fertilised eggs never make it to term, through entirely natural causes they ‘self ‘abort for various reasons.

Now the position you take on abortion rather depends on, at what point you view a foetus as a human being, with the right to life and self determination.

Barroso effectively urges Blair not to give in to democracy!

José Manuel Barroso the president of the European Commission addressing an audience of national and euro-parliamentarians yesterday, concerning the thinly disguised re-vamp of the EU constitution, said he hoped the Prime Minister "will have the courage" to scrap more national vetoes and to sign up to an EU bill of rights despite public hostility.

''You know about the UK, and the respect I have for your country,"
"We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions, not give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states."

“Populisms” presumably being his pejorative ‘code’ for the democratic process.

Excuse me!! We are trying to pretend we still live in a democracy here you know!

The soon-to-be Ex UK Premier was elected on a manifesto promising to put the now rejected contents of the EU constitution to a referendum in the UK.

“Let the people have the final say”, he said.

He is supposed to be representing that position, not conniving to betray his electorate. Is this the price of becoming a commissioner?
If this isn’t clear evidence of a chilling indifference to the democratic process on the part of the EU elite, then what is?

William Hague UK MP said on the matter: "Tony Blair shouldn't be standing up to British public opinion; he should be standing up for it: the Prime Minister's job is to stand up for Britain in Europe, not stand up for Europe in Britain."

Most European citizens would probably, on balance, prefer a democratically governed EU.

Worryingly it increasingly seems as if the European political elite are not so much concerned how a European super state might be governed, only that it exists in some form - and they are in charge.

To preserve appearances they would probably be happy enough with a tame domestic electorate, to rubber stamp their decrees, but as they have discovered, the European electorate is still feral and as like to savage an unwary hand as anything.

It might be more honest to proclaim it the new Holy Roman Empire - and all hail to King Barroso the first!

At least we could have a glittering aristocracy and the pageantry that goes with it to keep our minds off of unnecessary, inconvenient, plain out of date, frills - like democracy. Maybe better to give the job to one of the British Princes, they really are Royal and at least the UK might be less inclined to make a fuss then. The Commissioners could all be Lords, or Barons...

Too much translation, bad for the nation - Says Ruth Kelly

The UK ‘Communities’ Secretary Ruth Kelly told the BBC's Politics Show that:

”I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought added to the consequences.”

"So, for example, it's quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan and elsewhere in the world and to find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue and therefore not have the incentive to learn English."

She pointed out that the evidence was that if someone did not begin to learn English within their first six months in the UK, they were never likely to learn it.

Former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, predictably disagreed.

"If you do not provide that material for them to be aware of what's happening in the society or issues of particular help, they will remain sort of isolated.

"They will not really get the benefit, nor will they be able to contribute in a positive way".

The immediate thought that occurs is “No they probably won’t - but will they ever anyway? Not if they never bother to make any effort to acquire the language of the country they live in they won’t”

A BBC study showed that over £100,000,000 of public money was spent on translation services in the UK 2006. Apparently, in one instance, refuse collection guidelines – were translated into 15 languages - and one-to-one smoking sessions incurred costs because translation was provided.

Now I can understand that we may be obliged to provide translation, in certain Languages, in certain circumstances:

There is the Welsh Language Act 1993.

The UK is part of the EC. The business of the EC is generally conducted in English, French and German.

The full list of official EU Languages is: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, Gaelic, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish and Swedish.

In criminal cases the UK is obliged in the interests natural justice to provide translation into any language, also under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I fail to see why the UK should be routinely providing translations for other languages, in other circumstances. Someone who can’t be bothered to learn the language is surely demonstrating a negative, or at best, zero commitment to their adopted country. If people can’t be bothered to help themselves in the most elementary way why should the State be obliged to take up the shortfall?

Why on earth waste public money providing translations for one-to-one smoking sessions for instance?

People who go to any country to reside there on a long term basis are stupid, or lazy, if they fail to make some effort to acquire the language. Even Tourists would be well served to learn a few basics such as; “please”, “thank you”, “how much?”, etc. It is a matter of sensible self interest if nothing else.

Tessa Jowell still backs Olympic Logo

Tessa Jowell, the UK Culture Secretary, is still doggedly backing the controversial ‘Lisa Simpson’ Olympic logo for the 2012 games to the hilt. Endorsing it as: "terrific", "adaptable" and usable in a "variety of different contexts”

When asked if it was worth its £400K price tag she replied: "I think it was, yes." , though she did admit the logo caused a storm when it was unveiled last week she said:

"One thing you can say for this logo is that it has got people talking. It has got people talking about the Olympics, it has got people talking about what they like and what they don't like”

Ken Livingstone suggested that the furore over it was over the top. "It is a logo. It is not the meaning of life, or a secret code that will identify the bloodline of Mary Magdalene. It is a logo that will grow on you."

We’ll know it has really on the way out if Tony Blair announces it has his full support. ;-)

Joking aside – it will have plenty of mileage in it yet, from what I understand, the prime minister-in-waiting’s Wife got her career start at the ad agency who came up with it, Wolff Olins, also Michael Wolff d-reamed up Nu-Lab’s red rose logo.

Blier launches an attack on the UK media

During a speech to Reuters Tony Blair has attacked the UK media, saying the modern media now hunted "in a pack" and that it was: "a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits".

Maybe if politicians didn’t twist the truth, pick good days to bury bad news and to all intents and purposes lie then they would not get called on it.

Now on the European constitution he said not long ago: “Let the people have the final say.". Yet he is now trying to sneak it in disguised as a ‘treaty’. Most of us don’t chop the truth so finely. Most of us would say he is going back on his word.

He went on to complain that non-traditional media outlets (I think he means us, bloggers) were making matters worse, not better:

"It used to be thought - and I include myself in this - that help was on the horizon.
"New forms of communication would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media.
"In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."

He does mean bloggers doesn’t he? Maybe we need to be regulated for the public good…

None so blind as those who think they already know...

Today the BBC trumpets “Wealth gap in learning by three”

Baaad selfish rich people! Taking all the education for themselves.

This is in relation to a report based on various studies by The Institute of Education research in the UK.

Children were given 'school readiness' tests and they apparently showed that by the age of three, children from ‘disadvantaged’ homes are up to a year behind in their learning than those from more privileged backgrounds.

Graduates' children were seen to be 12 months ahead of those of the least well educated in tests on their grasp of letters, numbers, colours and shapes.

One of the studies found large differences between children living in families above and below the poverty line.

Professor Heather Joshi stated the poorest children were 10 months behind their wealthier peers in tests of their grasp of shapes, numbers, letters and colours known as "school readiness" tests. She also stated in another study, girls were educationally three months ahead of boys on average.

So are girls on average more ‘advantaged’ than boys? Unlikely.

Take graduates. They are a group pre selected for their ability to – well – graduate.

If intelligence were in any respect even partly inherited then children of graduates would on average start of with a genetically loaded deck of cards.

Then add to that the likelihood of graduates being highly likely to try to ensure their children got a good start and that they would be likely to be exposing them to a more varied and comprehensive vocabulary. It is hardly surprising that their children would on average perform better that average.

Consider people living below the so-called poverty line. Whilst there are many reasons for someone to be in such circumstances it is not unreasonable to suppose, that people living below the poverty line, are on average, less likely to be highly educated. To some extent the reverse of what applied to graduates applies to them.

Now Consider children living below the poverty line. A significant number of those children live in single parent families. This means that there is only one parent who is quite probably likely to have less time to devote to preparing the child ‘educationally’.

So in fact being disadvantaged is by no means the whole story. Native intelligence and a stimulating environment provided by motivated engaged parents are probably responsible for the differences observed.

Advantage, or wealth, is more a by-product than a cause, more an indication of the previous generation’s drive, commitment, intelligence and educational attainment.

Constitution II - Just when you thought it was safe...

This is how they sell you down the river - Tony Blair secretly agreed the blueprint for an updated version of the failed European Union constitution, devised by the German Chancellor, Angelea Merkel, to circumvent the constitution’s rejection by French and Dutch voters. They are calling it a ‘treaty’ in the hope the dimmer citizens don’t cotton on.

Margaret Beckett, the UK Foreign Secretary, attempted to claim that "nothing you could really call negotiations" had actually taken place as MPs, from all parties protested, pointing out that the new ‘treaty’ was largely comprised of measures contained in the rejected EU constitution vetoed by the French and Dutch referenda in 2005.

This is the same Tony Blier who promised, presumably with his fingers crossed behind his back, in 2004, that there would be a referendum in Britain on the original EU constitution. “Let the people have the final say.", he trumpeted when backed into a corner, after months of trying to avoid one, the government insisting that no public vote was necessary.

Clearly he has changed his mind back again, as later this month, just before stepping down, a man bereft of a mandate, his political remit effectively bankrupt, he is planning(while he can still get away with it) to sign Britain up to a treaty, designed to increase the EU's power and to enact, by the back door, many of the proposals originally planned for the constitution.

Presumably this is to be more of his tainted ‘Legacy’. It is enough to make you despair of the whole political process.

What will the French and Dutch voters make of this betrayal of the democratic process? This cynical negation of their democratically expressed will.

Do the British electorate care enough to resist being disenfranchised?

Mill on Liberty

ON LIBERTY

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually, or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do, or forbear, because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.

To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.

In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Mill lays down a simple principle to govern the use of coercion (coercion here covering both legal penalty and pressure of public opinion). We may only coerce others in self-defence - either to defend ourselves, or to defend others from harm.

This rules out paternalistic interventions to save people from themselves, and idealistic interventions to make people behave in some 'better' way.

Politicians take note!

Are voters really pig ignorant?

Just saw a fluff piece on TV. A UK farming organisation (The Linking Environment And Farming organisation) has done a survey. It seems many British people have no idea where a lot of what they eat comes from. Many didn’t know that produce such as bacon, porridge, bread and beer comes from farms.

It seems some 22% of the adults questioned didn’t know that bacon and sausages come from pigs on farms and some 47% of people didn’t know porridge's main ingredient comes from farms.

What is horrifying is that these people can vote. The horrifying part is that they will decide how to cast their vote without basic information that should make a difference on how they vote in relation to issues that impact, on say, farming for instance.

How can someone, so lacking in basic facts about life, have any chance of making a reasonably informed decision? What other basic, but vital, information don't they know?

Making decisions based on partial information and inadequate knowledge would give a massive boost to the law of unintended consequences. Under the wrong circumstances it could actually be dangerous. How can people sleepwalk through life like this?