Back To The Blog

Well, this last few months I've been pretty lax about posting here. Partly it has been a lack of inspiring topics coming up in the news, though there seems to be a deluge of them in the last few weeks. Partly it has been the pressure of the other parts of my life intruding. Partly it's been the seasonal lethargy that many of us who live at higher latitudes experience each winter. So, time to shake all that off, and get back to writing on a regular basis.

Standing Up For Freedom of Speech

On January 1st, 2010, a new law came into force in the Irish Republic, which outlaws blasphemy against any religion. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted. The penalty for breaking this law is a fine of 25000 euros.

This law is clearly unjust. Religion should be capable of defending itself against ridicule or criticism, instead of hiding behind draconian laws. Existing laws protect against actual discrimination or incitement to violence. This law is unnecessary, and is clearly against the terms of the European and United Nations charters on fundamental human rights, which both guarantee freedom of speech and expression. Significantly, there is nothing in the law to prevent religious people from denigrating the beliefs of any other group in society.

Atheist Ireland have accordingly published a list of 25 statements on their website, which should be considered blasphemous under the new law, and are inviting the authorities to prosecute them for doing so, so that they may challenge this ridiculous law in the courts.

I am publishing the list of the statements below to show solidarity with this action. Unfortunately, I do not live in Ireland, myself, as I would happily challenge it as well. You will notice that the list includes quotes from the current Irish Justice Minister (who introduced the bill!), the current Pope, Jesus of Nazareth, and Mohammad.


List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland


1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

Corrupt, Corrupt From The Bottom To The Top, They tell Me It's The Law....

Once again the row over politicians expense claims has kicked off in Britain, with the Westminster Parliament still mired in sleaze and echoing to the sound of whining MPs. It seems that our elected representatives still don't get it. At all!

They have been told by an independent investigator that they should not have been able to claim unlimited amounts for items such as cleaning and gardening, and they should pay back any amount above a certain limit set retrospectively by that investigator. They have also been told to justify some of the items on their claim forms. It is likely that, in the future, the mortgages and designation of second homes will come under further scrutiny, with far larger sums due to be repaid. Furthermore, criminal investigations are under way against a number of parliamentarians.

The MPs have reacted with outrage, and some are publicly denying the right of the investigator to judge them retrospectively, as the claims fell within the rules when made. There may be some justification for that position, if there was no question over the integrity of those rules, and the MPs interpretation of them. However, that is not the case, and the simple fact is that, no matter how the rules were interpreted by the Fees Office and the MPs, the accepted business practice is that only those expenses that directly and wholly relate to the conduct of that business can be claimed. MPs have claimed for food, cleaning, gardening, home improvements etc. Only the expenses that arise directly from running their offices and from representing their constituents should ever have been legitimately claimed, no matter what the rules were. Yet, the MPs still don't see this. They think they are entitled.

In turn, the public are disgusted by the MPs, and fed up with their antics. They point out that had they behaved as the MPs have, then they would have been disciplined, or dismissed, or possibly prosecuted. They resent that MPs are still spending so much time on this, when they should be devoting themselves to improving the economy and saving their constituents jobs. They feel that MPs are setting a poor example when so many services and employees face cutbacks, and wish they would admit their faults, pay back the over-claimed money, and then get on with their jobs, until such time as they face the verdict of their electorate in the coming year.

They find it absurd that MPs have the right to decide these things for themselves, anyway. The perception is widespread, if not unanimous, that the vast majority are in Westminster to line their own pockets and further their own interests, instead of representing the people who sent them there. There is also the perception that many represent the lobbyists and vested interests over their constituents. Politicians reputation is at an all-time low!

This matters for a number of reasons. Firstly, the continued devaluation of the reputation of our political system calls into question the very legitimacy and relevance of that system. The longer that continues, the further participation rates in the electoral process will drop, and that undermines the foundations of a liberal, parliamentary democracy, leaving the door open to extremists and anti-democratic tendencies.

Secondly, the individuals concerned seem unable to discern the moral basis for rules and law-making. This calls into question their integrity, and their ability to make laws in a just, wise and impartial manner. This undermines the legitimacy of the laws passed by such a legislature. It should not have to be explained to those seeking election to high office what the moral requirements of serving the public interest, and safeguarding the public resources, are.

The recent scandal of the Attorney General's housekeeper reinforces the view that those in power have no regard for the laws they, themselves, pass, and seem not to think that they apply to them. Even when caught breaking the law, they seem to have no shame or sense of responsibility. How can they then expect that of those for whom they make those laws?

Thirdly, our political leaders, like it or not, do set an example to the rest of society. How are we to instill the correct values into the younger generation, if our leaders seem to have their eyes firmly on the main chance, and not on serving the common good? How can we hope to shame the financiers and bankers into acting lawfully and morally, if those leading the call are seen to be just as corrupt and grasping? We can not expect our politicians to be whiter than white at all times, but we should expect far higher standards than those they seem to wish to adhere to.

It is not what the rules allow, or what can be got away with, that our parliamentarians should regard as acceptable, but what is obviously right and proper. If there is any doubt, then simply don't do it! Our parliamentarians should be suitably remunerated for the job they do, which is undoubtedly stressful and demanding, if done properly and full-time. I would prefer them to be linked to a multiple of average earnings; that would motivate them to govern towards an equitable and prosperous society, instead of in favour of the corporations and rich individuals who fund their parties. They should be able to claim legitimate expenses arising from running their offices and the necessity to live in two places, but they should not profit in any way from those arrangements. Any gains should revert to the taxpayer, and not be pocketed by the MPs, and they should not be able to claim anything which is considered a normal living expense for the rest of the population. And the regulation and oversight of the whole system should be taken our of MPs hands once and for all.



As a footnote, I can't help but wonder how different our Westminster Parliament and the political system might be if run by Quakers, according to Quaker testimonies and methods. It might take a little longer to get to decisions than the current system (then again, maybe not!), and it would certainly not be perfect (we are only human), but it would have far greater integrity, and would govern with a commitment to equality, fairness, compassion and justice, which, I hope, would leave the current system far, far behind. Just a pipe dream, but, hey, no harm in dreaming.....

Johanna Sallstrom - A Modern Story.

The BBC are currently repeating the wonderful Swedish detective series "Wallander" on BBC4, and it is one of the few programmes I watch and look forward to. The series is quite unlike most other detective series in that it is relentlessly downbeat, and pervaded by a sense of melancholy and world-weariness; a feeling enhanced by the washed-out colours and the dilapidated bleakness of the locations selected. There is more than a suggestion of an inherent disgust with a society that allows the mundane cruelty, suffering and pain, and the many petty indignities which the Ystad police witness with such regularity.

One of the lead characters is the detective's daughter and fellow police officer, Linda Wallander, played by the Swedish actress, Johanna Sallstrom (pictured above). Linda is a young, fit and healthy woman, starting out on a career as a newly recruited policewoman, who has obtained rapid promotion to detective. Yet her character seems haunted by the same sadness that affects her father, the experienced and worn-down, Kurt Wallander, whose face is a mirror of the toll his job has taken. Somehow, this trait never quite rang true with me, despite her father's character. Very few women in their twenties have that quality overshadowing them, and especially not when advancing well in their chosen profession, and living a full and active life.



It is revealed later in the series, however, that Linda's mother is a psychotic alcoholic and is in a psychiatric hospital, and that Linda, herself, had tried to commit suicide when her parent's marriage fell apart. I was quite in awe of Johanna's ability to transmit this so consistently in her portrayal of Linda, whilst being a busy and dedicated police officer. A rare talent, indeed.

The mystery was solved for me recently, when I happened to read an article about Johanna Sallstrom. Johanna's was not a happy life, despite her great talent and burgeoning success. She was a teenage star of soap operas and films, winning an award for her part in Under Ytan (Beneath the Surface). Yet, she found it hard to cope with the attention this brought, and in 1997 she took a break from acting and moved to Denmark, where she worked in a cafe.

She returned to Sweden in 2000, and resumed her career. She struggled financially, landing only occasional bit parts and faced eviction from her home, even as she was pregnant with her daughter, Talulah. She divorced from her husband shortly after Talulah's birth, and later confessed she was so lonely that she welcomed the visit of a court official, assessing her eviction She invited him in for coffee, as he was the first human contact she had had in so many days. She was at the lowest possible ebb when she landed the role of Linda Wallander.



This should have been a turning point for her, and she seemed set for happiness with her young daughter and a dream role, but in December 2004 she was holidaying on a beach in Thailand when the Indian Ocean tsunami swept in, devastating the coast and, as it turned out, Johanna's life. She managed to save her own, and her daughter's, life by clinging to a tree, but saw many hundreds of people killed around her, including friends and dozens of fellow Swedes, who favoured these resorts.

Johanna seems never to have recovered from that experience, and a naturally shy and fragile person, who already struggled with the demands of her chosen profession, was haunted by what she had experienced and seen in Thailand. Much of that trauma seems etched on her face in the Wallander films. In filming some of these episodes, she must have been faced with many of her personal demons to do with death, mental illness and the tsunami. The shock and distress we see on Linda's face was probably all too real at times for Johanna.

Although intensely private, Johanna gave an interview early in 2006, in which she revealed that she had not expected to live to 30 (she was then 31), and implied suicidal thoughts in the past, but that she was looking forward to her future career, and enjoying life with her daughter. Sadly, her mental state rapidly declined after the filming of Wallander ended, and she was admitted to a psychiatric unit in Malmo.




It was some months later, on 13 February, 2007, whilst on an unsupervised visit to her flat, that Johanna took her own life by a prescription drugs overdose.


It is tragic that a young mother should have been so traumatised by her 2004 experiences, and by the demands of the public spotlight and life in general, that she should have chosen to leave her young daughter alone in that manner. It is even more sad when that woman was a beautiful, gentle and talented woman, who had so much to offer, and so much to look forward to, and who was finally achieving the career success and stability that she had struggled so hard for.



This story affected me deeply when I read it. Henning Mankell, who wrote the "Wallander" books and scripts, was so upset by her death, that he has not written another "Wallander" story since, and swears that no-one will ever replace her in any future "Wallander" books or films.

I feel a tangible connection with Johanna through my own experiences of clinical depression, my appreciation of her talent, and love of her work, and through my regard for the Skane region of Sweden where she lived. I was unaware of her death when I first saw "Wallander", and my second viewing is now highly coloured by my knowledge of it.

Like Kurt WallanderSallstrom should have felt the need to take such a step? It is clear that the tsunami paid a large part in her subsequent illness, but Johanna was already in trouble long before that.

Our obsessive individualism has robbed us of much of the support and solace we could traditionally have turned to, and even the best medical systems are not adequate to replace them. Our celebrity culture places intolerable burdens on those who seek to use their talents, but do not seek the fame and attention that that now entails. Our vicarious interest in their every word and deed seems guaranteed to drive many others down that path, as it has so many already. But, it is not just the celebrity elites that are so afflicted.

All the indications are that such mental illness is afflicting more and more of us throughout society, and across much of the world. It afflicts young and old, rich and poor. It corrodes the families, communities and organisations that should be the foundations of our lives. Is this society and culture the best we humans can devise when it drives so many of us to the brink of insanity, and all too often beyond?

Climate Change Action Synchronicity - Blog Action Day 2009

The science shows that climate change is now an undeniable reality, and the evidence indicates that the effects are already happening now, and will be far worse than many people realise, if we don't take significant action very soon. Just today we have a new report from a distinguished researcher on the Arctic sea ice depletion, which confirms that the impacts are happening faster and more extensively than anyone anticipated even a few years ago.

However, climate change is only one of several potentially disastrous crises facing humanity. We are seeing peak oil approaching rapidly, if not already with us, and the depletion of many other finite resources. This challenges our current way of life, particularly in the industrialised nations, on so many levels. We see food production, itself increasingly reliant on fossil fuels, in conflict with fuel crops. Water shortage, desertification, salination and soil erosion are already major problems for agriculture, which climate change will only exacerbate, and threaten our ability to feed the growing population. Our food production and distribution systems are grossly wasteful and inefficient, and so much other economic activity is frivolous and damaging.

Humanity, itself, is threatened by global health crises due to ever faster moving and mutating viruses, obesity, persistent chemical pollutants and the mental health problems associated with either poverty or the stress of modern urban existence. Our societies are breaking down as communities and families become ever more fractured, and inequalities and injustices proliferate. And our population continues to multiply, threatening the already depleted resources on which we rely.

The choices facing us are clear, and shocking to many, but what is significant is that many of those changes needed to tackle climate change are also those that will alleviate many of the other ills enumerated above.

We need to learn to use far less energy, and use it more wisely. So many of the power-intensive gadgets in our homes are unnecessary. Designers continue to produce new products that are ever more energy hungry, in use and production. We have the technology to build and renovate homes that need little or no external energy inputs, but little is being done to utilise it, even though this would release many from the thralldom of ever increasing fuel bills.

Food and other commodities need to be localised, wherever possible, and businesses need to find new ways of engaging with customers, and each other, to reduce the endless treadmill of sales meetings and conferences, which together contribute so much to the transport demands of our society. Not only would this reinvigorate local economies, and remove many of the absurdities of the globalised trade system, but it would allow many to achieve a more humane work-life balance and reduce the inherent stress of modern life, addressing both the mental health impacts and strengthening families and communities. Perhaps then we would feel less need for so many overseas vacations, usually by heavily-polluting plane, and perhaps, also, epidemics would spread less quickly and widely.

We need to learn to consume less, and consume more considerately. So much food is wasted by consumers, in addition to the massive waste of the industry and retail sectors, and that which is consumed is often highly energy-demanding to process, and full of chemicals, fats, sugars and salt, ingredients necessary to the processed food production. Simpler diets, with less processed food, and less meat and dairy products, would not only significantly reduce the global warming impact of out food, but would massively reduce the incidence of obesity, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Eating local and seasonal produce wouldn't just result in less waste and energy consumption, but would reduce the pressure on farmers to produce ever more from their land, which leads to destruction of the soil and pollution of the water cycle. It would mean we could ensure those farmers receive a commensurate return for their production too. It is absurd that farmers are going out of business whilst supermarkets make ever higher profits. It is ridiculous and wasteful that so much of the food we grow is used to feed animals for meat and dairy production, instead of feeding humans. It is unjust that peasant farmers are forced from their land in Africa, no longer able to feed themselves or their communities, so that western consumers can enjoy beans, sweetcorn and flowers out of season. Not only are we stealing their food, but their water and soil too.

It isn't just food that we mindlessly throw away without using either. Our western societies have adopted a disposable attitude to so much of our consumption. Products are designed to last ever shorter lives, and are made of complex materials, discouraging their reuse or recycling. Goods are designed to be unrepairable, so we have to purchase replacements, and the marketing gurus insist on ever more new "must have" gadgets and fashions, to replace their predecessors before we really need them. And many we just don't actually need at all! And all this leads to ever greater stress and angst amongst consumers! Consuming less would not only be good for the planet, but for all of us too. It would also ensure the continued availability of resources for the generations to come, and allow the more equitable distribution of those resources across the globe, and within our societies.

Consumption of less would release many of us from the long hours and stressful work we undertake to fund our bloated consumption. Buying less would also mean each of us could afford to spend a little more on what we do buy, so as to ensure it's producers were paid a living wage, and could work in safe conditions, using methods that respected the environment. We could afford goods designed to be reusable, recyclable, and with less reliance on high energy inputs and finite resources. We need to expect less and value it more.



The campaigns to grow food locally, to reduce waste, to consume less, to embrace fairtrade etc etc are helping reinvigorate our communities, and people are rediscovering the value and joy of working together, and sharing time, goods and ideas. The technologies we need to enable a sustainable future will create new jobs, replacing those in the destructive old industries, and the localisation and simplification of our economy will create more opportunities for small businesses and trades, which provide far greater employment potential than large companies.

The steps we need to take to address climate change will not only reduce future damage from that threat, but will deliver healthier, saner, more humane, more just, more equitable, and, ultimately, more sustainable and enjoyable lives for the majority of people on the planet, whilst safeguarding the ecosystems on which we rely for our very existence.

That's the message we need to deliver to our political leaders and the whole population today. Don't do it because it's worthy; do it because it will mean a better life for you and your fellow citizens, in this country and throughout the world.

To find out what other bloggers have to say today, visit www.blogactionday.org

Preserving Freedom

There has been much debate recently in the UK about whether the British National Party should be allowed to speak on national TV politics shows. Motions have been discussed within political parties and trade unions, and some have even suggested that the current ban on police officers belonging to this party should be extended to all public servants, national and local. There is talk of banning them from TV altogether, disallowing them from using any public facilities and putting other obstacles in their path.

This is a question that goes right to the heart of our definition of a free and democratic society.

The BNP are certainly a fascistic party with some pretty objectionable policies. They are, however, a legal political party, with elected local councillors and, now, two MEPs sitting in Strasbourg. They have existed as a legal entity for many years, but are enjoying renewed vigour, probably as a result of the recent immigration from the new EU accession states, and of the economic downturn. There may well be good arguments for banning such a party, and they are certainly acting illegally, under UK and EU law, in not allowing non-white people to join; they face a possible prosecution on this very issue. However, at present, they are a legal party, with legitimately elected representatives.

Can we, as a society espousing the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, and as signatories to the Charter of Human Rights, stop people joining the legal political party of their choice, however repulsive it seems to many, or harass that party in the conduct of legitimate business? Under the rules of equal access and political bias, can our broadcasters deny them airtime or participation in political debate?

Is not the odiousness of their xenophobia and racism best exposed by publicly confronting it, holding it up to ridicule, and revealing the flawed logic and lack of intelligence behind it? Or do we fear that we are not able to do so? Do we defeat extremism by resorting to extremism, or by extolling the virtue of the opposing view and values, and by practising them? Should we not be trying to educate those communities and individuals who have chosen to support the BNP, rather than dismissing and abusing them?

If the electorate, rightly or wrongly, have chosen these people, then should they not be allowed to perform the duty of representing their electorate unimpeded? This is a representative democracy, and that means representing all, not just those we agree with. There seems a real danger of making martyrs and anti-heroes out of the BNP, if we persecute them.

Inciting violence and hatred are criminal offences in the UK, particularly against racial and religious minorities and the BNP will likely slip up at some point. As stated, already the Equality Commission are looking at prosecution over the party's rules on membership. If they break the law then action should be taken, but on the same basis as any other crime. This is the proper course to follow, in my opinion.

It seems to me that until this party are proscribed by some means, or a court case forces them out of existence, then they, and their members, have to be treated equally to other parties. That is the very essence of our freedoms, and to do otherwise undermines them. In a free democracy, we must have the right to speak as we choose, as long as we do not incite harm against others, and we must be free to join whatever parties and associations we choose, unless they are implicated in illegality. We can not pick and choose who we give rights to.

Compassion Revisited

On August 20th, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison by the Scottish Government. The reaction since has been most instructive about different countries, societies and cultures. We have seen the developing debate within Scotland, the reaction within Libya, America and the wider world. We have learned much about the motivations of many involved in the background to this decision.

It was deeply unfortunate that the Libyan public chose to celebrate Megrahi's return as they did. It was foolish and insensitive in the presence of so many cameras. However, it should be remembered that their society has very different values to us, and that many of those who celebrated will have been clan members, related to his family; they would have celebrated no matter what they thought of his guilt, or otherwise. It is also reported in some independent media that the Libyan police cleared the crowd very soon after the pictures we all saw.

Furthermore, in much of the world, and amongst many in Britain, there are very real doubts about this man's guilt. Respected journalists, lawyers, politicians and commentators have all supported this view. In Libya, he is viewed as a martyr who laid down his freedom for his country. And even the respected UN observer at his trial has declared it a miscarriage of justice. There are many questions left unanswered. Why was the Syrian link so suddenly dropped? What is the nature of the undisclosed evidence? Why was the Heathrow break-in not mentioned at trial?

It is particularly strange that his co-accused was found innocent, yet Megrahi convicted. The only difference in evidence seems to be that of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, who completely changed his description of the alleged purchaser of the clothing wrapped around the bomb. He seems not to be a reliable witness to base an entire conviction upon. The UK Government should open an inquiry as soon as possible. They owe that to the victims families.

In Scotland, we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the opposition political parties doing their best to extract as much political capital as they can from the row. Yet their own ideas are revealed to be inept, impractical and lacking in any humanity. They reveal themselves to be opportunists with no moral base, and to be mindless pursuers of popular opinion. The gist of their concern seems to be what the rest of the world thinks of us. Yet what do we really know about the rest of the world's opinion? It seems the only opinion they are remotely interested in is that of America. What does this tell us?

For all that it actually matters, I would guess that opinion throughout most of the world is either neutral or positive. It certainly seems that in large parts of Africa and Asia the decision has been greeted positively (not least by Nelson Mandela). All the religious leaders in Scotland seem to be supportive; Catholic, various Protestant denominations, Jewish, Buddhist and Quaker. It would be likely that this is widely shared by religious groups across much of the globe. Perhaps, on balance, Scotland's standing around the world has actually gone up. I think many people would be proud to live in a country that embodied such values in it's legal system. At the end of the day though, I believe that Scotland has done the right thing, and what the world thinks should be of minor concern to us.

And what of that popular opinion here, that the politicians so assiduously chase? At first this was dominated by the negative, but, as people have had time to think for themselves, they have started to move away from the artificial outrage of the media, and polls show them moving to support for the decision. Immediately after the release, the divide was 3-1 against; the most recent poll shows that opinion is now evenly split. And even amongst those who disagree with the decision, the majority support Kenny MacAskill's right to make it, and only a small minority would support his resignation. As time progresses and the dust settles, many more may change their minds, one way or the other. Only history will decide in the end.

And what of American opinion? The reports seem devoid of any understanding of compassion, never mind compassion itself. Yet this is a self proclaimed God-fearing country. Apparently they fear God, but don't listen to the message of their supposed saviour. What do we really expect from a country that continues to support the death penalty, even for juveniles and the mentally deficient? Which regards the provision of adequate healthcare to be some form of socialism, or bankruptcy an acceptable price to pay for it? Which puts the machismo of gun ownership above the lives of so many of it's citizens?

Perhaps the most depressing and disturbing aspect of American reaction is the call, by hopefully a vocal minority, for a boycott of Scotland and the whole UK because of one decision by one minister in part of the UK. Never mind the support this country has given the US on so many occasions, despite our many misgivings about their policies. Never mind the tens of thousands of UK, and especially Scottish, troops that have served alongside the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dozens of other places over the past decades. Never mind the thousands of wounded and mutilated amongst them. Or the hundreds that gave their lives.



Twisted and cynical it certainly is, as we witness the oil companies and Westminster politicians cosying up to the Libyan Government. But that is realpolitik. Did this play a role in Kenny MacAskill's decision? Somehow I doubt it. I can't quite see the SNP doing Gordon Brown any favours, especially as his government squeezes the Holyrood budgets. Indeed, pressure from that direction would more likely have the opposite effect. I think this was a genuine decision taken on correct legal and moral grounds.

Luckily, I know, as will many, that there are many more intelligent Americans, who understand that this was Scotland's decision to make, and who may, at least, understand the values which we have espoused in so doing. They will continue to regard Scotland, and it's people, as friends and allies. There may even be some who support that decision, but it is unlikely that the media will let them have their voice.