What’s in a name?

September 28, 2009

This coming Wednesday, September 30th will be the first occurrence of International Blasphemy Day. This is an event that has been organised to show the importance and altogether relevance of free speech in society. The name obviously invokes the feeling that this is an event designed to ridicule religion and the choice of date will do nothing to relieve these feelings. September 30th was chosen because it is the anniversary of the publication of a cartoon in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed that outraged the Muslim world.

Muslim protests in Britain

Muslim protests in Britain

But was this date chosen merely to anger the religious world and appear to give licence to the abuse of religions and the faithful? I think not. It was in fact that nearly any anniversary of an event that was shown to stifle free speech would involve religion. It seems that the religious are at the same time the most easily offended and the first to try to dampen free speech.

What makes up the basic concept of free speech is to have the ability to say anything that isn’t a threat to violence without the fear of arrest or reprisals. There obviously has to be some restrictions on this in any society but as a whole society censors what is said itself. The people will shout down what is unacceptable and nowadays this will result in a trial by media. This system isn’t fail proof but that is one of the key factors of why it works and also one of the proofs.

The idea of having a day to celebrate free speech is a good one but it is open to the possibility of been soiled by personal arguments. The famed evolutionary biologist and atheist PZ Myers has not helped matters by stating on his blog Pharyngula that “the purpose of the day is to jeer at religion”. But at the same time I can also make the prediction that any action taken on the 30th of September will be seen by each of the three major Abrahamic religions as a personal attack on them. Some of these actions will be attacks on one or more religion and a lot of these will in fact be justified.

Any people who do attack the religions for their violation of the freedom of speech will however have to be very careful. It could be all too easy for them to begin blocking the very freedom of speech that we must allow for everyone, including but not especially the religious.

On the whole I think that the choice of name was a good one for one simple reason. It will bring the event to the fore by stirring very personal feelings. It showed mastery in marketing by causing inevitable debates even before the event. I hold as proof of this the very article that you are reading. If it wasn’t for International Blasphemy Day then this article would never have been written.

Advertisements

A reason to leave.

September 21, 2009

The European Union is a great idea in principle. Free trade amongst a select host of smaller nations would help them to compete against the world super powers such as the United States and China. Inclusion in the treaties allow individuals from member nations to trade, work and move freely between other member nations.

Originally set up with only six nations, Belgium, (West) Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg the European Union now consists of twenty seven sovereign states. There is also a list of three official candidate countries and five potential candidate countries. If all of these countries are included that would take the number of member states to thirty five. This would mean that peoples of thirty five different nationalities and cultures are free to roam from country to country in what could potentially be called a European super state.

EU_map_names_islesWhat recent history has shown us is that when people are free to move from country to country then a lot are more than ready to do so. The shift is generally one way, towards an improvement in the quality of life. What has tended to happen is that when a new country is included into the union then its nationals will move to a more developed state within the union. The reasons for doing this are far too obvious to list here. The trend of immigration stems itself over time and some people opt to return to their home country when the economic climate has improved. These improvements come about as the country becomes more integrated into the European Union.

Here I think it only right that I interject and point out that I in no way called be called someone who is pro Europe and in most matters I would say that I am heavily against the idea of a unified Europe. As I said at the beginning I believe the idea to be a good one in principle but the reality has turned out to be beyond anyone’s control. This I feel is in the most part down to corruption, nepotism and cronyism. There are probably a few more ism’s to be thrown in there as well but I can’t think of them right now. I also believe that the institute of the European Union is an entirely self serving one.

In the UK there as been a feeling amongst the general population that we have been flooded with people from Eastern Europe in the past few years. We have to tread careful here for two reasons. Firstly, there are approximately 5.5 million British nationals living abroad compared to approximately 4.1 million foreign nationals living in the UK. That puts us almost 1.5 million people up.

The second point however is more important. We are in extreme danger of been hypocritical in regards to immigration. We talk a lot about people turning up from abroad and working here but we seem to forget that we have somewhat of a reputation in this field. The methods we employed in the past in regards to emigrating abroad where not as subtle as what is happening here and now. We would simply turn up to a country and take it over by use of brutal force. We wouldn’t even offer the common courtesy of working alongside the local inhabitants. We would just have them do what we said. At one time these people became our commodities. We would import and export them as slaves as if they were bundles of linen.

We complain that our country is been taken over but is it really? We are not force to work for the immigrants to the UK, we are simply asked to work alongside them. At the same time we are given the option of going to live and work in other countries if the inclination and opportunities exist.

Probably the immigration system is wrong in Europe and is doomed by design to fail. But we need immigration. It is natural and necessary for the advancement of societies. It does however need to be controlled. I don’t think now is the place to discuss this but it is something that is in need of investigation.

I will leave you here with one thought in mind. We all have something that would make us leave our homes and move abroad. What is yours? Also, next time you meet someone who is from another country consider what was theirs.


Advertising Excess.

September 9, 2009

The media is filled at the moment with talk of the British Medical association wanting a total ban on all forms of alcohol advertising. It is advising this as a measure to curb the culture of binge drinking that is now prevalent in UK society. More so among young people than any other segment of society. But would a ban on advertising really be effective?

The report states that approximately 96% of thirteen year olds were aware of alcohol advertising in one form or another. We can’t really say that this is a surprising figure in a world where we are bombarded with advertising from all directions. The report also pointed towards the positive impact that a ban on tobacco advertising had. I personally think that it is hard to compare tobacco and alcohol in this light. For years the health issues regarding smoking had been forced upon us. Cigarette packets have had health warnings on them for more than three decades. Even now when we are fully aware of the impact that drinking can have on our health there are still no warnings on alcohol packaging. Even before the ban on tobacco advertising the number of smokers was waning.

The main problem with this issue is the fact that it has very quickly become political. There are other measures that have been recommended by the health association in their report but these will be less popular with the masses than a ban on advertising. These include an increase in tax on alcohol, a ban on reduced price drinks offers, including ‘happy hours’ and a reduction in licensing hours.

Political parties have to walk a fine line between pleasing the big companies (who provide them with funding) and pleasing the general public (who vote for them). The big companies would not like to see a ban on alcohol advertising for reasons that are more than obvious. The general public will not want to see anything that will hit them in their pockets.

If we treat this as a political issue then it will come down to tit for tat vote winning by the political parties. This will never stop the binge drinking culture that we have in this country. What are needed are not measures that are designed to restrict us but measures that go a lot deeper than that. What is really needed here is a policy to change the way that alcohol is perceived in this country. What we really need to do is change the way that we use, or more to the point abuse, alcohol.

This makes it not a political issue but a personal one. It is an issue that we each need to confront, not just for our health but for our society as well.