Just Say No!

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

One of many revelations to emerge from the latest Wikileaks scandal is that Brits facing criminal charges in other countries can be extradited to face trial alarmingly easily, with our government almost powerless to refuse the request.

 

The Wikileaks case in question related to Gary McKinnon, an Asperger’s sufferer accused by the US of hacking into government computers. It appears that when then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, proposed that Mr. McKinnon serve his sentence in the UK, he was quickly rebuffed – his suggestion dismissed like that of a junior administrator. Instead, it seems Mr. McKinnon faces up to 60 years in an American jail, even though he claims he was simply looking for information on UFOs.

 

Now us Brits have long come to accept that our ‘special relationship’ with America involves a lot of giving and not much taking, but it goes a little beyond the pale to surrender our legal sovereignty so meekly. However, thanks to anti-terrorism laws created by the British government in the wake of 9/11, America does not need any evidence to demand the extradition of British citizens to face trial there. This is supposed to ensure that it is easier to try and convict terrorists – itself a questionable practice in a democratic system – but it is actually deeply unfair. Under the same legislation Britain still has to present a case of evidence to an American court before the extradition of an American citizen is even considered.

 

Further to the US case, is the similarly warped EU Arrest Warrant, which we are bound to as an EU member. This piece of legislation dictates that any EU country can demand the extradition of a British citizen with no justification, as long as the act is considered a crime in both countries. Since this terrifyingly draconian practice came into force, over 1,000 British citizens have been extradited and imprisoned abroad.

 

Clearly we do not impose such arbitrary laws on citizens of other countries, so why is it that our courts seem prepared to fail their own people? Granted, all EU states are bound by the same laws – and the problem is more intrinsically linked to the shortcomings of other judiciaries – but, when the US is employing yet another example of bullyboy tactics, sometimes it’s as simple as saying ‘no’.

Related articles

• MPs back change in extradition law to put Gary McKinnon in U.S. jail (dailymail.co.uk)

A Riposte to Capitalists

Image via Wikipedia

Warren Buffett is a ‘Master of the Universe’, one of the greatest beneficiaries of the capitalist model, and one of the world’s richest people. I came across this reflection, from Buffett – prior to the global recession, and I thought it the perfect riposte to free marketers who refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of the invisible hand of the global markets:

 

“I did a calculation the other day; thought I never used tax shelters or had a tax planner, after including the payroll taxes we [Americans] each pay, I’ll pay a lower effective tax rate this year than my receptionist. In fact, I’m pretty sure I pay a lower rate than the average American.

“The free market’s the best mechanism ever devised to put resources to their most efficient and productive use; the government isn’t particularly good at that. But the market isn’t so good at making sure that the wealth that’s produced is being distributed fairly or wisely. Some of that wealth has to be ploughed back into education, so that the next generation has a fair chance, and to maintain our infrastructure, and provide some sort of safety net for those who lose out in a market economy. And it just makes sense that those of us who’ve benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share.

“When you get rid of estate tax you’re basically handing over command of the country’s resources to people who didn’t earn it. It’s like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the children of all the winners at the 2000 Games.

“[Most financiers] have this idea that it’s ‘their money’ and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don’t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can’t run very fast. I’m not particularly strong. I’d probably end up as some wild animal’s dinner. But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing – and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for that.”

Buffett has reaped the rewards of the free market more than almost any other in history, and yet he is not blind to its faults or its inadequacies. His is the model that all investors and financiers aim to replicate, and yet his is not an ideology shared by many high earners. A culture of resentment has developed amongst the financial sector – resentment of the need to pay taxes to support, in the eyes of some, a class of citizens who simply weren’t ‘good enough’ to reap the benefits of capitalism. However, all too often this thinking ignores the structural benefits that have facilitated wealth and success. One can only hope that a few of the young pretenders will heed the words of the Master and acknowledge their social responsibility.

Racism in Football Still Exists

Image via Wikipedia

When will Fifa finally live up to its promise to stamp out racism in football? Why is it that, whenever a Western European team plays in Eastern Europe, its black players are subjected to a torrent of abuse?

 

The sport’s governing body has long threatened to impose harsh sanctions on clubs and countries that allow racist abuse to go unchecked in their stadia. However, as many Black English players have found, this amounts to nothing more than a measly fine: in one such case the Croatian FA was fined £7,000 for failing to prevent fans from hailing insults at England’s black players in Zagreb. It was such an empty gesture that it was deemed almost pointless – everybody knows how much money floats around and, in all honesty, any one of the Croatian players could have donated a week’s wages to cover the bill.

 

Fifa though, has an opportunity to redeem itself, by making of an example of a persistent offender – Italy. Serie A has always been awash with Far Right supporters’ groups and black players very often come under fire in European games but an incident that occurred on Tuesday, in a match between Italy and Romania, reintroduced a grim aspect of football fandom that seemed to have disappeared.

 

Italian forward Mario Balotelli was subjected to racist abuse by a group of about 100 extreme right-wing Italian fans.

 

A banner bearing the message – “No to a multi-ethnic national team” – was displayed in the stadium where the match was played.

 

“If I have to hear those chants every time, you can’t go forward like that,” Balotelli said. I leave others to do the judgement. I am happy to be in the national team. It wouldn’t be right to stop a game because a few fans that turn up to the stadium behave like that,” he said.

 

“We need to change these people but it’s not me that has to do it. Where I live, the people don’t reason like these people. A multi-ethnic Italy already exists and we can do better.”

 

Before his move to City from Inter Milan during the summer the Sicily-born Balotelli was subjected to racist abuse by Juventus supporters, who hung banners in their stadium last year which read: “A negro cannot be Italian”.

 

It is a totally unacceptable practice to attack a player based on his ethnic background, but it is simply illogical to attack one’s own player. Personally, I have long questioned Balotelli’s reputation for being a difficult personality. It is a story purported by a media that looks on black Italians as second class citizens. One has to wonder if Balotelli would be so poorly thought of if he looked Sicilian.

 

A punishment for Italian apathy to this problem seems unlikely. Like the UN confronting America, Fifa feels incapable of holding one of its most powerful patrons to account. And, like America, the Italian FA knows that its global influence holds enough sway to allow it to carry on unchecked.

 

Related articles

• Balotelli says ‘stupid’ Italian racists must be stamped out (independent.co.uk)

Conservative Marxism: A New Ideology?

Image via Wikipedia

Cabinet Officer, Francis Maude has suggested that a co-operative model for workers, already employed by the likes of John Lewis, should be rolled out across the public sector.

 

The system, under which all members of staff take responsibility for the performance of the organisation and are then rewarded with a proportion of all profits, has proved hugely successful in the private sector. John Lewis reports some of the highest percentages for staff satisfaction in the British retail industry and has consistently outperformed its rivals throughout the recession.

 

The reasons for its success are obvious: results and profit margins suddenly matter to everyone and hard work at every level is tangibly rewarded; in the case of John Lewis, one innovative scheme is to present every member of staff with a golden envelope before Christmas – each envelope contains a bonus that reflects the performance of the department and the store. Not only is this a festive perk for employees whose salaries aren’t commission based, it is also a sign of gratitude from board members, demonstrating a level of empathy not often seen in large scale organisations.

 

Mr. Maude’s proposal is that a series of pilot schemes already in operation could, in future, be replicated to encompass the entire public sector:

“You encourage and support a group of public sector workers to come together and form themselves into a mutual, a co-operative and they themselves take responsibility for delivering the service.

“They get paid by the state on a proper contract. Our presumption is it can work pretty much everywhere, but obviously there are going to be exceptions.

“There’s a huge, pent-up frustration among dedicated public sector workers, who can see how things could be done better and are frustrated at not being able to do it.

“Staff would have to come up with plans to provide significantly cheaper services than at present if they wanted to form co-ops.

“It isn’t straightforward, because we live in a complicated world. I want this to work in a practical way, which is why we are proceeding cautiously at this stage.”

Not only do I agree with this model wholeheartedly, as it gives previously disaffected workers at all levels of industry a genuine incentive to drive for efficiency and results; I also find it funny that it is a scheme being advocated by the Conservative Party Chairman.

When one re-reads the concept behind a co-operative model of employment, and then compares it to Marx’s ideal vision of labour, one will find many similarities. What I’m trying to say is that we are witnessing one of the highest ranking members of the Right advocating communism in its earliest form. Mr. Maude is embracing socialist ideology.

 

Is this a new form of compassionate Conservatism? Or has the Right simply run out of ideas? The answer is probably neither but it is refreshing to see conservative ideologues embracing Left Wing concepts.

Euthanasia: Murder or Mercy?

I’m going to throw my lot into a very difficult debate here: the issue of euthanasia or ‘mercy killings’.

 

The reason I bring it up now is because a woman has today lost her appeal against a charge of murder for ending the life of her severely brain damaged son.

 

Frances Inglis, whose son Thomas suffered severe head injuries when falling from a moving ambulance, had administered a lethal injection at his care home in November 2008, believing her son to be in “constant pain”.

 

Mrs. Inglis has now been sentenced to nine years imprisonment by the Court of Appeal for the murder of her son.

Lord Judge said of the concept of mercy killing: “We must underline that the law of murder does not distinguish between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love.

“Subject to well-established partial defences, like provocation or diminished responsibility, mercy killing is murder.

But this, like so many other cases, is an impossibly difficult one to untangle and, I believe, not something that complies with strict legal parameters.

In my eyes the act is almost always the ultimate act of kindness, and only very few cases are shown to be the result of malevolence or foul play. Thankfully, it is not something that many of us will ever have encountered, but the issue of euthanasia has become a tortuous saga for families up and down the country over the years. And, what is plainly clear amongst all of the conflicting legal arguments is that a strict set of guidelines needs to be established to facilitate the lawful ending of a loved one’s life in exceptional circumstances of pain or suffering.

Until the 1960s, courts had ruled that attempted suicide was a criminal offence, carrying a custodial sentence. Such ludicrous ideas were seen to be outdated in an increasingly open minded society and the law was reversed. It is now time for our judiciary to give similar consideration to the laws governing euthanasia because the current regulations serve only to inflict further suffering on those already faced with it in abundance.

Related articles

• Mother loses mercy killing appeal (guardian.co.uk)

The Latest Addition to the Axis of Evil

Image via Wikipedia

England’s World Cup bid looks to be on the rocks after Fifa president Sepp Blatter, himself famed for corruption and unethical practices, attacked the British media for its investigative journalism.

Blatter was referring to the Sunday Times journalists that exposed the selling of votes by two World Cup bid committee members last month. As a result of this sting, it has now become apparent that the revelation of illegal dealings may derail the English bid.

There is also anger amongst Fifa officials over a potential Panorama documentary that may shed even more light on insider dodgy dealings. The message is clear: those who interfere with bureaucratic criminality will be ostracised.

In this instance, it could be England’s bid to host the World Cup that will suffer. Despite having the best bid proposal of all the candidates, England’s may be dismissed on the grounds that some journalistic quarters practice honest reporting, an alien concept at Fifa HQ in Zurich.

Blatter himself said of the journalists: “One can ask whether such an action is appropriate, trying to set traps for people. It is a deeply rooted problem [with the English media].

“Who is benefiting from this situation and who is being harmed, we are asking ourselves why did it happen and why did it happen specifically by English journalists? We are looking at that.”

This is a rhetorical question that Blatter is often fond of asking himself: who is benefiting from this? The answer is invariably him, ensuring as he does, that Fifa schemes, projects, affiliations and constitutional amendments reward him handsomely.

He is particularly wary of British journalists, having been the subject of a previous Panorama expose, which proved him to be ruling the Federation in dictatorial style – amending its constitution to allow himself to remain as president unchallenged. Since then he has also been caught selling major South African contracts to friends and family prior to the World Cup. This, at the same time he sat aside Nelson Mandela telling the world how important it was to invest in South Africa. Despite irrefutable grounds for his removal, Blatter carries on as normal and nobody says a word.

It is maddening to think that Blatter is questioning the ethics of investigative journalism, when freedom of speech activists all over the world are fighting for its protection from some of the world’s most brutal regimes. Investigative journalism provides many with the last bastion of opposition to oppression and censorship.

Who is Sepp Blatter to undermine such a noble pursuit? In many ways he mirrors the plutocrats and dictators that try to eradicate independent journalists, for fear of being exposed as the tyrants that they are. And, in much the same way that whole societies are bounded and gagged, the footballing world seems powerless to speak out against his crimes.

The Politics of Immigration

Image via Wikipedia

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “New restrictions on immigration must not undermine the ability of UK businesses to recruit the best and the brightest, which allows UK plc to compete internationally.

“The government needs to think again – and create a balanced migration policy that limits the number of low-skilled migrants, while allowing us to entice top global talent to the UK.”

Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, which represents the views of vice-chancellors, said: “As the committee has indicated, the government’s policy objective of reducing net migration to ‘the tens of thousands’ by the end of the current parliament will cause major problems for UK businesses and universities.

“World-class research requires world-class people, and we simply can’t adopt a ‘Fortress Britain’ attitude.”

Another Victory for Criminals in Strasbourg

Image via Wikipedia

It has long been accepted in Britain that prisoners should not be entitled to vote in elections. This was first enshrined into law under the 1870 Forfeiture Act and the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act of 1983. Having committed crimes, prisoners surrender their rights as full citizens until the state deems that they have been substantially reformed. It stands to reason then, that the electorate does not encompass such people.

 

However, as is often the case these days, a European Court of Human Rights ruling has placed this legislation under intense scrutiny. The ruling states that British prisoners are having their human rights impinged upon by the state and should, in fact, be allowed to vote in any governmental elections. Indeed, legal experts warn that the European ruling could threaten the British government with a swathe of compensation claims from opportunistic prisoners.

 

The problem with the European assessment is that it places a strain on the British judiciary, which may have to rule in favour of granting all offenders the right to vote, or risk further legal cases being filed against the government.

 

Should then, lesser offenders be allowed to vote, whilst the most serious criminals have their rights waived? And where does one draw the line? Surely, any legislation should be universal in its scope; just as minors aren’t allowed to vote, those who surrender their civil liberties likewise surrender their right to vote.

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme convicted killer John Hirst, who took the case to the European court, said: “In this system where you’ve got a democracy, people can put pressure and lobby in parliament for changes in the law and improved conditions, but you can’t do that if you haven’t got the vote. All prisoners can do is riot, if they’ve got a complaint, so you’ve got to give them this legitimate channel.”

To me it is laughable that a man guilty of the act of taking someone’s life – the ultimate liberty according to liberal theory and ethical discourse – should be given an audience with Europe’s supreme legal authority. The European Court of Human Rights was established to protect an incredibly diverse population from huge variations in the protection of liberties by different Executives. However, it seems that the apple has fallen far from the tree; now every man and his dog feel that their fundamental rights have been violated y something or other. Very often these cases are laughable, but equally frequently cases are being upheld. What this creates is a serious encroachment on national autonomy, with governments heeding to European rulings that often undermine domestic trends and customs.

There is no obvious answer or solution to this issue but it appears obvious that this case is one that the European Court has got wrong, reversing a tradition that has existed for 150 years, and undermining the very concept of penal justice and reform.

The World Cup Gets its Very Own Cold War

Image by Martin Pettitt via Flickr

Most of us are used to the Russians throwing wild accusations around and this week has been no different. In this instance it is the English 2018 World Cup bid team on the receiving end of the Russian slurs, but the comments have been no less hypocritical than we have come to expect.

 

Viacheslav Koloskov, honorary president of the Russian Football Union, referred to England‘s 2018 bid as “absolutely primitive” and “comical”. This from a footballing body that couldn’t even produce a grass pitch to stage the biggest game to be held in Russia since the fall of the Iron Curtain – the 2008 Champion’s League final. The Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow is a crumbling symbol of Soviet rule, hardly fit to host domestic football, whereas Wembley is the most revered footballing stage on the planet – an arena that every professional player dreams of playing in and a stunning landmark amidst London’s equally impressive panorama.

 

 

And talking of cities, Russian bid chief, Alexei Sorokin has attacked London’s high crime rate and binge drinking epidemic. Although the former is a legitimate concern to voice, the latter pales into insignificance when one considers the alcohol problems faced by Russia’s population. The mortality rate for men is well below the European average, and is linked to alcoholism and a national propensity to drift through life in a half-cut haze.

Furthermore, Russia’s crime problems take on a far more sinister form than those of England. The Russian mafia influences a lot of the illicit operations taking place in Russia, with control over sex and drug trafficking, political appointments, gambling and match fixing and ethnic cleansing. The last point is perhaps the most pertinent with the World Cup in mind: the eventual host will welcome fans from around the world for a celebration of diversity and acceptance. And yet, neo-Nazism and the torture and execution of minority groups are rife in parts of Russia. Far from working as fringe groups, many extreme parties boast a militant strand that systematically uses violence to eliminate other ethnic groups. And these skinheads have become heavily involved in Russian football, causing riots not seen here since the eighties.

 

The English bid may not be watertight but, compared to its Russian counterpart, looks about as near perfect as one could want it to be. Of the 2018 bids, England’s is the only one with the infrastructure in place to host the tournament now. We have more world class, football-specific stadia than any other country in the world. We also have more effective football policing than any other European country. Perhaps most importantly, we have the heritage and the history behind our bid – as the birthplace of football England deserves its opportunity to host the sport’s biggest tournament for the first time in over forty years.

Related articles

• England refuse to rise to Russia jibes (independent.co.uk)

G20 Meeting Sparks All-Out Currency War

Image via Wikipedia

Despite pleas from the American contingent, a G20 meeting in South Korea has descended into an all-out currency war, with potential similarities to the world’s last total war.

If currencies were to come into conflict, American Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner confirmed that America would maintain its usual position by staying leaving Europe to it until the last minute. The Allies though, are well placed for the outbreak of war; The Bank of England is heavily fortified, as is England’s ancient financial hub, making it perfectly positioned to respond to any foreign assault. It also possesses a nifty fifty pence piece, capable of inflicting untold damage, and heavy artillery in the form of its one pound coin.

As ever, Canada has pledged its allegiance to the British, committing the Canadian dollar to the Allied cause.

It is China that poses the biggest threat to the defence of our currency, with its aggressive track record. As with everything, the Chinese have tried to manipulate their currency to the detriment of other currencies. However, it is this very agenda that has weakened the strength of the Yuan. The result could be that, although the Yuan has strength in numbers, compared to the pound and dollar at least, its flimsy value against allied currencies makes it a risible threat to the crisp fifties being dispensed by the Bank of England. Taiwan though, has promised to honour its agreement with the Chinese and has pledged, if required, to manufacture as many plastic soldiers, tanks, planes and ships as are needed.

The host of the event, South Korea, dismissed reports that its currency was going down like a sinking ship but did express caution at the potential threat of the untested North Korean currency.

It is less clear where other nations stand amongst the escalating conflict. Switzerland will most likely default on its currency, in order to maintain its neutrality; it is widely accepted by both sides that the notoriously volatile yen is not to be trusted in a conflict such as this, which dismisses the Japanese threat; and the Brazilian real has not been tested in a conflict of this nature but it offers all the usual South American bravado, and anyway, anything known as a ‘BRIC’ economy sounds like it could do some damage.

Commentators have begun to nervously murmur as to the position countries outside the G20 will adopt. There is particular concern over the fate of the Turkish lira, which boasts three million to every one English pound.

There has not however, been any confirmation over whether Treasuries will look to quantative easing to boost troop numbers.

And finally, with the world on the verge of a currency war, governments could move to seize public funds, in the name of conscription, or that’s the excuse they’re using this time anyway.

Related articles

• China must take action on its currency – W.House (reuters.com)