The Convention on Modern Liberty took place across the country today. I attended the event at St David’s Hall in Cardiff which relayed some of the sessions taking place in London. Given the extremely short lead-time that the organisers had to arrange the event, I was impressed how well it all went. I was also very impressed by the range and quality of most of the speakers. A few speakers were disappointing, wishing only to indulge in political point scoring rather than seriously address the issues of the day.
As far as the London event went, having heard Helena Kennedy speak on the work of the Power Commission a couple of years ago, I remain captivated by her penetrating yet succinct arguments. She also had some pretty good sound bites, here are a couple that stuck in my mind sufficiently well for me to remember them:
“Liberty is never given to people, it always has to be fought for.” On governments generally, “…once you have power, the temptation to abuse it is very great.”
Perhaps the most potent of Helena Kennedy’s comments was on the proposed ID card, it went something like this: “I don’t want to carry an ID card, because for me, an ID card is simply an internal passport.” This comment led to a bold statement from a journalist in the audience assuring us that ID cards are inevitable and definitely not voluntary as is currently being suggested. His stark warning was that, in future, if you are not prepared to voluntarily sign up for an ID card, then you won’t get your passport when the time comes for it to be renewed.
In Cardiff, in the morning plenary, there were some memorable contributions; Jenny Willott was excellent on the iniquities of the DNA database and the proposed overriding of Data Protection legislation by Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill which is going through the House of Commons at the moment, and Dr Peter Sutch gave a captivating address on torture by proxy. The afternoon plenary was sheer quality from all the speakers. However, the question and answer slot was marred by members of the audience not understanding the difference between a statement and a question and some nutter quite rudely and unjustifiably haranguing the Chair for being undemocratic.
The most important and urgent thing we must all do is to write to our MP to demand that he/she opposes Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill. This clause allows for our personal data which has been gathered for a specific purpose to be used for all manner of secondary purposes on the authority of a Ministerial Order. If this gets enacted then it lays the foundation for all sorts of abuse of our personal data by any government agency. Moreover, if this data is transferred to third countries for processing and those countries do not have legal safeguards for the privacy of that data, then who knows for what purposes and how that data will be used?
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
Europe - A Personal History
“Why are you so convinced that the European Union is such a good thing?” I was asked recently, rather like the notion of a ‘good thing’ in Sellars and Yeatman’s classic “1066 and All That”. A good question, and it set me trying to analyse why I am such a fan of the European project.
Well, partly, it is to do with my having been sent to live with relatives in Switzerland when I was quite young. My uncle, Walther Kronauer, gave me, a child seemingly obsessed by the Second World War, a uniquely Swiss perspective on Germany under Hitler and the constant and deep-rooted fear that the armies of the Reich could have turned on Switzerland at any moment during the period 1940-1945. He also gave me some idea of the importance of Swiss neutrality in the sense that if such an immense conflict, engulfing so many countries, was ever going to end then some countries such as Sweden and Switzerland had to be available as a secure and discreet channel of communication.
Sometimes trivial things like my initials have triggered thoughts about union among European countries. Like many children I used to look in the back of dictionaries at the list of abbreviations to see if my initials represented something significant. In the dictionaries of the 40s and 50s, DP was the abbreviation for ‘displaced person’. I sought an explanation for the term ‘displaced person’ and gradually learned about the huge migrations of the civilians of European countries both during and after the war. I also gradually learned about the camps - labour camps, concentration camps and death camps - and to my impressionable mind, the sheer horror at the brutality inflicted upon so many people in pursuit of racial domination sometimes became almost too much to bear.
Later, as a teenager I had the opportunity to visit Bergen-Belsen and there I literally seemed to smell the utter despair of so many who had died there, it was to me at that time the most desolate place on earth. The following year, 1962, I visited Berlin, or rather what was then known as West Berlin, and found it difficult to understand why any state should feel it necessary to invest so much effort into building a huge wall simply to prevent its people from travelling freely as I could. I can remember visiting Checkpoint Charlie, one of the key border crossings, and all the signs warning that you were about to leave the ‘British Zone’.
All these impressions seem to have made quite an impact on me and informed my attitude to the future of Europe. From simply being unable to understand the horror of WWII, to saying to myself that such a thing should never be allowed to happen again, to wondering what could be done to ensure that it didn’t, my attitude to European Union seems to have been an evolving journey. And I suppose my attitude to nationalism, Welsh, Scottish, Basque, Balkan, indeed any form of nationalism has also been informed my developing views on Europe. Rightly or wrongly, I link concepts of nationalism with ideas of ‘exclusion of the other’, with xenophobia and suspicion of anyone who is not ‘from round here’. To me nationalism is simply the polar opposite of internationalism, and I guess I would rather be an internationalist.
Well, partly, it is to do with my having been sent to live with relatives in Switzerland when I was quite young. My uncle, Walther Kronauer, gave me, a child seemingly obsessed by the Second World War, a uniquely Swiss perspective on Germany under Hitler and the constant and deep-rooted fear that the armies of the Reich could have turned on Switzerland at any moment during the period 1940-1945. He also gave me some idea of the importance of Swiss neutrality in the sense that if such an immense conflict, engulfing so many countries, was ever going to end then some countries such as Sweden and Switzerland had to be available as a secure and discreet channel of communication.
Sometimes trivial things like my initials have triggered thoughts about union among European countries. Like many children I used to look in the back of dictionaries at the list of abbreviations to see if my initials represented something significant. In the dictionaries of the 40s and 50s, DP was the abbreviation for ‘displaced person’. I sought an explanation for the term ‘displaced person’ and gradually learned about the huge migrations of the civilians of European countries both during and after the war. I also gradually learned about the camps - labour camps, concentration camps and death camps - and to my impressionable mind, the sheer horror at the brutality inflicted upon so many people in pursuit of racial domination sometimes became almost too much to bear.
Later, as a teenager I had the opportunity to visit Bergen-Belsen and there I literally seemed to smell the utter despair of so many who had died there, it was to me at that time the most desolate place on earth. The following year, 1962, I visited Berlin, or rather what was then known as West Berlin, and found it difficult to understand why any state should feel it necessary to invest so much effort into building a huge wall simply to prevent its people from travelling freely as I could. I can remember visiting Checkpoint Charlie, one of the key border crossings, and all the signs warning that you were about to leave the ‘British Zone’.
All these impressions seem to have made quite an impact on me and informed my attitude to the future of Europe. From simply being unable to understand the horror of WWII, to saying to myself that such a thing should never be allowed to happen again, to wondering what could be done to ensure that it didn’t, my attitude to European Union seems to have been an evolving journey. And I suppose my attitude to nationalism, Welsh, Scottish, Basque, Balkan, indeed any form of nationalism has also been informed my developing views on Europe. Rightly or wrongly, I link concepts of nationalism with ideas of ‘exclusion of the other’, with xenophobia and suspicion of anyone who is not ‘from round here’. To me nationalism is simply the polar opposite of internationalism, and I guess I would rather be an internationalist.
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Time To Take Europe Seriously
On the 4th of June we will all, I hope, be going into our polling stations to cast our ballot for the four people to represent Wales in the European Parliament. Whatever each of us may individually think about Europe and the European Union, we should all agree that the future of Wales and the UK is inexorably linked to the futures of our fellow Europeans. Like it or lump, what happens in other European countries, and particularly decisions that are made in Brussels impact on what happens here in Wales and so we should all agree also is that it is vitally important the we elect the best and most able people to represent us.
In short it is time to take Europe seriously. For far too long successive Conservative and Labour governments in Westminster have failed to commit fully to the European ideal and in this failure to commit, they have failed the British people. Since 1973 Britain has been at best, a half-hearted member of the European Union seeking to adopt only those bits of the European project that it likes and rejecting those that it doesn’t like. At worst, Britain has been a great disappointment to many European countries who looked to Britain to provide strong leadership in Europe to counterbalance a perceived Franco-German hegemony.
Think about it, how many clubs that we join as individuals allow us to be bound by some of the rules and to opt out of those rules that we don’t like? Or, in the context of the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty, how many of us would join a club that has no constitution? Yet we expect our fellow Europeans to allow us to pick and choose the rules like children used pick ‘n mix their sweets at Woolworths. This cannot continue indefinitely, as long as we continue to expect special treatment we are not taking Europe seriously, and if we are not going to take the European project seriously then we ought to leave the project altogether.
Perhaps the next government at Westminster will be honest enough to offer the British people one final referendum on Europe, a referendum to decide whether Britain remains a member of the European Union or not. The time for prevarication has to come to an end, we have to decide once and for all, either we are fully in Europe and committed to the European ideal or we are not, and if not then we must let our European neighbours proceed with their desire to build a strong, united Europe, both economically and politically.
In short it is time to take Europe seriously. For far too long successive Conservative and Labour governments in Westminster have failed to commit fully to the European ideal and in this failure to commit, they have failed the British people. Since 1973 Britain has been at best, a half-hearted member of the European Union seeking to adopt only those bits of the European project that it likes and rejecting those that it doesn’t like. At worst, Britain has been a great disappointment to many European countries who looked to Britain to provide strong leadership in Europe to counterbalance a perceived Franco-German hegemony.
Think about it, how many clubs that we join as individuals allow us to be bound by some of the rules and to opt out of those rules that we don’t like? Or, in the context of the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty, how many of us would join a club that has no constitution? Yet we expect our fellow Europeans to allow us to pick and choose the rules like children used pick ‘n mix their sweets at Woolworths. This cannot continue indefinitely, as long as we continue to expect special treatment we are not taking Europe seriously, and if we are not going to take the European project seriously then we ought to leave the project altogether.
Perhaps the next government at Westminster will be honest enough to offer the British people one final referendum on Europe, a referendum to decide whether Britain remains a member of the European Union or not. The time for prevarication has to come to an end, we have to decide once and for all, either we are fully in Europe and committed to the European ideal or we are not, and if not then we must let our European neighbours proceed with their desire to build a strong, united Europe, both economically and politically.
Monday, 16 February 2009
Comment on my blog of 2nd October 2008
Over the week-end I received a comment from someone called John on a blog I posted on the 2nd October. My original blog was a rant on the huge deficit built up by the Wales Millennium Centre and the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government was spending a huge amount to bail out WMC while at the same time forcing smaller allowing smaller arts organisations outside of the Cardiff to go to the wall.
John’s lengthy comment seems to question the entire development of Cardiff Bay and sees the WMC as symptomatic of a number of prestige projects that are designed to spearhead the wholesale regeneration of a run down area. Ultimately, most such projects are simply unsustainable over the long term and for a variety of reasons, one of which is the difficulty of attracting suitably qualified and competent people to run such projects.
Finally, John complains about the design and comfort of the facilities offered at WMC, and here he has the advantage over me for I have yet to stray beyond the coffee shops in the foyer.
Thanks for your comment, John. I guess the real problem with the WMC is that as a prestigious cultural project designed to epitomise Welsh pride in Welsh culture, and having originally secured the backing of the politicians next door, those politicians feel that they have no choice but to continue to pour money into this project regardless of its financial and organisational viability.
John’s lengthy comment seems to question the entire development of Cardiff Bay and sees the WMC as symptomatic of a number of prestige projects that are designed to spearhead the wholesale regeneration of a run down area. Ultimately, most such projects are simply unsustainable over the long term and for a variety of reasons, one of which is the difficulty of attracting suitably qualified and competent people to run such projects.
Finally, John complains about the design and comfort of the facilities offered at WMC, and here he has the advantage over me for I have yet to stray beyond the coffee shops in the foyer.
Thanks for your comment, John. I guess the real problem with the WMC is that as a prestigious cultural project designed to epitomise Welsh pride in Welsh culture, and having originally secured the backing of the politicians next door, those politicians feel that they have no choice but to continue to pour money into this project regardless of its financial and organisational viability.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Harold Nicholls on Truth?
An unintentionally ironic letter in the Mid Wales Journal last Friday from the infamous Harold Nicholls. He uses the recent report on the intention of Powys County Council to offer media training to senior members and officers as an excuse to have yet another dig at Powys County Council, Dyfed-Powys Police, the National Probation Service, and others with his usual brand of toxic sarcasm.
”Wouldn’t be a lot easier for everyone if the important people simply told the truth when asked a straight question?” he asks.
Well, yes it would, but since when has Harold Nicholls ever let the truth influence his actions when he is intent on doing someone down? As usual, he employs sweeping generalisations masquerading as the ‘truth’ to make his case against all and sundry without realising that fewer and fewer people take any notice of what he writes, and those that bother to read his letters are, by now, so well aware of their dubious credibility, that they rightly dismiss his views out of hand.
”Wouldn’t be a lot easier for everyone if the important people simply told the truth when asked a straight question?” he asks.
Well, yes it would, but since when has Harold Nicholls ever let the truth influence his actions when he is intent on doing someone down? As usual, he employs sweeping generalisations masquerading as the ‘truth’ to make his case against all and sundry without realising that fewer and fewer people take any notice of what he writes, and those that bother to read his letters are, by now, so well aware of their dubious credibility, that they rightly dismiss his views out of hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
