Dragons

Brexit is going as expected. Ruined trade, broken pledges and ongoing assaults on human rights and the rule of law. It has led me to reflect on the root causes, and I mean the real baselines of what is going on.

After the vote to leave but before we actually did in 2020, the British public were promised many things. That we would be free of regulation from Brussels and ‘unelected bureaucrats’; a free nation negotiating exciting and buccaneering trade deals across the globe. Now, let’s take that all at face value. Could this government have predicted Covid19? Well, they were not the only government that missed the warning signs, so let’s be generous and say that a lot of countries were caught with their collective pants down. This blog post will not go further: it is not an attempt  to critique the government’s performance on Covid.

Less forgivable is the current energy crisis. This government has been in power since 2010. Up to 2015, The Conservative / Lib Dem Coalition mainly continued the previous Labour administration policy of encouraging renewable energy development, while mainly relying upon gas-fired power stations to deliver the majority of supply and nuclear power to deliver baseline electricity. While inadequate in many ways, at least there was a continued shift away from fossil fuels. Come the summer of 2015, after the Liberal Democrats were roundly punished by the British public, the Conservatives under Cameron got rid of the ‘green crap’. Support for small and medium scale renewable development was severely curtailed. The emphasis is, to this day, on only promoting large-scale renewable energy, deliverable only by corporations. While there still has been progress, it has been mainly in the area of offshore wind, with some solar. With the continued decline of North Sea oil and gas, any other shortfall is now made up by building electrical interconnectors to neighbouring nations and importing the deficit. In short, Britain is now more firmly plugged into the European energy grid than ever before, and with proportionally the highest level of fossil fuel imports since the 1970s. From 2004, the UK became a net importer of energy and as of 2018, 90% of UK imports has been in the form of oil and gas.  

Where does this all relate to Brexit? Basically, for if there was for any chance of a positive outcome for Brexit, it would rely upon only the UK changing and the rest of the world basically staying the same. So while in terms of a global pandemic, it might be acceptable to give the Brexiters a pass, the same cannot be said of the current energy crisis. Why? Because there are always energy crises: OPEC in the 1970s, Iran and the subsequent Iran-Iraq War, the first Gulf War, Gulf War II, and now Ukraine. Energy crises are unpredictable in timing but like buses, they turn up in the end. In not addressing the issue seriously, in a fundamental sense the negligence of this Conservative government has put the national energy supply at risk and has sentenced us all to the massive price rises that we see today. 

I could end this post right here but that is not what I set out to write. There is another perspective and this is the one which I have proposed since the start: that Brexit is designed to take Britain, us, to our knees. In previous blogs I have described Brexit as a coup, and there is nothing that has happened since that has persuaded me otherwise. The Ukraine crisis is being used by Johnson as a human shield in his very public support for the Zelenskyy regime, and the struggle against the Russian invasion and Putin’s naked aggression. Human rights are being crushed by the Police Bill which basically sets out to outlaw protest, and the assault of refugees by calling them illegals. Universal human rights are just that: universal. To take away human rights of some is an assault upon all. Hence the proposal for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR is a declaration of war by the government against every citizen. Just look at what Gove is proposing with the UK version of GDPR. By allowing the concept of vexatious challenges, and thus allowing corporations to charge individuals each time a person upholds their current rights, privacy basically will become the preserve of the rich. So we come to the point of Brexit: freedom. Freedom for corporations and the extremely rich, not for the masses. 

What do the massively rich want to do with this freedom? This is the nub of the question. The current setup certainly does not inhibit anyone in terms of enjoying luxury. What do they want?

I was watching an old movie from the early Nineties the other week, The Silence of the Lambs. 

Hannibal Lecter:

First principles, Clarice: simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius, "Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?" What does he do, this man you seek?

Clarice Starling:
He kills women.

Hannibal Lecter:
No, that is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does, what needs does he serve by killing?

Clarice Starling:
Anger, social acceptance, and, uh, sexual frustration.

Hannibal Lecter:
No, he covets. That's his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet?

It is the same with the very rich and those who want to be. They covet. And as a society we have allowed this, one of the seven deadly sins, to become a virtue. What is more, the EU put limitations on corporate covetousness. It is true, these limits are not very strict but they exist and to organisations and people that are consumed by covetousness, that is intolerable, or, as former Conservative minister (now Lord) Eric Pickles described it, communism. 

We have so idolised the sin of covetousness that as a nation there are many that are willing to support the destruction of human rights and our standards of living in the hope of benefiting from the current chaos and destruction, and to see destroyed those that stand against this grand project.

In Western mythology, there is a creature that embodies covetousness. They destroy in order to acquire what they desire and once wealth is gained, they do not tolerate challenges to their power and they certainly do not share. 

The United Kingdom is rapidly becoming the abode of dragons. 

Britain: Junior Partner and Authoritarian Future

 I am heartened that during the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, held on the weekend, that both the party’s dedication towards the European Union has been reaffirmed, and we have come out fighting against the Government’s current crime bill that severely curtails the right to peaceful protest. Note the peaceful emphasis though. As I write this I am waking up to news from Bristol about riots as right-to-protest demonstrations turned to violence. There can be no excuse for that and I am very surprised to learn that there have been no arrests made overnight. What has led to such protests though was the Metropolitan Police’s heavy suppression of the vigil following the death of Sarah Everard. Peaceful protest is justified: burning of police vehicles and the infliction of injuries cannot be. 

The little bit of bright news that the party is still pro-EU is set against the big fat raincloud of the future as outlined by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, what I have previously predicted is proving to be correct. Since the UK has left the European Courts of Justice*, the government is bringing about legislation that basically gives free range to police to ban any form of protest on the grounds of it being “deeply annoying”. Both Steve Bray (he of the top hat and megaphone outside Westminster fame) and Greta Thunberg (who on Twitter has since adopted the label "Deeply Annoying") would have certainly attracted the maximum fine of £2500 (or a year in prison) for solo protesting under the proposed law. Steve would have had an additional £5000 fine for directing a megaphone at parliament. Larger demonstrations, such as the one I witnessed in Aberdeen in January 2020 by Extinction Rebellion, are the main target of the legislation. Now, I don’t back ER’s aims (which involves a complete socialist takeover of all aspects of life) but I do support their right to peacefully protest. Did they disrupt business for the day in Aberdeen? Sure, but so what? Their message is important even if I do not approve of their proposed methods to save the planet. I think that the breaking up of the vigil in memory of Sarah Everard is exactly what current Home Secretary Priti Patel would love to see being used against ER’s Red Brigade. 

Extinction Rebellion in Aberdeen, January 2020

Another example of suppression of rights is embodied by recent criticism of BBC television presenter, Naga Munchetty who, along with fellow presenter Charlie Stayt were accused of making derogatory comments about the flag being used by Tory minister Robert Jenrick. Naga was later forced to issue an apology and there were calls online by at least one Conservative MP, Richard Kemp, who said on Twitter “The BBC must stop employing those who despise their own country.” I can assure Mr Kemp that mocking the Conservatives for waving bloody big Union Flags in the face of the public at every opportunity is not the same as despising one’s own country. Nor is opposition to this government, no matter how much one might indeed despise it.

The creation and crackdown against dissidents at home match the proposals for military expansion elsewhere. Although the Army is facing further cuts in numbers, the proposal to increase military spending by £80 billion should be seen as aggressive expansion of overall capacity and global power projection. The focus seems very much of the greater mechanism of the forces, with drones and similar remote vehicles seeing heavy investment, as well as the Royal Navy. To my mind, combined with our leaving the EU, means only one thing: the UK has picked a side and that side is with the USA, against everyone else. Remember that these plans were being prepared during the Trump administration and many on the right of US politics sees the EU, not as an ally and partner, but as a rival. So while the headlines are full of opposing Russia and China, ultimately they will be pointed at whoever the USA thinks is the greatest threat. Leaving the EU clarifies the UK’s ultimate loyalties, and they are with not with our nearest neighbours. As I write this blog, I am listening to an American admiral who while is bemoaning the proposed cuts to the Army, is very happy with the news that the UK’s number of Trident nuclear warheads will be boosted by forty percent. Wouldn't it be weird if representatives from other nation's military were to be invited on Today to comment upon the UK's future military plans? But it is perfectly normal for the Americans to do so and be given space on the BBC to air their opinions. 

There have been calls to adapt to these “new realities”. I don’t think I can. These are the exactly the types of developments that I predicted before leaving the EU. In fact, they are the only logic I can see to Brexit. Certainly there are political battles to be selected (and God knows, there are enough of them: poverty, handling of COVID19, jobs, the NHS to name but a few) but I cannot see any middle ground existing between those, like me, who are opposed to the UK’s current path towards being a junior partner in global superiority at the point of a missile launcher, and the government's path which will see continuing suppression of human rights, both at home and across the planet; spawning a plethora of minor wars and continuing the cycle started by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

It is therefore important that the United Kingdom reengages with our near neighbours as quickly as possible. By reengagement, I mean rejoining of the European Union. At home there has to be agreement among those who oppose this militaristic path to find common ground against the Conservative right who are pushing through this agenda. It is no coincidence that the Conservatives want to see a return to First Past The Post for all elections held across the UK. It is the most undemocratic method of voting possible short of actual vote-rigging, allowing a government voting in on a minority an overall majority in parliament. 

2019-20 Westminster Representation under FPTP

The previous justification for FPTP was that it keeps the extremists out of power. That has now failed: the extremists are in office. I am certain that the Conservatives are banking upon Labour in their continuing support of FPTP but really, Labour has to step up, support a genuine system of proportional representation and take a bullet for democracy on this one. Otherwise with the Conservative FPTP voting majority in England, we are effectively facing the prospect of a single-state party for the UK, just as we currently have with (the slightly more fair voting system) has delivered power to the SNP since 2007. The key to both is the use of identity politics: independence for Scotland and freedom from the EU for English nationalists.

This blog post can be summarised with this: our democracy is in grave danger. It is vital that no further ground be ceded to the right and that ground lost is rapidly recovered. I genuinely fear for the future for the UK if this Conservative government win a further term. Don’t shoot the Lib Dem messenger Labour, but the country does need you to step up and provide genuine opposition and reform. We cannot carry on having our nation’s path set by those on the extreme right. That outcome will be too horrible to contemplate but we are now on the path to authoritarianism. 

*This blog has been updated on the 24th of March as I previously stated that the UK has left the EHCR. The Brexit agreement allows for provision to leave parts of the EHCR but this has not yet actually occurred. 

This Week: The Highs and Very Lows

This week has seen some of the best and worst of people and politics.

My own week started on Leith Links, campaigning with the Edinburgh North, East and Leith Liberal Democrats.  Given that the EU referendum is coming up, we decided to put our efforts into supporting the Remain campaign.  Always the party with the greatest enthusiasm for the European Union, I found it a real pleasure engaging people on the subject.

Even those who didn't want to know the Libdems (I know, hard to believe!) were usually willing to talk on Europe.  My approach was straightforward.  Those who were undecided were offered, and glad to accept, information on the matter.  We had brochures, leaflets and we're glad to answer questions.   People who had already decided to vote to stay were offered rather tasteful lapel badges with stickers and balloons for the children.

It was those who intended to vote for Brexit that were really engaged.  I always asked "Why?"   Now some would not be talked to, offering a stream of thoughts as they departed.  Most did stop and explain their reasoning.  The amount of misinformation about the EU is rather scary.   One person was not even aware that the European Parliament was elected and was seriously surprised that the next election for the Parliament would be in 2018, after they had missed the 2014 elections.   Others had to be reassured that the UK did have full control of non-EU immigration. One person raised the question of anti-social behaviour (littering) by some young Eastern Europeans, to which I countered "That is against the law so why aren't we applying own own laws?"  Countering minor nuisances like this doesn't depend upon the nationality of those causing it.

The result was that over half of those who had claimed to be solid No voters went away with a different point of view.  It was a good result and shows the value of real facts and direct conversation.

The next morning was the start of the lows.  News of a mass shooting came through from Orlando.  There had already been the murder of promising young singer, 22-year-old Christine Grimmie,  in the same town, earlier in the week.  It seems a perverse coincidence that there would be another incident there so soon.  As the details arose throughout the day, the full horror became clear.  The biggest mass killing by a single shooter on US soil was a homophobic hate crime.  From my viewpoint, LGBT+ rights are simply human rights.  I know that the gunman, whose name frankly should be forgotten, claimed to act in the name of ISIS but, giving the previous involvement that the murderer had with the Pulse club, perhaps that was just to give some self-justification for the atrocity he had decided to commit.

America, I don't think the root cause of the problem is the amount of guns in society, although that is a massive factor.  Rather it is the general attitude toward the value of human life.  It took two mass killings in the UK, thirteen in Australia, before guns were banned in the respective nations, with widespread public support.  It seems to us abroad, despite the continuation of the phenomena, despite the anguish of the parents and relatives of the dead, the attachment to firearms continue.  Perhaps since the right to bear arms was as part of a trained militia, that the only legal weapons should be flintlock muskets and civil war pistols.  Seriously though, military grade weapons have no purpose in civilian hands.  I remember that assault-grade weapons, such as a BAR, used to be sold with only three-round magazines for civilian collectors.  The only reason one can see to change that was to sell more weapons and bullets.  An AR-15 comes with a 30-round magazine as standard.
It might be naive to suggest a total ban but a handgun is more than enough for those who feel the need for personal protection.  Taking military grade weapons off the open market would finally signal a change in American attitudes.  Even that is too much for the NRA, arms dealers and their cronies in the Congress and Senate.   In my opinion, any society that does not value human life is the last society that should have open access to firearms.

From horrors like the massacre at the Pulse Nightclub, sometimes beauty comes forth.  Such beauty was the reaction.  Vigils were held across the world and I would like to thank the Edinburgh branch of Inclusive Networks for organising Wednesday's event, held in St.Andrew's Square.  The event was open to all and people of all ages and genders attended in large numbers, despite the unpleasant and dreich weather.  Two choirs, Loud&Proud and Edinburgh's Gay Men's Chorus, sang wonderfully and there were speeches from politicians and non-politicians alike.  The most moving part was the reading of the names.  Stalin was right: numbers are just a statistic.  Hearing the names, hearing how young and how much life would have been ahead of the fallen, that for me was important.  I turned fifty this week so in a position to fully appreciate how much life, how many futures, were taken.  For many LGBT+ people the massacre was also a violation of a haven: an area where one could relax and just be oneself in a safe and supportive environment.  It is a shame that such places are still necessary but, despite what has been achieved over the last fifty years, it is so.  We are still not in a society where neither the life not dignity of every individual is respected by all.

The following day (which was my birthday anniversary) I attended the afternoon's political rally held by the IN campaign.  This rally was symbolically very important because of its cross-party nature.  Chaired by Scottish Libdem leader Willie Rennie: Greens, Conservatives, SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrats were all represented by senior party figures.  For Labour it was Scottish party leader Kezia Dugdale and for the Liberal Democrats it was Nick Clegg.  Whatever views you may have about Nick (mine are mixed), he is a brilliant speaker.  Sitting next to me was a lady from the SNP who breathed a none-too-subtle "Oh my God" when Nick was a little way into his speech.  By the end she was clapping enthusiastically.

More importantly though, while all five parties want to see different outcomes from the European Union, we are all united in wanting to see it work and Britain to be an important member and leader in Europe.

I am immodest enough to note my own question was well received.  A few days before the "Official Information About the Referendum" leaflet from Vote Leave came through my letterbox.  Noting in my preamble it had ended up in the bottom of my canary's cage, I asked how best to challenge the misinformation held within it.  One example is that it stated that Turkey is set up to join the EU.  This is a lie: Turkey is nowhere near fulfilling the criteria for EU membership despite decades of negotiation.  More disturbingly, the leaflet notes the positions of Syria and Iraq in relation to Turkey.  This is beyond EU debate: it is nothing less than an appeal to xenophobia and I asked, with a week to go, how best to fight this aspect.  I appreciate Willie giving me the opportunity to put the question, which was well-answered by Nick.

At the start of the event, Willie Rennie informed the hall that there had been an attack on Jo Cox MP, to considerable shock and dismay.  None of us knew that by that time she had already died of her wounds, leaving a husband and two small children.  It was only in the late afternoon, tuning into PM and hearing Jo Cox's maiden speech being broadcast, that I knew then she was dead.

I didn't know Jo Cox but have no reason to disbelieve any of the tributes being made of her.  I am sure had she lived, that she would have made a great contribution to public life.  What shook me was the violence and manner of her death.  Members of parliament (and we now have several parliaments across the UK) come from the public and are at their best when serving the public.  They have to be available and approachable, which of course leaves them vulnerable.  When it comes to security, I think it should be up to each member of parliament to speak with the police and make the arrangements that they feel most comfortable with.   What should not happen is that members of parliament are cut off from the open access that is currently afforded.

I have stood for parliament a few times now and have yet to be elected.  Perhaps it will never happen, who knows.  It should be noted that most people who stand are aware that that they will not be elected.  We stand in order to propagate and promote the ideas, to lay the groundwork for party success in the future.  That may involve personal success but nothing is guaranteed.  If we were doing it for personal gain, we would be idiots.  There are some exceptions of course, especially when a given party is at its zenith of fortune, but on the whole what I say stands.  The vast majority of candidates do it for love and a wish to serve, not for money and certainly not for the glory.

When out on the hustings, in street, on the doorstep, one is vulnerable.  I have been pretty lucky: never having suffered personal abuse nor intimidation.  Most people are very nice; regardless of what they may think of one's personality or politics.   My fortune should not be taken for granted.   I personally know two candidates, standing in the 2016 elections here in Scotland, one of which who suffered intimidation after an otherwise civil hustings, and another who had to undergo the humiliation of racial abuse as the spoiled ballets  were being shown to all candidates.  The former was a woman and of course the latter comes from a BAME background.  Both cases are an outrage and I am aware that perhaps one reason I have not had similar experiences is because being white, male, straight and solidly-built (okay, a bit fat), such abuse does not come my way.  I have unearned privilege but I am aware of this and working for a society where such humiliations are not heaped upon other heads.

Listening to the news this evening, it was stated that the killer of Jo Cox was, during the 1990s, involved with the US Neo-Nazi group The National Alliance.  Now I remember this bunch.  They were the real-deal, full-fat Aryan white supremacists.  While at university, by accident I discovered the group online and, being blonde and blue-eyed, I felt it incumbent upon myself to disagree with these bastards.  If Jo's murderer was indeed involved with this group and paid real money for their publications, I find it extremely easy to believe that, unless he had undergone a Damascene conversion in the years since, that he would be a supporter of today's Britain First.  In their own way they are just as vile and nasty as The National Alliance was then.

I started this week in campaigning mode for the Vote Remain and Scotland Stronger in Europe teams.  It didn't turn out that way.  This week is a ghastly, horrible, reminder that as a society we may feel that we have come far from how things were in my youth.  In reality we haven't.  The demons of hatred, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny are still with us.  Their chains have become loosened, resulting in the deaths of many.

It is up to every single one of us to continue the fight against hatred, in all its forms.  We do not win by hating back.  Hatred is defeated through knowledge, wisdom and love.  Love is love.

Campaign Letter #16: Christian Persecution

Thank you for your letter on the subject of religious intolerance.

To pick up upon the first topic that you allude to: that of registrars performing same-sex marriage.

To be clear, I support the right of two adults to marry, regardless of their gender.  http://martinveart.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/campaign-letters-3-equal-marriage.html

There is a school of thought that the registrars are employed to uphold the law of the land and their legal remit.  Personally I think that is a rather harsh approach.  I understand that recognition of same-sex marriage is although right, it is also a problem for some in society.  When that person is expected to conduct marriages that they were not expected to perform previously, I think a period of "grandfathering" of contracts should have been considered under these particular circumstances only.  All new and existing registrars should be expected to change to the new laws but those in a small minority who did object being allowed to stay on until their jobs came to a natural end.  I know that is controversial in both ways and is, I repeat, a personal view.

On the broader point, Liberal Democrats believe freedom of religion or belief and freedom not to practice a religion are fundamental and universal human rights. Liberal Democrats will always ensure the promotion and protection of human rights – including freedom of religion – is at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy. We will ensure this is the case if we are in the next Government. I condemn religious persecution in any form.

It is a sad reality that where freedom of religion is under threat that generally other freedoms are under attack too. I believe governments across the world must ensure the right conditions so that everyone can freely practice their religion.

The recent persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East and Africa is very worrying. I’m pleased that the Liberal Democrats in Government have continued to draw attention to and denounce violence and discrimination against individuals and groups because of their beliefs.

We will continue to call for more open and inclusive societies as this is the best way of ensuring security for Christians and other believers. In Government we have worked with the Arab Partnership to strengthen political participation, the rule of law and sustainable and inclusive economic growth. We will continue to do so if we are back in Government.

It is very encouraging that last year UN Member States passed resolutions on freedom of religion or belief and combating intolerance. We have called upon all UN Member States to put these resolutions into practice so that no-one is persecuted or discriminated against on the grounds of their religion or belief. I was proud that in March the UK, alongside our EU partners, sponsored a successful resolution on Freedom of Religion at the UN Human Rights Council.

These resolutions will help countries work together to protect these fundamental human rights. The next Government must ensure these resolutions are put into practice and continue to work alongside the UN and EU and other multilateral organisations to achieve universal freedom of religion.

Liberal Democrats believe we must also raise individual cases directly with nations. We will continue to highlight practices and laws that discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or belief. We have already secured improvements through engagement with countries such as Kazakhstan, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Nigeria. We will continue to work with the leaders of different faiths in the UK to increase our understanding of the issues.

Through Liberal International, Liberal Democrats are supporting those campaigning for freedom of belief, like Lebanon’s Future Movement, Egypt’s Democratic Front and even newer movements in the emerging democracies of the Middle East.

I think it is important also not to overlook persecution among friendly states too.  Wherever freedom of belief, non-belief or diversity of belief is threatened or suppressed, then our voice should be heard.  All should be free to practice worship in their own tradition, without harming others and in turn without fear of harm to themselves.

If you have any further issues or points you would like to raise, I will be glad to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,


Martin Veart
Scottish Liberal Democrats,
Edinburgh North and Leith.

Campaign Letters #3: Equal Marriage

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

I am intensely proud to represent a party that believes in equality of rights for all people and accepts people as they really are, and not how others would wish them to be.  I see the role of the Liberal Democrats as bringing out the best in all people.  

From time in immemorial, the institute of marriage has been seen as a good thing in all societies.  If two people wish to dedicate their lives to each other, based upon the tenants of mutual love and respect, this is something that should be recognised and applauded by society, and not condemned.  If two people of the same sex feel this way about each other, that in no way stops or denigrates the marriage and partnership of a man and a woman who feel the same intensity of love.

To me, it is a matter of both human rights and of all enjoying the greater stability that the institution of marriage brings to society as a whole.

If my arguments cannot convince you otherwise, and since you have brought the name of God into the discussion, I fear that they may not be able to, then may I suggest you study the manifestoes of the other parties and I hope you find somebody more suitable to represent your views.

Kindest regards,

Martin Veart
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Edinburgh North and Leith.

Rights and Accommodation

In Elizabeth Longford's biography of Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, there is a brief passage in the first volume where she discusses the Duke's political outlook.  As a Tory, (although Wellington was no fan of party politics) he did not belief in rights but rather in pragmatism and accommodation.

"He had an English taste for improvisation and flexibility, highlighted by a constitution that was not written down....  With accommodation went a certain permissiveness for which his army was grateful."

I believe that in this nation, we live in a time when we are in danger of losing both our rights and accommodation.  Conservative distaste for rights have been longstanding but have always being seasoned with pragmatic accommodations.  This manifests itself in Theresa May's abortive (thanks to the Liberal Democrats) attempts to reintroduce the so-called Snoopers' Charter.  Riding roughshod over individual rights, technology and power of government means that that we can no longer rely upon accommodation, (ie. good will) of the powerful to get along.  We need rights, enshrined in constitutional law and while the British constitution remains flexible and unwritten, we have the backup of European law to frame our rights.  It is a good composite system that works.

The United Kingdom is also in grave danger of losing our accommodation.  This is most manifest in the nationalists parties: UKIP and the SNP.

Evolving from a party of anti-European Union, UKIP has evolved into a xenophobic Frankenstein .  In short, there is no accommodation: neither for rights, nor foreigners nor even for that most prized British quality, pragmatism.  This lack of accommodation goes across the left-right spectrum of party politics so that is the reason why UKIP is able to pick up support from both Conservative and Labour supporters.  Labour has been historically been pretty good on rights (well, until the Blair-Brown years and New Labour that is) but never had the right's mindset of accommodation.

One cannot accuse the SNP of not being tactically pragmatic , being in effective coaltion with the Conservatives during their first term in goverment, but one can certainly slam their lack of accommodation.  Only today, it was revealed that new leader Nicola Sturgeon has drafted  draconian guidelines for behaviour of their own MPs, going well beyond the usual party discipline, and includes disciplinary action for being critical of party policy, colleagues and leadership.  If one will not trust one's own MPs, what does that say for the party's view on the rest of society?    From behaviour of many of it's supporters up to the run of the SNP defeat at the Referendum, it is clear there is no accommodation of views dissenting from their own.

Thus I come to invite you to think carefully about the type Britain you want this May.  If you value twin virtues of rights and accommodation, then there is still one party that enbodies both of these: the Liberal Democrats.

Gay Rights – Malawi vs. Scotland

It was reported this morning on the Today Programme that in Malawi, two gay men, Steven Monjeza  and Tiwonge Chimbalanga  who were arrested in December 2009 for undertaking an engagement ceremony, will now face a full trial in April.  Maximum sentence for those facing the charge of gross indecency is fourteen years.

“So what?” one may ask.  Not a lot we can do about it.  Form a facebook protest perhaps?  It is terrible, but what can be done?

Actually, quite a lot can be done.  Approximately one third of Scotland’s foreign aid budget goes to Malawi.  That is £70 million every year.  I also notice that there is a cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Malawi, whose purpose is:

To develop and enhance links between Scotland and Malawi and to provide a forum for discussion on these matters. In particular, the group will focus on links between the two parliaments and between civil society in each country.  In order to achieve this, the group will work with parliamentarians from each legislature, with Malawians living in Scotland and with other organisations working in Malawi.

It has to be said, that the last entry of this group was for the AGM in October 2009.  During this meeting, several issues were raise on civil society within Malawi, including the rights of women and children.  The case of Mr Monjeza and Mr Chimbalanga should therefore be well within the remit of the cross-party grouping.  It is a straightforward issue of human rights.

Now I am aware of cultural differences that are between many African countries and Western nations, especially on this issue.  But gay rights are not just human rights.  It is, just as importantly, a health issue that has particular urgency for the continent of Africa.  If homosexuality is driven underground, the risk of spreading HIV is greatly increased.  I don’t expect many of the citizens of Malawi to approve of the relationship between the couple on trial, but it is very much in their own interests to tolerate gay relationships within their own society, thereby allowing for the education of best health practice for all citizens. Gay relationships will persist, regardless of any law cited by either state or society.

At our last Spring conference in Perth, the Scottish Liberal Democrats passed a motion on the right to gay marriage.  Meanwhile, two people in a country that has close links with Scotland, are facing prison for wanting exactly the same thing.  It would be bizarre if our MSPs, indeed our party, remained silent on this case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8579738.stm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cpg-malawi.htm

http://news.scotsman.com/malawi/70m-Malawi-aid-39could-give.5780423.jp

http://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/news/000402/scottish_liberal_democrats_back_equal_marriage.html
Picture rights remain with BBC News

The Archbishop and Shari'a

In an interview for The World at One, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world-wide Anglican church, put forward the argument that elements of Shair’a law should be introduced into British law. This was in order to avoid Muslims having “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Naturally, the Archbishop has been jumped upon from all sides of the political…(I was going to write “spectrum” there but upon reflection the political spectrum seems rather monochrome these day. But I digress..). More predictable will be the tabloid rants that will follow in the morning. Both The Sun and The Daily Mail are going to have a lot of fun at Dr. Williams’ expense.

So, what did the Archbishop actually say? A lot more than is being reported, even on the BBC. Dr. Williams is taking part in an ongoing debate in the future of multi-culturalism. This latest contribution is an attempt to address and expand the role of multi-culturalism in the framework of the nation-state.

Crudely put, the premise is thus: we are currently living in a post-Enlightenment world. People live in a multitude of over-lapping communities, each with their own culture, tradition and values. How do we allow people in such a society to follow their own way of life without compromising the rights of their fellow human beings, both those in their own cultural group, and those in adjacent groups?

By highlighting one specific aspect, that of Muslim communities and Shari’a, Dr Williams is effectively attempting to role back the nation-state, although not in the simple-minded way that doubtless will fill the newspapers tomorrow. The Archbishop also raises the dangers of human-rights abuses that can and do occur under Shari’a, abuses that simply are not to be tolerated under a Western democracy (and, I would argue, under any regime).

But it seems to me that Dr. Williams is a believer, but not of the Enlightenment. Although grateful for “the wake up call” that the Enlightenment has given religion, he is no great believer in what he sees as extreme examples of Enlightenment government in action, singling out Revolutionary France and China of the1970s. To my mind, neither is a great example. France descended into anarchy and bloodshed after the overthrow of the monarchy, and China was just rid of Mao, whose brutality exceeded none and whose permanent revolution was based on nothing more than state-encouraged violence.

What would be the future role of the State? It seems to be the guarantee of last resort for “human dignity”: a baseline which, it is believed that all can agree too. An individual would have rights guaranteed by the State, but would be free to suspend these if they so choose. But also one would be free to act upon those rights; nor could anybody stop another acting upon their rights if they so choose. Under Shari’a, that would effectively mean that apostasy could not carry the usual penalty (i.e. death). It would also mean that communities would be free to draw up codes that would have legal weight, especially in the areas of finance or civil disputes.

As things stands in Britain today, I think that Dr. Williams’ suggestions, although interesting, rather over-complicate matters. He is right to raise the issue of law and the plural society but Britain has always had a tradition, until very recently, of the citizen having negative rights. What I mean by this is that in Britain, if there is no law saying that a citizen is forbidden from doing something, then the citizen has the freedom to do it. This state is in contradiction to the European model of positive State rights: if there is no law allowing a certain act, then it is forbidden.

As applied to this debate, there is already room for groups to live how they choose. But if any religion has a set of laws that can be seen to have benefit to a community, why limit it to just that community? There is a political process in Britain that allows any citizen or group to put forward ideas, regardless of which philosophy the given idea is based upon. Let the suggested law be upheld to public scrutiny and, if it is a good law, then let it be passed into statute. That way, instead of being a more fragmented society, Britain becomes a lot more inclusive for all.