Elections, religion, immigration, schools and other trivia
Ah. So it's all coming to a head. Elections in Iraq. Freedom. The reason for all the bloodshed. Presumably this means the killings will stop? No? Oh, I must have missed something. But then so have many others, it seems. I have noticed many, seemingly sensible people who, quite rightly, opposed the war, now opposing the elections. Why? They'll impose an American puppet regime? Quite possibly, but, let's face it, you're going to get that inevitably if you don't have elections. There is a lot of resistance amongst certain elements in Iraq, but they all seem to be connected to the old Baathist regime - not the sort of people you want as your friends. And their arguments are incredibly weak. Today's Guardian, for example, featured Salim Lone, a former UN advisor, arguing that the election somehow legitimised the US occupation (dubious, since almost all the main parties are united in their belief that the US should withdraw) and would be opposed by Sunni Muslims, who felt they should have a greater say in the running of the country. Well, excuse me, but it was the Sunni minority (let's repeat this, minority) who had the greater say during Saddam Hussein's rule. Now, to my untutored mind, democracy, whilst it should respect minorities, is about deciding which government the majority want. And whilst this is in no way a perfect representation of that (witness the intimidation which has gone unchecked, the foreign occupying army's tanks on the streets and so on), the minority has no right to demand an unrepresentative say.
On the other hand, democracy must also protect minorities from mob rule. This was brought home with unprecedented vigour last week, as Michael Howard launched the Tory Party's most bigoted attempt to play the "race card" at an election in many years. Demands that the UK withdraw from even the most basic of provisions to care for refugees and immigrants provided by the UN are a disgrace. What is possibly an even bigger disgrace is Tony Blair's cowardly non-rebuttals of this. Instead of tackling the issue head on, pointing out the errors and lies in it, he simply said that the proposals were impractical and too expensive. Really, Mr Tony? So if they were cheaper and more easily enforceable you'd do them, would you? You'd turn away desperate people, probably to die, from a country that could help them, a country that, despite the lies from neo-Nazis, is not even remotely "full", but, in fact, has a need for more immigration, not less. A self-proclaimed "Progressive" putting forward that sort of an argument has more to be ashamed of than an admitted right-wing nutter like Howard. But, I suppose, we shouldn't be surprised by anything Mr Tony says, should we?
Such as his support for faith schools. I've touched on this before, but, since I'm on a long rant, let's go back to it. Faith schools are inherently divisive. They propagate one particular superstition - let's, for example, assume that the faith in question is that of flat-earthers, though it could just as easily be Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other half-baked rubbish - and spread it, whilst rubbishing all others. If that faith happens to contradict scientific fact - for example, that the earth is not flat, then too bad for science. Now many people point to the good results achieved by such schools. What isn't pointed out is that any school with supportive parents and a selective entrance policy will do better than a school forced to take in everybody. If selection and private education were banned - if children were obliged to attend their local school - then everyone would benefit, as all schools would have a mix of children, there would be no ghetto schools, and "middle class" parents could worry about how good their local school is, not just leave it to rot, because they can afford to send their kids elsewhere. And whilst we're at it, ban religious symbols. Be they crucifixes, skullcaps or headscarves. More signs of division. These are kids - too young to be able to understand the full nonsense of religion, anyway. As Richard Dawkins once pointed out, no parents would say that their 5 year old is a Marxian Anarcho-Syndicalist, but many would describe their child as a Christian, Jew or Muslim. Let them decide themselves, when they're old enough to understand. Not try to force these opinions on them.
Which, essentially, is the theme of these seemingly disparate strands. Choice. Freedom. Beware of those who claim to offer it. But always make sure you have it...
On the other hand, democracy must also protect minorities from mob rule. This was brought home with unprecedented vigour last week, as Michael Howard launched the Tory Party's most bigoted attempt to play the "race card" at an election in many years. Demands that the UK withdraw from even the most basic of provisions to care for refugees and immigrants provided by the UN are a disgrace. What is possibly an even bigger disgrace is Tony Blair's cowardly non-rebuttals of this. Instead of tackling the issue head on, pointing out the errors and lies in it, he simply said that the proposals were impractical and too expensive. Really, Mr Tony? So if they were cheaper and more easily enforceable you'd do them, would you? You'd turn away desperate people, probably to die, from a country that could help them, a country that, despite the lies from neo-Nazis, is not even remotely "full", but, in fact, has a need for more immigration, not less. A self-proclaimed "Progressive" putting forward that sort of an argument has more to be ashamed of than an admitted right-wing nutter like Howard. But, I suppose, we shouldn't be surprised by anything Mr Tony says, should we?
Such as his support for faith schools. I've touched on this before, but, since I'm on a long rant, let's go back to it. Faith schools are inherently divisive. They propagate one particular superstition - let's, for example, assume that the faith in question is that of flat-earthers, though it could just as easily be Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other half-baked rubbish - and spread it, whilst rubbishing all others. If that faith happens to contradict scientific fact - for example, that the earth is not flat, then too bad for science. Now many people point to the good results achieved by such schools. What isn't pointed out is that any school with supportive parents and a selective entrance policy will do better than a school forced to take in everybody. If selection and private education were banned - if children were obliged to attend their local school - then everyone would benefit, as all schools would have a mix of children, there would be no ghetto schools, and "middle class" parents could worry about how good their local school is, not just leave it to rot, because they can afford to send their kids elsewhere. And whilst we're at it, ban religious symbols. Be they crucifixes, skullcaps or headscarves. More signs of division. These are kids - too young to be able to understand the full nonsense of religion, anyway. As Richard Dawkins once pointed out, no parents would say that their 5 year old is a Marxian Anarcho-Syndicalist, but many would describe their child as a Christian, Jew or Muslim. Let them decide themselves, when they're old enough to understand. Not try to force these opinions on them.
Which, essentially, is the theme of these seemingly disparate strands. Choice. Freedom. Beware of those who claim to offer it. But always make sure you have it...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home