Human rights?

On the surface, human rights are something we all intuitively agree with. Or maybe we feel we have to, as it tends to one of those dogmas that you are not even allowed to review critically. I’m inclined to believe though that the whole concept of it is fundamentally flawed in a way that is closely interlinked with our own selfish nature.

My main problem centres on the word “rights”. Where did we get the ridiculous notion that someone owes us something, that we are entitled to anything? Yes, our conscious existence is a valuable gift. Maybe it’s a gift from god, or maybe just from extremely rare chemical circumstances. Where we got it doesn’t really matter for this discussion, as long as we can agree that it is a very valuable gift. But does this mean that because of this gift, we are entitled to more?

Let’s say we got another really valuable gift, maybe a big nice sparkly sports car. What would the appropriate response be? I would say you’d be thankful and feel obligated to take real good care of your car and show you appreciate it by putting it to good use. What certainly would not be appropriate is to start demanding fuel and roads to be built, as you are entitled to them because you have a car. That’s just ridiculous. Receiving a valuable gift should make you thankful and humble, not demanding and haughty.

So then do I suggest that human misery doesn’t matter, that people should just be happy to be alive and shut up? No certainly not! I think human life should thrive in a situation where it is given the opportunities and freedom to do so. And this brings us to the second problem with the word “rights”, a problem more to do with our unwillingness to take responsibility ourselves.

How useful is it to define a right? Let’s say I did have the right to have roads for my sports car. Until you tell me who is going to give them to me we’re not going to get anywhere with this are we? It’s all very easy to agree that people in Sudan have a right to have sufficient food, security and education, but if we stop there and then wait for someone else to fix the problem they will never get it. And that’s exactly where we are today. We all agree on human rights, but no one wants to pick up the bill.

It would be more appropriate, and more productive I think, if we would define our behavioural responsibilities in terms of duties. It would mean everyone is charged with some form of action, and not just waiting around for their piece of the pie to be delivered. In stead of a right to food, maybe we should have the duty to feed. Maybe in stead of the right to medical treatment, we should have a duty to care. In stead of the right to live in freedom, we should have the duty to defend each others life and freedoms etc.

It is time for an attitude change. Being human does not mean the world is there to fulfil your needs and desires. Being human means having an obligation to live your life in a worthy way, and contribute to that of others in order to maximise their chances of doing the same. And maybe when we finally realise that we are here to contribute to that joint potential, in stead of trying to rake in whatever we can to fulfil our own, will we find a way to live together in relative harmony.

Shut up and listen

One of the big topics in the news this morning, was our governments plan to counter terrorism in Britain. Obviously it had shocked a lot of people that the 7/7 bombers were home-grown British citizens. The problem, the government reasoned, was that there was not enough social cohesion, and these young men had felt alienated from society which had enabled them to attain a mindset that would lead to this gruesome deed. So far I completely support the analysis. Unfortunately that’s where the good news ended. Because how were we going to remedy this sense of alienation? Schools were going to have to teach children about what it means to be British: values, and an understanding of modern society in the light of its history.

There’s a fundamental misconception underlying this approach. It’s the same misconception that underlies the whole problem of global terrorism if you ask me. For some inexplicable reason we always think that our point of view is the only right point of view. And if people do not warm to our point of view, then that is probably because we haven’t explained ourselves well enough or perhaps because they are just plain stupid. And from this perspective, the proposed solution makes perfect sense. So what then is the problem? The answer I think is twofold.

First of all I don’t think the best way to let people warm to you, is to overwhelm them with your point of view. I don’t think the 7/7 bombers did what they did because they did not feel they understood Britain. I think they did it because they felt Britain did not understand them, of not respecting their values, their world view. And so once more overwhelming them with our point of view is only going to be counterproductive. Maybe we should consider the possibility that it is not them who need to listen, maybe it is us.

Secondly, if we really want to explain what it is to be British, then maybe we should try and present a more fair view of what we really are, and especially what historic role Britain has played in world events. Maybe in stead of painting a picture of the gallant knights of the west, we should be more honest about the exploitation that took place in imperial Britain, and about the mess created by the parts of WWII that we always conveniently forget to mention: The oil battles in the Middle East. And yes of course Britain has done a lot of good things, and is certainly not some evil empire. But some recognition of past mistakes would go a long way. It would give certain ethnic groups a sense that they are being done some justice.

But most of all it would educate the white British population on what it means to be British, and to take responsibility for the fact that alongside many good and positive aspects, there are darker sides as well. And maybe when white British people finally understand what it has meant to others that they are British, will they finally appreciate how they are perceived in the current era. So yes, let’s have compulsory lessons on what it means to be British. But let’s invite others to tell us what it means to be British, in stead of us telling others. Let’s just shut up and listen, in stead of talk.

Has Blair finally lost it?

Being in power distorts a mans perception. It makes them think they are more important then they really are. Less harmless is that it also tends to create an obsession with certain goals, with leaving a mark. And this obsession clouds all judgement on what means are justifyable towards these ends.

An article in the Guardian today confirmed for me that Tony Blair has now definetly entered the stage of deranged leader who has been in power for to long. A lot of people, including myself, were already strongly suspicious of the self proclaimed messiah of New Labour, but todays revelations close the case as far as I am concerned. As most people from the UK will know, Tony has been getting more and more upset about certain court rulings that he does not agree with. In itself it is not very elegant to publicly vent your anger on this as a prime minister. The foundation of any democracy is the separation of the legaslative, executive and judicial powers. To try and exert pressure from one to the iother, is undermining democracy.

This weekend though, Tony has taken it just one step beyond. My eyes nearly popped out of their sockets when I read that "the Prime Minister wants the government to have the power to override court rulings". Yes that's right, Tony wants to be above the law. I'm sorry folks, I don't care how left, right or center wing you are, but this man needs to go. Anyone having the austerity to propose he be put above, and in control of, the law is a danger to society, and if the UN woudl like to pass a resolution to invade no. 10 Downing street (or actually no. 11 as Gordon is already hogging no. 10) then I would gladly support it.

Slipknot

The United States likes oil. Oil is what keeps the Dollar strong (as long as oil is traded in Dollars), and oil is what drives the economy. I think though that the US might actually be poisoning itself even faster then it is poisoning the rest of the world with this addiction. And I'm not even talking about the enviroment really.

The US used to have a lot of Oil. Even then (way back in the sixties and seventies) it still needed to complement it's own production with about 30% imports. The US oil reserves have long since been plundered though, and are almost depleted. In the nineties the US was already 60% dependend on foreign oil, and this will only increase as we move further into the 21st century. The only regions that seem to have a strong sustainable oil reserve are the Middle East (about 75% of proven long term reserves) and Venezuela (but only if you count the more expensive heavy oil supply in the Orinoco belt).

Neither regions have much love for the US unfortunately. On top of this, new upcomming economies such as China and India are requiring more and more oil. These regimes have a much better relation with the owners of the oil reserves, and thus seem to be in a better position to secure these for the future. It's not surprising then, that the US is looking desperately for a foothold in the Middle East.

Unfortunately this singleminded approach seems to be nothing short of suicide. The increasing dependency on imported oil strain the US economy very badly. But what is worse is where this money is eventually ending up. All those billions of dollars that the US pays, and will increasingly pay, to satisfy their addiction, funds the very regimes that they perceive to be a threat to their security. Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and even Osama Bin Laden all thrive on their petrodollars. The very money used to finance the 9/11 attacks, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and the defiancy of Iran. The US seems to be stuck in a slipknot, and in stead of stepping back and undoing the rope, it rushes forward untill it will eventually suffocate and die.

Why doesn't the US use their warmonies to invest in durable and renewable fuels? Even if they do not care for the enviroment enough to make the effort, then at least let them consider it for the sake of their own long term economic prosperity, and your national security.

Passed

Since January I've been doing a postgraduate certificate in Education. It's been a while since I have done any formal training, and I've never actually experienced the UK education system from the learners perspective. I'm happy to say though, that I just passed my first exam with flying colours :)