This week I have mostly been getting annoyed … (part 2)

So straight on to part 2 – the Pope.

Bit of a heavy one this, so no photos or media.

I should probably point out as well that I’m not a Catholic.

As you may know, off the back of his Middle East Tour, Pope Francis spoke “informally” to reporters on board the papal aeroplane (who knew there was a papal aeroplane!), taking questions on a range of subjects, including child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. According to a CNN report, Pope Francis described sex abuse as a “horrific crime”, he called for a “zero tolerance” approach and compared it to, “by comparison, holding a black Mass”.

Now I admit I had to look this up.

From a quick bit of research, the actual practice is somewhat unclear, but I’ve gathered that it is a ritual characterised by the inversion of the traditional Catholic Mass, often featuring upside crucifxes and in the modern era it is linked/associated with Satanic worship sacrifice. Serious stuff.

The BBC’s Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen agreed. On Radio 4′s Today programme he said this was strong language from the Pope, language to be taken seriously. I agree – if the Leader of the Catholic Church, Christ’s representative on Earth is comparing child abuse to Satanic worship that is surely a sign he is taking the matter in hand and dealing with it*.

Isn’t it?

Well, that is a matter for debate.

From my admittedly limited knowledge of Catholic law excommunication is the ultimate sanction against a Catholic – cannot receive blessings or attend Mass and at least it used to also mean that unless the Pope interceded on their behalf they could not ascend to Heaven – again pretty strong stuff. So has Pope Francis excommunicated any of the Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse?

Um. Not that I can see.

Most recently an Australian priest was excommunicated for supporting gay marriage and women’s ordination. A Brazilian priest was also excommunicated for refusing to rescind a statement which he made regarding his belief that two people of the same sex could be in love. Now there is the possibility that I’m wrong about excommunication and it’s not the severe punishment that it a) sounds like or b) I think it is.

Or Pope Francis has not acted against at all against Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse. Referring once again to the CNN report, three bishops are apparently under investigation. One has been found guilty and the “penalty is being considered”. I’m sorry, considered? Surely turn all your evidence over to the courts and let him be found guilty and sentenced (one would hope strongly) by the laws of the land.

In my view, if Pope Francis is to be the reformer that many hope he will be/is (acknowledging that the Jesuit Order from whence he came is quite conservative) he needs to take decisive action on this issue, above all else. It will show the world (well beyond the Catholic population on the planet) that he truly believes this heinous crime is a “betrayal of the body of the Lord” and that he has the strength of will to deal it with properly and slowly begin the healing process for the victims of Catholic abuse around the world.

* I should like to point out that a learned colleague of mine has pointed out to me that arguably child sexual abuse is “even worse than mumbling a bunch of gibberish with an inverted cross on display”. I do agree.

This week I have mostly been getting annoyed … (part 1)

This week I have mostly ..

This week I have mostly ..

Ok, so a bit of a reference to Mark Williams’ brilliant character, Jesse, from The Fast Show (mainly because it suited the title and people in work have been doing references to Fast Show characters for the last few days), but it’s true.

It’s also a slightly lighter way of introducing a serious post.

There have been a couple of things in particular that, in the words of Peter Griffin, have really grinded my gears this week – the Pope and a guy called Joe.

Ok firstly, the guy called Joe.

It can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that in recent days America suffered yet another deadly shooting incident. Elliot Rodger went on what the media are describing as a “rampage”, killing six people and injuring a further 13. Using weapons and ammunition that he had purchased legally. I watched Robert Martinez (the father of one of the victims – Chris Martinez) make a statement to the press on the following day.

Robert Martinez has a point.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states very simply and unambiguously that: “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. Everyone has a right to life. And I firmly believe that this right to life is “trumps” (you’ll see why I’ve used that word in a moment) most other rights – especially those constitutional rights which, in the pecking order I think come below human rights.

So on to Joe.

Joe Wurzelbacher is an American conservative activist who gained notoriety in 2008 when he asked the then Democratic Candidate for President (Senator Barack Obama) about his small business tax policy. Wurzelbacher became known as Joe the Plumber and featured in some GOP adverts and campaign media coverage for a while.

So why has this person annoyed me?

He has written an open letter to the families of the victims of the Isla Vista shooting saying that their “dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights” and specifically to Robert Martinez (who railed against the NRA and “craven politicians”) to “back off” suggesting that Martinez’s statement would be “exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left.”

There is so much here that grinds my gears – the insensitivity of the whole thing, the threatening language, the timing.

I know that Martinez politicised the tragedy as soon as he mentioned the NRA and politicians, but frankly in my opinion, Mr Martinez has a point.

America has suffered more than it’s fair share of pointless gun-violence incidents and despite this there appears to be little or no action from their leaders. The NRA is a powerful lobbying force in Washington. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, the NRA’s lobbying spend regularly exceeds $1.5mn and in 2013 topped $3mn – so they do make it difficult for any change to happen.

The President, despite his left-wing credentials, appears powerless to do anything about not only the NRA but also gun-violence. There is, in my view, a whole range of things that could be brought in - further checks, balances, security systems, background checks, joining up the myriad of security agencies which exist in the US – the list goes on.

In my opinion, buying a gun should be one of the most difficult and highly regulated things you are legally allowed to do.

Q) Do you want a gun?

A) Yes.

Q) Why?

Q) What for?

Q) What are you intending to use it for?

Q) Do you have a history of mentall ill-health, drug abuse, domestic violence, alcohol abuse?

Q) Can you present 3 forms of valid identification?

Q) Will you submit to a full police verified background check?

Q) Will you agree to a 30 day cooling off period?

Q) Have you been on a gun-handling, maintenance and security course?

Q) Where will you keep the gun if this purchase is successful?

The whole process should start over for ammunition.

I know that, as David Cameron said, you cannot legislate against a switch flipping in someone’s brain. You cannot legislate for everything – but as a first try, let’s make it bloody difficult for anyone to get a gun in the first place.

(part 2 of this post to follow shortly – hopefully not a 5 month gap between posts this time ..)

Time’s a funny thing

So .. I know this blog isn’t as widely read as I would like (still working on that) but I know the last post I published was read by quite a few peeps from a certain audience – close friends etc, mainly because it was about my new daughter.

So this is 6 months on from the birth of my daughter and I’ve come to another realisation. This is going to really change science and physics as we know it so strap in.

I reckon that, based on my experience of the last 6 months, that time passes differently when you’ve got a small child.

Revolutionary I know.

For example, tasks that you think wouldn’t take very long seem to take ages and activities or noises, games etc that you feel you’ve been doing/playing for an hour have only lasted 3 minutes. Furthermore time passes differently even when you aren’t doing these things – I’m woken up by my daughter (over Christmas, so not at work), change of nappy, breakfast, get her dressed, play with her toys .. I suddenly realise its nearly time for her mid-morning nap and I’m not even dressed, then she falls asleep, wakes up, its time for her lunch and ours and then by the time the washing up is done and she’s played a bit, then its time for another nap, then she wakes and its tea time, and its bath and then bed and all of a sudden, its half 7!

20131229_111508

Now for those readers without children I’m sure this won’t mean anything and for those      experienced parents they may be saying to themselves, “well yes, that’s what happens”, but for me, especially over Christmas,  this revelation about the passage of time was news to me (suppose it would be considering the definition of revelation ..)

But another thought struck me at the same time as this one about time. What I also realised is that, even though it takes ages to do bottles, prep and wash and sterilise and ages doing nappies and stuffing them and sorting out clothes and tidying away toys and cleaning up etc etc etc, absolutely none of that matters to me – at all. The passage of time in this way does not bother me at all – because it is time for and with my daughter and even though I get tired playing peekaboo for what feels like 4 hours and actually has only been 4 minutes, none of that matters.

 

None of that matters to me in anyway because I’m lucky enough to be spending time with my daughter and so even though all the things feel like they take ages – I really don’t care one bit.

A new post for a new phase

So I haven’t posted anything online on here for a while (in fact since March last year). One of the reasons for that was time, everyday life (and I got married too!) and work commitments, but also finding things to write about.

I had a period when I was unsure what I could or should write about because of work and how some things might look to outside audiences. It was also pointed out to me that posting  online either on a blog or on Twitter can provide content which could damage oneself professionally at some point in the future. Now I’m happy to stand by everything I write or say and argue with rational people but sometimes even that means I think twice about posting.

So, what to blog about?

I hope that from time to time I will still post about things that exercise me – mainly politics-related or current affairs, although I do post on Twitter alot so I’m covered a bit (as much as I can be in 140 characters). But right now I would like to write a little about a new phase of my life – as of 25 June this year, I am a dad.

image

My daughter (about 1hr old)

So this is my daughter. She arrived early and a bit ‘not according to plan’, but she is healthy and beautiful (although admittedly I’m biased).

Some of the details of Lily’s arrival are personal but sufficed to say she was delivered by emergency Caesarean section instead of how we thought she would be. And that was a scary experience for me, for any new dad I would have thought. One minute you are talking to the mother of your soon-to-be baby and a few seconds later there are alarms and someone is telling you to get changed into a pair of scrubs.

But she arrived and even though it is over done, I’ll say it here – I was smitten. Instantly. The only simple way to say it, is that the second I held this pink, noisy, slightly messy bundle in my arms I knew that I (turn away here if you want to avoid the soppiness) was in love and there was nothing that I wouldn’t do for her for the rest of my life. Nothing would be too small or trivial. And even though she was pretty out of it from the various drugs she was on at the time, I felt closer and more connected to my wife than ever before.

I could easily go on and on about the huge rollercoaster that the last four weeks have been (two separate emergency trips to hospital, both resulting in 5 day stays – but I might touch on that at some other point), but I am rapidly learning that sleep is now a high value commodity so I will pause for now.

Hopefully when time permits I’ll write more here about my new daughter and this brand new adventure I and the missus have got ourselves into.

And maybe touch on some politics every now and again.

Dave’s dodgy dinner dates

I can’t really take credit for the title of this one, i think i must have heard it on the news or from a report on the Commons this week, but i thought it was good so I’ve stolen it.

So this whole thing is kind of about money. Money and power. Money and power and influence. And politics. Its easy to see why it attracted the attention of the media and rightly so, however i think one of the more interesting things to think about is party funding. Clearly dinners with the PM, that aren’t minuted or attended by civil servants, for party donors from the private is not right or proper and at least when pressured (they shouldnt have had to be pressured) they released the information, but its largely to down to money.

Cameron needs to court wealthy donors in the same way as Labour needs to court the unions – they need some money to run their political operations and shenanigans. However, i believe that this reliance on large companies or groups or individuals for cash not only leads to the potential for stories like those we have seen recently but also removes the political process and politicians further from us normal people.

If there were to be a cap on donations to political parties, say maybe 20k, then the parties would have to go out, fundraise, meet people, encourage them to join the party, pay their subs – all of that. It might start to mean the end of lazy politics. Imagine that .. Politicians actually getting engaged with their constituents and communities.

So how to administer the donations? Again, I cant claim credit for this idea because i heard it on the radio this week. Set up an independent ombudsman/body with representatives from a range of ages and backgrounds, across the country. This body would receive donations from a blind trust at set points in a month and then pass on the donations to the individual parties. This would mean that no party would know who had given money and that way no-one could be accused of currying favour or influence.

I would like to think (because i’m slightly optimistic) that this will change and this will make a difference. But let’s be honest .. I don’t think it will and it probably won’t. Oh and lets just wait and see the politicians blame the lobbyists for this one.

what would you do?

i’ve recently travelled quite a lot of miles for The Day Job and as a result i’ve been listening to LBC. now, some of the presenters are quite annoying and right wing and many of the callers are clearly nutters. however, a call in session last week particularly caught my attention.

last week the police cleared the Democracy Village from Parliament Square after the Police Reform and Social Responsiblity Bill was specifically amended to cover this protest. specifically amended. [note - this action was targeted towards the Brian Haw encampment but there is another group which has an injunction against them being moved so there are a few people still there]. now this legislation was amended specifically to allow the police powers to remove the protesters from Democracy Village. it also includes bans on protest in other parts of London included Whitehall, Bridge Street, the QEII Conference Centre and Westminster Abbey. so here is a piece of legislation which received Royal Assent in September 2011 that specifically limits the opportunity for members of the public to protest against actions taken or to be taken by the government of the day. prompted by this story in the news, the call-in session focused on this question: “In the UK, if you found the actions of the government of the day so gut-wrenchingly awful and abhorent, what can you do to legally register your digust and opposition at said actions?”.

depressingly the host of the show and the majority of the callers struggled to come up with an answer. i suspect this was the point of the question – the straightforward answer is: “very little or next to nothing”. let’s brainstorm:

  • start a twitter campaign
  • join a facebook group
  • write to your MP
  • write to your local authority
  • go on strike (not an option for everyone i admit)
  • write to the PM
  • wait for an election
  • start an online petition
  • start a local campaign using social and traditional media
  • start an online petition on the No.10 website (hoping to get it above the threshold of 100k signatures)
  • join a political party, run for election, get elected, serve as an MP and vote against the government (ok, so that one is a bit of a long term option …)
  • protest – but how?

now for me that is quite a depressing list. most if not all of those actions are easily ignored or dismissed by those who they are supposed to target. twitter and facebook, despite the one off instances such as the Trafigura incident, are very easily dismissed as online and untangible and let’s face it, although we on twitter like to think we are important and doing something we aren’t really. at all. so what else do we have… write to your MP or the PM – again likely ignored or responded to with a form letter. write to your local authority – forget it. go on strike – apparently the only group of people for whom this works is London tube drivers who manage to threaten strike and then get huge pay rises, but often this doesnt even work – how successful have PCS and Unite been at reversing the UK government’s austerity drive? start a grassroots campaign in your local village, write to councillors, the town council, get a twitter and facebook going … again somewhat effective against local issues – planning decisions can often be swayed by such campaigns, but the impact on national governmental decisions is likely neglible.

so what is there left on the list – protest. now we come to it.

  • 1 million people marched against the war in iraq – still happened
  • 1 million (?) students marched recently against the rise in student fees – still went ahead
  • the Occupy London group have recently been moved and also – ignored

with the passage of the PRSR Bill one could argue that the last opportunity to register your opposition to the actions of the government is to wait for an election or break the law. one of the first callers to LBC last week suggested chaining yourself to the gates of Downing Street … an action that would get you arrested within about 20 seconds and would result in you likely going to jail, your cause and protest being forgotten and overshadowed by stories of security failures. so what is left? how can we effectively protest or register our opposition? ok, so registering opposition is relatively easy, but how to protest as the state shuts down avenues for protest?

i would go as far to say that the passage of the PRSR Bill marks an enfringement on our democratic freedoms. if that is the case, what is left?

one of the few things that protest may change?

a somewhat depressing thought to finish on i agree, but if anyone has any great ideas that i’ve missed feel free to jump in!

ok, time to own up

ok. i feel i need to come clean somewhat.

i have set out some of my more liberal credentials and beliefs in previous posts on this blog. i certainly would not describe myself as right-wing or even right of centre. i would hope that people would describe me as a bit of a lefty. i have previously blogged about that great line from the west wing when santos talks about picking up the label of liberal and wearing it proudly as a badge. i am not going back on this.

but.

the thing is, i am noticing that as the political rhetoric around public sector pensions, the future of the public sector etc etc intensifies, i struggle to understand why the left apparently have to defend the public sector to the hilt? why can one not be a bit lefty, but also work in the private sector and be realistic about the public sector and what it can do?

let’s just be clear:

  • the public sector does not create wealth
  • the public sector does create employment opportunities
  • there are examples of huge waste in many public sector institutions and organisations
  • there are examples of excessive payments and general excess in the private sector
  • there are lots of hardworking people in the public sector. there are also lots of people who are not hardworking
  • there are lots of hardworking people in the private sector. there are also lots of people who are not hardworking

i would like to see the NHS deliver the best healthcare in the world (i certainly do not want the American healthcare system pre-Obama) but i am not precious about who delivers it. if a private sector partner to the NHS can deliver great services, free at the point of use, then fine – let them do it.

i work in the private sector. i have previously worked in the private sector. the problem has come about, as per usual, as a result of extreme (in many cases) political rhetoric. the dialogue which abounds in the media, online and in the blogosphere appears to try to demonise some parts of the private sector (the private sector has become interchangeable in my view with “the bankers and the banks”) and idolise the public sector.

so now we have a situation where to even suggest any reform of the education or health system is so incredibly heinous you have to go live in a cave somewhere and never see anyone ever again. i should say here that i think the Lansley Health Bill is ridiculous, mainly because it is confusing and a mess and no-one really knows what it is for. i am not against reform or even introduction of some partnerships with the private sector – if they work, if they can deliver good or better services and if they safeguard the future of the NHS as a national health service.

i remember studying political rhetoric at university and one of the classic devices in rhetoric is to construct heroes (angels) and villains (demons). so we have angels (nurses, doctors, teachers, carers etc) and demons (bankers, consultants, private sector managers etc). and because of this artificial construction and differentiation between the two to even suggest reforms or changes is, as i said above, heinous and heretical. and of course politically, it becomes somewhat of a vote / confidence loser if you start suggesting attacking / changing things for the angels or putting them out of jobs (see Cameron reaction to all the health unions and spokesgroups ganging up on Lansley).

let’s be honest – if we were going to design public services from scratch we probably wouldn’t end up with what we have got now. but i think it is pretty clear that in order to even get started on reform we need to start thinking about how we differentiate between the public and private sectors. we certainly shouldn’t be constructed one against the other, demonising and then idolising the other.

so, in conclusion – just like sam says in the west wing – teachers should be on six figure salaries, schools should be palaces – i just haven’t worked out how to do it yet.

the policy of administration and the administration of policy

i think that this scene from Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey Appleby appears in front of a select committee out to get his department and his minister is one of the best pieces of satire i’ve ever seen on screen. i’ve referenced in professionally and i’ve experienced it after reading notes from civil servants and one hears it when one listens to politicians. one of the reasons that this remains one of the best things i’ve seen is that it continues to be relevant (and funny).

Appleby clearly sets out the problem when he draws the distinction between ministers being responsible for the policy (of administration) and civil servants (in this case, the permanent secertary of the department) who are responsible for the administration (of policy). so the problem arises when one tries to establish who is responsible for a mistake – is the minister and a failure of policy (is it unimplementable?) or is it a failure of the civil servant (to adequately implement the policy)? and should the minister check up on the civil servant or should the civil servant front up to the minister and tell him or her what is going on?

the number of stories that have come out of the Public Account Select Committee in recent months appears to be never ending – failure to deliver on projects, projects running over time and over budget but yet with no responsibility (i won’t focus on the fact that the bulk of the stories seem to relate to IT projects – that is enough content for another blog post) taken by ministers or civil servants.

the most recent story concerns the Firecontrol programme enacted by the last Labour government. this was an attempt to integrate emergency fire services across the UK in 9 regional centres. this was another major IT project which went horrendously over budget. my issue with all of these stories is responsibility.

speaking after the PASC report was published, the Chair of the Committee, Margaret Hodge MP said:

“The project was rushed, without proper understanding of costs or risks. The leadership relied far too much on external consultants and the frequent departures of senior staff also contributed to weak management and oversight of the project.

[...] No one has been held to account for this project failure, one of the worst we have seen for many years, and the careers of most of the senior staff responsible have carried on as if nothing had gone wrong at all and the consultants and contractor continue to work on many other government projects.”

so, we have poor leadership, external consultants (which to my mind means that there is inappropriate experience within the civil service and questions the value of “career civil servants” who have no “real life” or real world business experience). the day after the report was published and after Hodge had been on the radio, the former minister (and now Lord) John Prescott was on the radio, getting his defence of himself in very quickly. he made it very clear that he would take responsibility for the policy, but not the administration of that policy or its implementation.

ok, so i’m not a massive fan of john prescott and i don’t think that he has gone far enough in admitting and owning his share of the responsibility, but my real concern here is the civil service. why was the permanent secretary of the department called in front of the committee and asked questions? where is the civil servant who was responsible (the Senior Responsible Officer) and why is he not on the radio or the news owning up for his responsibility and taking ownership of the mistake?

this is by far a comprehensive analysis or breakdown of the issues here, but it seems to me that, whilst it is somewhat cliche to say it, in the private sector if someone had made a mistake of this magnitude (and let a project go off budget by at least £400mn) then they would be out of a job pretty quick. furthermore that person would likely experience difficulties in getting another job in the same field. my problem with the civil service in this instance is that there appears to be no accountability. and accountability handed out in private or behind closed doors without recourse to elected representatives such as the PASC is surely not true accountability, especially when one is talking about handling vast sums of public money.

so, a solution? it really comes back to making sure that the select committees of Parliament (and we are seeing this a bit now) increase and strengthen their powers to call individuals (and not just ministers) to account. and finally, why shouldn’t the same standards (success / failure) be applied to to the public sector as are applied by employers in the private sector?

an attempt to identify a political brandjack

a former professor of mine – quentin langley – edits a really interesting news website at brandjacknews.com which looks at news from around the world (not just communications or PR stories, but marketing, adverts and global affairs as well) and examines how known “brands” (including anything from names, picture etc) get “jacked” in order to promote something else entirely. this quote puts it much better than i -

“brandjacking is when an organisation loses control of the social media conversation around its brand to someone else”

this idea and concept is really interesting – there are a lot of examples around on the net when you start thinking about them and it got me thinking about political brandjacking and if an idea could get brandjacked and if so, what would that mean. it is a coincidence at this stage that it was whilst at uni working on quentin’s work that i really started to develop my interest in US politics – a subject i ended up studying with him. so all of this has conflated into a blog post about an article i read here which talks about how an idea / belief / assertion, “being american” has, according to the writers at politicususa.com, has been jacked by elements of right wing republicanism in the US. just before i get to what is hopefully going to be the interesting bit, it should be noted that in the best traditions of US politics, the website that i’ve looked at here is quite partisan, but i’m going to try and divorce myself from that aspect of it and instead look at the story itself.

just by way of a quick summary, essentially a group called “Generation Opportunity” (and here i am actually with the writers of the piece, the name of this group sounds too constructed not to be directly connected with the Republican party) has put up a Facebook page called “Being American”

now interestingly if you put “being american Facebook” into Google (other search engines are available) then you get quite a lot of pages which have been up in opposition to this one.

the original article goes on to outline how polling information has been skewed by people clicking the “like” button this page – as they put it, who wouldn’t “like” being american? i was really intrigued by this because Generation Opportunity (the non profit organisation behind the page) have essentially take a phrase – an idea, the idea of being american, and used that idea to drive a party political agenda. apparently by clicking “like” on this page you are subscribing to the ideology and policies of the right. and via the “endorsements” that the “like” button gets for their page, they are able to describe themselves in certain ways and note that they have a number of followers and giving credence and credibility to, yes let’s be honest here, GOP talking points (in some instances i would go as far as saying Tea Party talking points as well).

the polling outlined by the Pew Research Centre here appears to indicate that young people are actually opposed to many of the talking points which “Being American” and Generation Opportunity are distributing.

so what we have here is kind of interesting, even if it isn’t a real brandjack in the truest sense of the word – someone will undoubtedly correct me if that is not the case – we have  a Facebook page set up by a political but non profit organisation, but an organisation with discernible party allegiances (albeit non-disclosed allegiances) which taps directly into young people’s “hopes and dreams” (for want of a better phrase). i would imagine that every American citizen likes being American to some degree, and certainly it is not a stretch of the imagination to think that young people in America would likely identify themselves as American before anything else (perhaps), so by extension is it fair to say then that Generation Opportunity have scammed all those people? or are they clicking on the “like” button in the full knowledge of who and what is behind it and what their agenda is?

of course there are young people who are right wing, but i definitely think that using the idea of being American (and there are wider issues here potentially about whether a national identity is political / a-political / party political or not) to push or promote a party political agenda is a really interesting one – and one, dare i say it that we might not see in national politics in the UK (interestingly apart from the BNP perhaps). this website / Facebook page seems to be saying, if you don’t like “being American” (or like being right wing / Republican) then you are un-American.

would we get that in the UK or in devolved politics? can one being English and be any political colour? can one be Welsh but not a nationalist? interesting times certainly.

the dangers of dehumanisation

at the risk of annoying people / offending people with this post i should say at the start – what happened in Norway a few weeks ago was terrible, shocking, awful and can never be justified. what i would like to think about briefly is how the perpetrator has been treated / is being treated in the press / in discussions.

 

it is dangerous to start thinking of breivik as a “monster” or “mad” or “insane” as some have already described him. if we think of people who commit these kind of crimes as a monster then we instantly de-humanize them and refuse to consider the more difficult questions and issues – how can another human being commit these kind of acts? what is the potential for others / me to be like this? if we de-humanize people in this way we instantly remove them from the human race – they are not like us, they are not proper people and therefore (potentially more dangerously) we are not obliged to think of them in the same way, or treat them in the same way.

this is not a modern phenomenon however. this is something which has been happening for a long time – the creation of monsters in the public / general consciousness is a common theme in literature, politics, rhetoric and life in general. by identifying those people who have transgressed the accepted laws of the culture in which they live and exist as “mad” or “monstrous” is essentially the same as identifying them as “different”. by categorising people like Breivik or Himmler as monsters, we are making them into the unknown and scary “other”. by doing this it makes “us” (the “normal” people) feel comfortable – we can explain away the actions of these people by their “monstrous” tendencies and the fact they are ill adapted to society and don’t know how to behave because they are “other” or “animals” and it gives us an easy, non-problematic explanation – they did that because they are like this.

unfortunately by dehumanising people like Breivik we remove the onus from ourselves to consider the implications and real reasons for his actions. the fact is that people like Breivik and Himmler are / were human. their actions, whilst clearly wrong and impossible to reconcile with living within a human society with modern enlightened values, were the actions of men and as the Bard remarked – “the evil that men do lives after them”. it is now for us to reconcile, think and contemplate the actions of Breivik in Norway a few weeks ago, but whatever conclusion, whether it be medical, legal, cultural or philosophical, it must be remembered that they were the actions of a man and we must remember that the “evil that men do lives on and on” and will remain with us now as part of our culture and who we all are.

whatever conclusions are reached about this man, we cannot and should not simply dismiss his actions as that of a “mad man” or a “monster” – to do so is simply too dangerous.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 804 other followers