The Australian government has made a formal apology for the past wrongs caused by successive governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, apologised to all Aborigines for laws and policies that "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss". But the Aborigines want more. They want money and are calling the apology a 'cut-price sorry'.
Back in 1998, in a meeting with Tony Blair, the Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto offered "an expression of deep remorse and heartfelt apology to the people who suffered in the Second World War". But Britain's war veterans wanted more. They had been hoping for an apology from the entire government as well as further compensation on top of that received in 50 years ago.
Two years ago Tony Blair expressed his "deep sorrow" for Britain's role in the slave trade. But representitives of those with ancestors victimised by the slavery wanted a formal apology (which Blair ruled out) and, of course, financial compensation.
So what's the point? Most country's governments have been violent and oppressive at some time in their history. Where does the guilt stop?
In fact, all of these apologies are meaningless. The groups are obviously resigned to their martyrdom, and nothing short of a financial pay-out will really satisfy them. And no modern day leader has the right to apologise for wrongs committed by previous generations anyway, however horrific.
My suggestion is that these powerful governments concentrate on dealing with the poverty and oppression happening around the world this very minute, rather than worrying about past misdemeanours that are cemented into history, and impossible to correct.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Civilised? US?
I am far from being a libertarian. I believe prisons should be hard places where punishment and reform are being dished out in equal measure. I believe life should mean life. However, I also believe in fair trials and that torture, in whatever form, has no place in civilised society.
At the same time as US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff promises a fair trial for Guantanamo prisoners accused of organising the 9/11 attacks, the CIA admits torture in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. No words of mine can express the horror of 9/11, but by committing acts of torture, the US authorities have sunk as low as the barbarians who plotted and carried out the attack on New York.
And Michael Chertoff's definition of a 'fair trial' is interesting. A conviction can be gained by a two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The jury is made up of military officers not members of the public. The 'evidence', including hearsay and some obtained by coercion, will be allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".
And some evidence will be not released to the accused or his representatives if it is deemed to contain classified information. Neither is the accused protected by the Geneva conventions. Groups like Amnesty International, who would release the most fairly convicted paedophile back into the playground with a slap on the wrist and bag of sweets, are quite rightly having a field day with this blatant infringement of human rights.
Someone will be found guilty for 9/11. The US demands it, and will be extremely selective in both its morals and laws as to how that guilt and punishment is apportioned.
At the same time as US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff promises a fair trial for Guantanamo prisoners accused of organising the 9/11 attacks, the CIA admits torture in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. No words of mine can express the horror of 9/11, but by committing acts of torture, the US authorities have sunk as low as the barbarians who plotted and carried out the attack on New York.
And Michael Chertoff's definition of a 'fair trial' is interesting. A conviction can be gained by a two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The jury is made up of military officers not members of the public. The 'evidence', including hearsay and some obtained by coercion, will be allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".
And some evidence will be not released to the accused or his representatives if it is deemed to contain classified information. Neither is the accused protected by the Geneva conventions. Groups like Amnesty International, who would release the most fairly convicted paedophile back into the playground with a slap on the wrist and bag of sweets, are quite rightly having a field day with this blatant infringement of human rights.
Someone will be found guilty for 9/11. The US demands it, and will be extremely selective in both its morals and laws as to how that guilt and punishment is apportioned.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Grab a clucking bargain!
Tescos have been heavily criticised for reducing the price of its whole chickens to £1.99.
Critics of this move include the National Union of Farmers, who have said that the move is "extremely ill-judged and short sighted." Apparently Tesco are "..sucking value out of the supply chain." All together now, ahhhhhh, poor farmers.
In the current financial climate Tescos should be applauded. OK, they are probably the country's biggest retail capitalists but, in February 2008, any discount on a basic food commodity will no doubt be welcomed by a majority of customers.
An RSPCA spokeswoman was quoted as saying, "The consumer has the clout to change supermarket policy and we strongly encourage shoppers to buy higher welfare chicken and not be tempted by the discount."
Indeed, supply and demand is undoubtedly a wonderful thing. But the fact is that the average consumer cares more about how they are going to feed their family on, in reality, a ever reducing budget, than whether chickens are lied to about what time of day it is. As Tescos put it, "No-one should feel guilty buying a chicken just because it is good value."
A vast majority of the population cannot afford the luxury of fair trade coffee or free range foods. For those that can, great. I hope that you and Marks & Spencer are very happy.
Critics of this move include the National Union of Farmers, who have said that the move is "extremely ill-judged and short sighted." Apparently Tesco are "..sucking value out of the supply chain." All together now, ahhhhhh, poor farmers.
In the current financial climate Tescos should be applauded. OK, they are probably the country's biggest retail capitalists but, in February 2008, any discount on a basic food commodity will no doubt be welcomed by a majority of customers.
An RSPCA spokeswoman was quoted as saying, "The consumer has the clout to change supermarket policy and we strongly encourage shoppers to buy higher welfare chicken and not be tempted by the discount."
Indeed, supply and demand is undoubtedly a wonderful thing. But the fact is that the average consumer cares more about how they are going to feed their family on, in reality, a ever reducing budget, than whether chickens are lied to about what time of day it is. As Tescos put it, "No-one should feel guilty buying a chicken just because it is good value."
A vast majority of the population cannot afford the luxury of fair trade coffee or free range foods. For those that can, great. I hope that you and Marks & Spencer are very happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
