Where for art thou Wonderboy?

A few people have asked me why I haven't posted much on here recently. There are three main reasons, none of them good:

1. I am looking for a new job and house.
2. I have found a website where I can play Sensible Soccer online.
3. I am trying to write a book.

However, I do plan on posting more stuff in the next few weeks. Thanks for visiting.

'We' the Media

The story that continues to dominate here in the UK is the aftermath of the Danish publication of a cartoon that has offended many Muslims worldwide. I’m not going to talk here about the specific issues and doubtless you have your own opinions on the matter. Instead, this blog focuses on the response of the media and what this can teach us about their more general role in society.

The media, especially the local media, exist by creating the illusion that they are working for us – that they provide some kind of public service of truth seeking or are a vanguard for our democractic-rights. They tell us what’s important and what we need to know.

My local newspaper is the Yorkshire Evening Post (YEP). Founded in 1890, Yorkshire's largest circulating evening newspaper has been dedicated to serving the people of Leeds and surrounding districts for well over 100 years. They'd love you to believe this.

While this may have been true 100 years ago (though I doubt it) the paper has since been bought over by Johnstons Press Plc. If we take the perspective that in order to ‘serve’ someone you must make yourself accountable to them, then ultimately the only people the YEP 'serves' are the shareholders of Johnston.

So how do they do this? The common sense answer would be ‘by selling lots of newspapers’ but a brief look at Johnston Press 2004 Annual Report will reveal that sales account for only about 13% of their total revenue (69.6m of 518.8m). By contrast, 76% (394.4m) of this revenue comes from advertising. The ‘North region’ (of which YEP is a part) incidentally is the largest generator of total revenue accounting for 23%.

So, one could say that the role of the YEP is to provide a forum for the businesses of Leeds to market themselves to the people of Leeds. The more successful they are in doing this the more revenue they receive and the more share prices go up.

As a reader and inhabitant of Leeds, it is still possible to make a contribution as the YEP runs a daily letters page. However, you are limited to 300 words and they reserve the right to edit if for legal or ‘other reasons’.

Now, before you start calling me a naive idealist, I am not suggesting that there is anything ‘wrong’ with this arrangement per say. I realise that the interests of the business and people of Leeds can and do overlap to a great extent and that it is possible to serve both of them to some degree.

However, just as if the spokesperson for Nike made all their press briefings in a ‘we the people’ tone implying their interests were the same as ours, we would not accept this de facto; neither should we accept similar claims from the media. The YEP is a corporation and having a local name and local reports doesn't make it any less of one.

So, it was with regard to this latest 'Islamic driven human-rights crisis' that I saw an interesting piece in my local paper which I believe provides a good example of what I’ll call the ‘comrade media'. You can read it here.

I have composed an open reply to the Pickle article which you can read below. I was considering sending it to the letters page but since it weighs in at a whopping 622 words I suspect it would be butchered and its context lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Pickles is a worthy champion of the rights of free speech but before we chorus her indignation against those who refuse to use these rights 'wisely and carefully' it may be worth asking who actually gets to enjoy all of the freedoms she defends and who it is that is really undermining them?

There exist many differences between our rights on paper and our rights in practice. In this country, we are fortunate that we can say what we want (at least at the present time) regardless of our race or religion. Despite recent restrictions on 'racial hatred' (and I'm sure for most of us the 'right to be racist' is one we would happily concede) we should never allow ourselves to forget how unique these rights are, especially from a global perspective, or be willing to give up the entitlements that our ancestors fought for.

However, all is not entirely rosy in this country with regard to freedom of expression. Should you wish to extend its range by talking to a greater audience then perhaps a loudspeaker or pamphleteering would allow, it is then you notice how unequally this right is distributed.

Most of do not command a regular, thousand-word opinion piece in our local paper and, while we have the theoretical right to communicate to others around our region and beyond, we may lack the practical means of doing so in terms of time, money, occupation, qualifications and so on. It's the difference between the having the right to own a property and being able to afford to buy a house.

Whilever access to such positions of influence is unequally distributed in our society, it becomes the job of media establishments to ensure their reporting is in the public interest. If certain foreign newspapers choose to abuse this power by commissioning dubious, inflammatory illustrations we can ask 'In whose interests are these being shown?' but we have to accept that there is (at present) little we as British citizens can do about it – the jurisdiction of bodies such as Press Complaints Commission ends firmly on this side of the North Sea.

It doesn’t surprise me that certain individuals will use this issue as an excuse to press their personal agendas or effect diplomatic relations with other countries. However, in order to do this they must have known that the most direct route to a front page or news headline in this country is by being radical or offensive (in this case both) and it’s a tactic has once again proven successful. While I congratulate the decision not to reprint the original offensive material, I would suggest that the media in this country have contributed to this 'crisis' by giving such people the coverage they crave.

The media abroad may wish to continue a war of words and images with radical Islam, but I fail to understand why the British public should be caught in the firing line or why our rights should ever be the casualties of such a conflict.

All this should impress upon us the importance of true democratically accountable media in this country and beyond. Rather then suggesting we should 'watch our own words' these institutions should be looking inwards and ensuring they are accountable for what they print and broadcast. Reading Ms Pickles’ article, the line between ‘concerned citizen’ and ‘industry spokesperson’ is often a blurred one and the ‘we’ to which she refers is unclear.

If Ms Pickles is implying that the British public at large are abusing their right of free speech then I would dispute this vigorously. However, if her piece is a call to her media colleagues to take greater responsibility for their work, then it’s a charge I wholly welcome .

Amnesty International & Cuba/ Remits & Ideologies- Awkward Questions & Absent Answers

I have decided to post an email from myself to Amnesty International United Kingdom (AIUK). This decision was not taken lightly since this blog is not intended to reflect negatively on AI. Despite any conclusions you may draw from what follows, I still consider AI to be a great and worthy institution and one to which I have devoted both my free time and money over the last five years. However, that said, the issues raised within are ones that have concerned me for the past eighteen months and I feel this is as good a format as any to air my view on the subjects. As ever, I welcome any comments or feedback that this receives.

Since recent figures indicate that the only people who view this website are already on my MSN buddy list, I think an analysis of the benefits of debate versus the costs of questioning AI can wait till such time when my readership is at least double figures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context and Credentials

The following email is unlikely to mean much to the casual reader without a considerable amount of context, which I hope to offer in some depth. First though, I feel it necessary to offer both a warning and a justification.

This blog departs from my usual style in that it is not intended to be ‘funny’ per say. Any regular readers (there is at least one of you) expecting my typically irreverent take on another twenty-first century issue would do well to click away now. Though the issues are in no way sacred, I treat them with the seriousness I feel they deserve.

Regarding my credentials for making such any inquiry: As mentioned elsewhere, I have been involved with AI in a number of different capacities for the last five years. I have a good understanding of how the organisation works and realise that it continue to exist in large part to the good will and hard work of volunteers.

Needless to say, the organisation has more pressing matters to attend to then answering detailed, lengthy enquiries from the general public or even its membership. However, at the risk of ‘bigging myself up’ I would like to offer why I consider myself an exception to this and qualify for the status of ‘active member’ or ‘AI volunteer’. For simplicity sake, this is given below in the form of a CV.

Knowledge and Experience:

• Worked for a year as AI membership co-ordinator for Scotland on behalf of a third party (Push Consultancy)

• Chair of AI Leeds group for a year

• Ongoing member of the Urgent Action Campaign for past two years

• Coordinated or contributed to a number of successful AI events and campaigns, including two regional conferences, a Control Arms campaign rally, Human Rights Day events, etc.

Resources:

• Availability – if this blog itself isn’t testament to the fact that I have far too much time on my hands then I’m not sure what is.

• Finance – I give what I can afford and will be able to afford more in the future (touch wood).

• Age – I’m quite young, so I have quite a few years of campaigning left in me (I’m glad this is a wooden desk).

• Contacts – have attended numerous AI meetings, from AGMs to human-right themed pub crawls. I know the game and it’s players quite well.

Currently: At the moment I still hold the role of Campaigns Officer for the AI Leeds group – though this is pretty much an honorary title since I haven’t done any significant campaigning for the last nine months (for reasons I will discuss later.)

What I hope I have shown, besides a willingness to blow my own trumpet, is that if AI lose me they lose more than a regular monthly direct debit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba Libre

Two years ago my brother went to work in Cuba for a few months as part of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. This undertaking was not without considerable financial and personal cost to himself, but one which he found both greatly rewarding and inspiring.

Upon his return, in one of our regular debriefing sessions in the pub, we inevitably came upon the subject of the human rights situation in Cuba. Now, whatever may exist there in terms of local governance, Cuba is not democratic in any meaningful sense and there are many restrictions on personal freedoms and rights to assembly and form political parties.

This situation was, according to my brother, deeply regrettable but (to the Cuban mind at least) somewhat inevitable given the perception in the country of ongoing hostilities from its powerful neighbour the US – both in terms of an illegal embargo and the threat of ‘regime change’. This mindset lends itself to a form of siege mentality which, not only is very apparent in many facets of Cuban life, but also gives the administration suitable cover for their more draconian practices.

This explanation was not given to me in any way as a justification of the situation there, but rather to create an understanding of the context in which ordinary Cubans see themselves as living.

Naturally, this led me to ask where human-rights organisations and in particular AI fitted in to this picture - AI is after all non-partisan and takes just as much issue with American infringements on human-rights (HR). I was told in no uncertain terms that AI were not looked upon favourably either by the Castro regime or by the general public and official AI representative has not in fact been allowed into the country since 1988.

I was curious to find out why this may be the case. There is no government on the planet that is immune from a AI commenting on their HR record, yet most choose to react by hiding their abuses or ignoring calls for change rather then attempt to silence the organisations. This position of non-cooperation has in fact been to the detriment of Cuba, especially in terms of losing much international sympathy for it’s plight and jeopardising it’s relationship with the EU.

Apparently, in Cuba AI is seen as very much as part of the ongoing problem they face from disproportionate scrutiny and ideological double standards. The remainder of this blog will test the validity of such claims.

It is my opinion that this issue presents us with two important questions, the implications of which extend far beyond Cuba and their relationship with the US but for which that country highlights emphatically the need for answers.

1. Is AI coverage of Human-Rights issues slanted in favour of some articles over others?

• How can this be demonstrated or refuted?

• If this is taken to be true, what reasons do AI give for this and what are the possible implications?

• If not, where does this perception come from and what steps can or should be taken to refute it?

2. Do there exist examples of AI’s work being used to further a political or ideological standpoint?

• How can this be demonstrated or refuted?

• If so, how is this justified by AI and can or should it be stopped?

• If not, again, where does this perception come from and what steps can or should be taken to refute it?

For the remainder of this blog, I will give my thoughts on these questions based on my own research and experience, highlighting where I think further debate is needed and ending with a list a further questions I think the answers to which are greatly needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Amnesty International and Remit: Is AI coverage of Human-Rights issues slanted in favour of some articles over others?

What’s in a name?

It should first be noted that Amnesty International name alludes very much to the circumstances of its formation. In 1968, Peter Benson, the founder of Amnesty, wrote on behalf of two Portuguese students, incarcerated for nothing more then making a toast to liberty, a right enshrined by Article 19 – Freedom of Speech.

However, while AI’s origins and name encompass only certain certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) it’s current remit states very clearly that it serves to uphold and call governments to account for each of those thirty articles and other international HR standards.To the best of my knowledge, all of these articles are given equal ‘legal weighting.’

I have discussed the UDHR elsewhere, but let us remind ourselves that, while most of the articles of the deal with’ individual-rights’ (the realm of classic HR discussion), a significant number refer to ‘social rights’, and the later three what you may call ‘governmental responsibilities’.

Cuban-Rights: Definitions and Comparisons

Now, at the risk of (considerably) simplifying the issue, consider how Cuba and the US compare on 27 articles (the last 3 being administrative and not measurable). Obviously I don’t have the time or the expertise to make an exhaustive comparison (no doubt it has been done elsewhere) but I will attempt to give two examples which can, I believe, be easily verified.

If we look at Articles 19 & 20 – Freedom of Expression & Freedom of Assembly and Association, then the US has hands down the better record. Whatever your personal feelings about America or the limitations of that country, there is just no real contender for it’s title as the ‘land of the free’.

However, if we shift our focus to Articles 25 & 26 – Rights to Standard of Living & Right to Education then I think we can probably agree that the accolades should go to Cuba. Even despite considerable economic pressure, Cuba continues to have one of the best health care systems in the world, free at the point of entry. Similarly, while education in Cuba is free to degree level, in the US it can be extortionate.

I realise that these are both fairly flippant examples and not be taken as any final word on the matter - I’m not in a position to offer statistics, such as literacy, morbidity rates to back them up.

Further to this, I’m not going to try and guess which of these countries would come out ahead over the 27 articles. My point is, that only this had been done would I be in a position to state with any validity that one country has a ‘better human rights record’ than another. The UDHR have to be taken as a whole package, and we cannot frame the debate by selecting only certain articles.

AI: Varied Remits -Mixed Results

On the AI website, reports and actions from the organisation are catalogued by Country, Region and also, (useful for our purposes) Themes . Of the 37 Themes available, I would suggest that only two could be considered to represent social-rights: 'Inter/-Non-Governmental Organizations' and 'Economic Globalization and Human Rights'. The 'Education' section refers specifically to HR education rather than a general right to schooling, 'Medical' refers to treatments in prisons rather then a right to general health care, and so on.

It would be even more interesting, to see all actions listed by reference to the articles themselves, if nothing else this would help AI monitor and evaluate their performance

I have been asked to sign petitions or write letters on behalf of those who are in jail or at risk of oppression,, but I have never been asked to make representations for those simply living in abject poverty or suffering appalling working conditions.

I have contacted the Syrian authorities to appeal for the release of human-rights activists in that country, but not once I have written to a multinational company for refusing to give sick pay to it’s employers.

Every time the Colombian paramilitaries advance further into the heartland of their indigenous population, threatening to remove them from their land I am the first to hear about it. Yet, when literacy rates continue to fall in the inner cities of the United Kingdom, AI appears to remain silent.

Since these are all human-rights issues as defined by the UDHR, does it makes sense that activists have to be intimidated, incarcerated or even murdered before they receive our attention and support?

Obviously there is a limit to what one organisation can do but if AI, chooses to call itself a ‘Human Rights’ organisation in any meaningful, encompassing sense of the word, shouldn’t it cover all articles equally? Does it not have a responsibility to represent people’s social rights as well as their individual freedoms? If the organisation chooses to use its limited resources to focus on some articles at the expense of others – is that decision not by definition a political one and what further political implications might it have?

Bad Examples and Double Standards

From the perspective above, one could argue (as I suspect the Cubans might) that AI is very much an Individual-Rights Organisation – it’s remit focuses almost exclusively on Articles 1-13, 16 and 18-21 and saying almost nothing about the Social-Rights encompassed in the other articles.

This is, in itself, not a bad thing, We certainly need organisations to help defend our freedoms because, God knows there are enough governments willing to take them. However, it leads us to ask who actually is defending our social rights and question whether, by claiming to protect all our rights yet only doing (figuratively speaking) half a job, what dangers such institutions may present.

Consider this. There is a parallel universe in which the Soviets won the cold war and socialism, in it’s differing forms went on to be the dominant ideology in the world. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a last bastion of capitalism exists in Hawaii.

Hawaii has, despite pressure from its communist neighbour Russia, been able to provide its citizens with considerable freedoms of expression, belief and assembly the likes of which are rarely seen elsewhere and are certainly unheard of in the USSR.

After hearing unconfirmed reports of a seven day working-week, spiralling tuition fees and unaffordable housing, an organisation operating under the name of ‘Human-Rights’ but whose remit on closer inspection focuses almost entirely on the later, social-rights articles of the UDHR, is despatched to investigate. Let’s call this organisation HR-Focus.

The Hawaiian government (democratically accountable, unlike the Soviet administration), fearing that this is just another weapon of communist propaganda, refuses the HR-Focus access to their country, they do this on three grounds.

Firstly, they claim the conditions are symptomatic of economic pressures that they are facing from outside country. Pressures they claim that HR-Focus should be working to alleviate, as they are far more prescient.

Secondly, they question whether HR-Focus is a true ‘Human-Rights’ organisation and say they suspect that, with it’s clearly biased remit, it will surely attempt to compromise the country’s stability or security.

Thirdly, they point to many liberal practices in their county that constitute good examples of individual right, such as representative elections. They go on to claim that this is rarely acknowledged by HR-Focus who never scrutinised other countries on these grounds.

Now, whether you think there is any validity on these points or not is fairly immaterial. When HR-Focus returns to it’s country of origins, and the headlines in the next day’s issue of Pravda read ‘Hawaii tries to hide bad human-rights’ the Russian Administration can then use this as leverage to justify an even more hostile relations with their neighbour. Protesting isn’t going to make a difference; ‘bad human-rights’ is the shit that sticks, complaining about it just makes you smell worse.

I realise that I have stumbled into dangerous territory so let me make clear that I am not suggesting that HR is simply a liberal issue (this should go without saying, as I’m sure readers will understand).The previous analogy was offered as a way of viewing these issues outside of the political grandstanding which seems to have frozen debate on this issue.

What Wonderboy did….

I should finish this section by saying that I have got nowhere in terms of an official response from AI to this question (more on this at the end) and all opinions contained within this section are based on my own experiences.

From discussion and debates with members at all levels, I have come to the conclusion that there exists in AI (at least in the UK branch of the organisation) what you may call a ‘free market approach to human-rights’. This view point seems to suggest that if you look after individual rights the social rights will, by and large, look after themselves; that all rights are fundamental but some are more fundamental then others. However, since I do not know as yet how far this view extends throughout the organisation or it’s effect on policy, I do not intend to comment further on it here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Do there exist examples of AI’s work being used to further a political or ideological standpoint?

Since I closed the last section by conceding that I had got nowhere with regard to an official answer to that question, I shall begin this one by saying that I have got only slightly further nowhere with regard to this one.

I began my search under the assumption that, if you want to understand with influence’s Cuban opinions on AI, then a logical place to start would be to looking at the messages being sent to Cuba from AIUSA. If you suspect someone of sleeping with the enemy, you are obviously going to examine how they interact when they are together and how they speak about you when you are not there to defend yourself.

Now, into this already complex picture steps Holly Ackerman, who was/is (certainty vanishes from here on in) the ‘Country Specialist on Cuba’ for AIUSA as recently as 2004. An impressive title for sure, but no doubt meaningless unless you have some familiarity with the structure of AI.

AI: Organisation and Internationalism

As the name reveal, Amnesty is an International organisation which has branches in practically every country in the world, e.g. AIUK, AI Ecudaor, etc. Now each of these national AI’s, while ultimately governed by the Executive body of the International Secretariat, creates it’s own separate local structure in the country to facilitate its fundraising and campaigning activities. This usually involves some kind of ‘country-coordinator’, whose role is to lead on actions pertaining to a certain country, for example here in the UK, there are AIUK ‘county-coordinators’ for China, Israel & The Occupied Territories, Cuba, etc.

I don’t know how much power these individuals have, whether their role is defined at the level of international policy, or how much differences exists between the AI counties in their use of such co-ordinators. Certainly I would like answers to these questions (see below), but for the moment I shall leave them to one side. N.b. For the record, I’m not sure how appropriate I think it is for AIUSA to have a Cuba expert anyway, given the relationship between the countries. Did AIUSA have a Vietnam expert during the conflict? Does it have an Iraq expert now, who comments on the human-rights abuses of the Insurgeny? In times of conflict AI should never put itself in apposition where it could be accused of playing mandarin for on side.

I will, for the remainder of this section, work on the assumption that, if someone is allowed to use a title such as ‘AI Country Specialist on Cuba’, then whatever they say is going to have an effect on Cuba-AI relations, regardless of the validity of this title.

AIUSA & Cuba

I have no idea how libel works with regard to blogs, so instead of risking misrepresenting Ms Ackerman in any way I shall present what a Google search of her brings. This is in no way intended to imply an exhaustive account of Ms Ackerman’s views regarding this issue but, as I hope to show, it hardly needs to be.

Starting with a two-part series for Canada’s Peace Magazine, in 1997, Ms Ackerman, then Professor of Social Work & Latin American studies, gives her take on the numerous factors influencing Cuban-American relations together with a detailed examination of the recently passed Helms-Burton Act. She writes succinctly and, to my mind, convincingly about the many influences from both side of the Straight of Florida and I believe her conclusions are balanced and well argued.

However, if after reading these two pieces you came to the conclusion that the undercurrent was a little, well, ‘anti-Castro’, you wouldn’t be alone. The subsequent issues received twelve letters of response, almost all of which accused Ms Ackerman of some form of political bias and prompting a rebuttal from her in a later issue.

It’s worth quoting the summary of this rebuttal at length:

“The unspoken issue that underlies many of these letters is coming to terms with the failure of socialism. It is painful to face, particularly for those who have a rigorous ideological orientation. Widening the scope of solutions and participants in dialogue is fundamental.”

While there is no doubt a lot of truth to this claim, this is not what I am arguing here. My point is that no one could claim that in 1997 Ms Ackerman was politically neutral with regard to Cuba - so how, seven years later, did she end up representing the view of a politically neutral organisation on this same issue? How can someone who is on the record as saying that ‘socialism has failed’ be then in a position to comment on an ostensibly socialist government on behalf of a non-partizan group? What next, Richard Dawkins to be the AIUK Country-Coordinator for the Vatican City?

“Ah but”, I hear you cry “I’m sure that AIUSA would have insisted that she lay these views aside (if indeed she still had them seven years later) when representing the organisation and that she, as a professional academic well schooled in treating issues in a detached way, would have no problem doing so”.

Perhaps this is true. But look again at that 2004 article, regarding the Miami Five. “Romantic notions”, “just silly” - hardly the language of your typical AI report is it?

Granted, the piece may have quoted her out of context and it doesn’t exactly make clear where Ms Ackerman’s opinions end and Amnesty policy begins , but this is kind of my point anyway. Is AI’s position on US hostilities to Cuba that they are “questionable at best” and shouldn’t such a remark always be qualified with reference to ongoing economic hostilities?

I believe this Wikipedia summary of the Miami Five and their reference to Ms Ackerman a “Amnesty International's country specialist on Cuba, who has, it should be noted, published numerous articles critical of Cuba.” is especially revealing. It is AI’s job to be critical of what government’s do, not governments themselves. It’s safe to say that some people are being left with the impression that Ms Ackerman has more of a political axe to grind.

What Wonderboy did next….

I met the AIUK Country-coordinator for Cuba, at last year’s AGM and mentioned my corcerns regarding Ms Ackerman's role in AI and the potential for political bias. I was asked to put these in an email which would be further looked into. Unfortunately, almost 12 months on and I am still yet to receive an answer to any of my questions on this issue. N.b. Again ( and I must emphasise this) this is not intended to reflect negatively on the AIUK Country Co-ordinator for Cuba (who doubtless passed the query upwards) or AIUK as a whole. All involved are tireless, dedicated and, for the most part, voluntary workers. I really am not criticising anyone for a lack of response, which reflects nothing more than the realities of working for an organisation that relies solely on public donations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary and Further Debate

So, finally, we are back to the beginning – only with more questions and less answers.

Regarding my own personal views on this issue, I am not looking for hold anyone responsible for the currently poor relationship between Cuba and AI. As I’m sure any councillor would tell us, conditions are improved by removing barriers to understanding and by re-establishing communications not placing blame on either party. I believe that until this debate is better informed things are unlikely to change.

American governments will continue to put pressure on Cuba, citing with simplistic certainty and no apparent sense of hypocrisy their ‘bad human right’s record’ and their unwillingness to open themselves up to scrutiny and to justify their often illegal stances.

Human rights organisations will continue to claim political neutrality, yet there work will inevitably be used for political ends and their unbalanced perspectives exploited. This will undoubtedly be exacerbatted if they continue to view the issues in such simplistic terms as access to the country. (I was once told by someone in AI that they were bemused by the fact they get so much mail defending Cuba but none defending Burma ‘despite the fact that AI is not allowed into either country’-this was given in all seriousness, as if there was some kind of moral equivalence between the administrations).

The Cuban government, not being able to stand-up against the US economically or militarily, will become more isolated and defensive – choosing to view HR Organisations as another ideological stick with which they are to be beaten or a possibly even a source of infiltration from a hostile world. They’ll use this to justify taking more individual rights away from their citizens who, in the end, are the only ones who really made to suffer.

What Wonderboy’s doing now….

“Didn’t you start off, all those pages ago by mentioning something about an email?”

The final impetus for writing the following email came from a series of self-reflections I've had over the past month regarding the fact that I have not done any AI campaigning for a long time (save for the Urgent Action letter-writing). I decided that this was due in large part to my continued uncertainty over the issues outlined above and that it was only once these were resolved to my satisfaction I would be able to continue my work with a clear conscience and renewed enthusiasm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further to our recent telephone conversation, I have compiled a list of questions below regarding AI policy. I would greatly appreciate that these are answered or I am referred to someone who will be able to provide further information.

1. Does Amnesty International’s work cover all aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
2. Does AI conduct any monitoring and evaluation of it’s work to ensure that it meets all aspects of it’s current remit?
3. Is the position of the ‘Country-coordinator’ unique to AIUK or is the role defined by the International Secretariat?
4. How does AIUK recruit Country-coordinators and what steps are taken to ensure that they are politically neutral with regard to the country they are to represent?
5. What measures are taken to monitor the ongoing political neutrality of Country-coordinators once in position, especially with respect to press comments, media opinions, etc?
6. How often does the position of Country-coordinator become available?
7. What measures are in place to remove a person from the position of Country-coordinator if they are believed to have compromised AI’s neutral position with regard to their country?
8. Is Holly Ackerman still the AIUSA ‘Country Specialist for Cuba’? (Please see http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:56481)
9. Is there a constitutional equivalence between a ‘County Specialist’ and a ‘Country-coordinator’?
10. What rights do I have, as an AI member, to complain about comments made by individuals in their capacity as AI representatives both in this country and others?

For a more detailed explanation of the context of this enquiry please visit my (anonymous) website at:
http://wonderboyinmonsterland.blogspot.com

Random Ironic Nationalism

PrincessToadstool: You say 'being Scottish' as if it's a bad thing.

Wonderboy: Isn't it?

PrincessToadstool: It's better than being Irish - at least the Scottish never sent an official message of condolence to Germany when Hitler died!

Wonderboy: Yeah, but probably only because they couldn't find anyone who could write.

PrincessToadstool: Well I bet the Irish just sent a potato with a sad face drawn on it.

I must have laughed for about ten minutes.

Be a Winner at the Game of Life!

I've often heard people say, in a pop-wisdom kind of way, that 'life is just a game'. By this they are usually implying that you should not worry to much about the outcome of any event, after all the results are arbitrary - it's definition based entirely on the rules employed and the performances of the other players.

It's easy to see why this view prevails because our lives are comprised of many scenarios that are 'game-like'. For example, a job description can be viewed as the rule sheet for a game: You must arrive before 9am every morning, you must complete the following tasks , for this you will receive X ammount per month. In jobs where performance is directly related to pay this game-like nature becomes even more explicit.

If we consider the linear model of a classic computer game such as... i don't know...Wonderboy In Monsterland, we can see how this framework lends itself nicely to our own progress through life. Take the Mating Game:
Level 1 - Meet girl
Level 2 - Date girl
Level 3 - Become intimate with girl ;)
Level 4 - Marry girl
Level 5 - Have children with girl

This is, of course, the world of The Sims. The order and nature of the levels can be seen to be culturally relative - Levels 3 and 4 are reversed in most Islamic countries and Level 2 was apparently far longer and more tedious in the 50s then it is now. The progress through the levels can also be viewed as quite flexible and contains many snakes and ladders (my brother seems to be aware of a warp world between Levels 1 and 3).

However, despite the seemingly random nature of the levels themselves, the ultimate aim of the game is far from arbitrary. The prize for completing the game, when you look down at the little half-you in your arms, is based on rules that exist at a biological level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The expression that 'life is just a game' is, I believe, born from the postmodern climate of our time- in which history is narrative and truth is power politics. Since everything is relative we are seen as free to adopt the rules that we want for ourselves. Life is, by implication, not just a game - it is our game.

It make sense therefore, that we then choose to measure ourselves by the rulesheets that best define us as a winner. There is, I believe, both great freedom and great danger from this perspective.

Freedom comes when we no longer allow people around us, and crucially the media, to define us. This is especially important in a society which relies on such intagible notions as 'progress' and 'self-improvement' to drive economic growth. It would be simplistic to state the rules of capitalism are 'make money, spend money, repeat' but when looking at those around you, you could be forgiven for assuming as much.

Satisfaction being the enemy of industry, advertisements continually change our objectives encouraging us to always desire more then we have. They are like the computer programmers who, seeing us nearing the end of the final level and threatening to put down our joypads, cunningly create another obstacle between us and that ever-ellusive end sequence.

There are countless individuals employed to make us tire of our current lot and every time we upgrade our still functional mobile phones or decide our TV is not quite big enough, they have probably won another round.

Consequently, we see many unhappy people who, having internalised society's rules find themselves unable to make any progress on the treadmill of consumerism. If depression is the wasteland between our aspirations and our realities, it is one that is becoming more populous in the modern age.

By contrast, the happier game players are those that create and recreate their own rules entirely in harmony with their outcomes. If I don't make much money but am a sociable and well liked person, I would be wise to define success in such terms. For them life is indeed a game, one they have adapted to suit their playing styles and subsequently mastered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although liberating, the above perspective should be approached with cautioned. Recognising that rules are flexible does not mean we have to accept them as legitimate or begin writing blank cheques for every lifestyle imaginable. If we are to continue to live in a society then agreeing on a set common rules is always going to be necessary - though these should always be democratic.

Similarily, as was alluded to earlier, the limitations of this flexibility should also be accepted. You would not tell a starving man that 'food is not the meaning of life' or 'we'll all be dead in the long run'. Our evolutionary inheritance has created bodies for us that must live by some very stricy rules. I have a rule that states if I don't drink a certain ammount of water per day I will lose a life and, reincarnation notwithstanding, I am unlikely to receive the quarters for another go.

If life is just a game, it is one that must incorporate the 'ground rules' of our biological and societal needs. Perhaps the idea of a 'game' should be replaced with something slightly less competive undertones - though 'life is just a weekend of self discovery and team-building exercises in the north of Scotland' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Dawkins on Religion: Life-Pricing by the Modern Cynic

On Channel 4 last night, academic heavy weight and scourge of spiritual thought, Richard Dawkins put forward Part 1 of his critique of the role of religion in modern society under the heading 'The Root of All Evil'. The title of the show and the press attention it's broadcast received suggested that it would be controversial or in some way revolutionary and anti-establishment.

However, to my mind it was Dawkins himself that seemed somehow to belong to another age and, set against his argumentative approach and smug nature, even the most dogmatic of religions seemed, if not preferable, at least parable. In the following blog I hope to explore this view.

A good summary of the programme's main thesis can be found on the Channel 4 website and quotations in this blog will be taken from this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I have made my clear elsewhere my own views on self proclaimed experts lending their recommendations to subjects over which they have no jurisdiction. However, it appears that, with regard to the human condition at least, there seems to be no end to the authorities who considered themselves qualified to diagnose the ills of humanity. Judging by the number of my friends who made a conscious effort to watch the programme, the appetite for insights from this enlightened caste appears to be as strong now as it was in the dark ages.

I find it amusing that this deference to intellectuals continues in some areas of our lives, where it would be laughable in others. I doubt whether even the eminent Professor Stephen Hawking would be able to broadcast a programme advocating changing the rules of football based on his latest understanding of advanced physics. Even if he did, I suspect it wouldn’t be greeted with anything other then bewildered amusement.

Dawkins is a zoologist by qualification, not an historian, psychologist or sociologist and while the positions he advocates are no more trivial because of this, they are certainly no more authoritative then those of anyone else with an interest in human affairs. To his credit, I have never heard Dawkins dispute this - though it’s a claim have often made on his behalf.

It’s worth noting here that that this blog may surprise readers who know me as I am not a religious person in any conventional sense of the term. I do have what you may term a ‘religious curiosity’ though generally I look further East in answer to my questions. I think it’s interesting that Dawkins chose to centre his entire attack on the monotheistic religions of the West, rather then spend a little time debating the nature of scientific truth with a Zen master or Taoist practitioner. Perhaps he considered them softer targets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crux of Dawkins argument is that "though religions preach morality, peace and hope… they bring intolerance, violence and destruction" and that "there are plenty of characters to illustrate his thesis." He then makes a pilgrimage of sorts to the most to the most unenlightened areas of the world, taking in the West Bank and the American Bible belt, and showing religiously motivated behaviour at it’s most hateful and ignorant.

Consider this for a moment. Would this be any different if I, having put forward an argument that the concept of nationality was ‘evil’, then went on to produce by way of example only it's most extreme, sectarian adherents, such as at the British National Party or the American far right?

I might expect to be questioned on whether this was a representative sample of all people or institutions that believe in some form of ‘nationhood’ or even whether there are examples of 'nationalism' that produce more beneficial results, such as reductions in crime and anti social behaviour through ‘national identity’ and a sense of ‘national pride’.

Throughout the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world, I suspect Dawkins would have found many examples of benevolence, tolerance and progressive thought, should he have wished to look for them.

In terms of Dawkins’ examples, it also worth noting that the problems of the Middle East are complex and the confrontations there may be due to underlying racial, economic and political tensions. While religious differences no doubt have a role to play, it would be simplistic to assume they are the fundamental cause.

Also, Dawkins may despair of political lobbying by religious groups in America but he fails to mention how insignificant this is when compared to corporate or financial influences. It is only when the religious campaigns are well funded that we become aware of them. I have yet to see pictures of Christian and Muslims campaigning for a ‘Give more to the needy’ bill and this is no doubt because corporate interests are not served in supporting these issues. Consequently, it is the only the conservative matters, like gay marriage or the teaching of creationism, that receive press attention. We should be able to recognise that these issues do not represent the broad spectrum of religious concerns.

Both these examples prove that things must be a lot less complex in the animal kingdom; as an analyser of human culture Dawkins is lacking in the details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently Dawkins is "astonished that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth,” yet he does not speculate on why this may be case. If modern humans display a need for religion teachings, doesn’t it make more sense to try and understand why this need arises and how, in the absence of religion, it may be satisfied? What merit is there in simply dismissing all beliefs that which doesn’t fall into category of rational thought? Could it be that religions and religious thought fulfils other needs in people that their societies are failing to accommodate?

Dawkins may regard the “sense of belonging promised by religious groups” as a “'seductive group solidarity” (resulting from a) 'shared delusion'”, but this brings us no closer to understanding why this delusion might exist and in what ways people may be benefiting from it.

When viewed from a detached perspective, our preferential love for our own children could be regarded as delusional. After all, in our more lucid moments we would consider that all people have the same rights, regardless of their relation to us. Thi is , of course, a delusion that exists for good evolutionary reasons; it makes people take responsibility for their offspring by fostering an emotional attachment to them and this behaviour is self-perpetuating at both a cultrual and genetic level.

I do not wish to speculate here on the evolutionary function of religious belief systems, other than to say this: If modern human brains have a tendency to be ‘delusional’ at times, then it may be worth considering whether at some point in own history this would have served a useful purpose. Perhaps our ancestors who were able to leave a little more to faith established communities based on common belief systems (however spurious these beliefs may seem to us in retrospect) that were able to outperform their more sceptical rivals.

Even though Dawkins can dismiss the benefits of religion in today’s society as superstitious, his great great grandfather may have found it beneficial to cast such doubts aside.

Noone can say with certainty what effect this legacy of organised religions may have had on our collective unconscious or it's continuing influence in terms of our cultural inheritance. However, we cannot hope to fully understand the nature of a phenomenon by just comparing it to a template we already have, we are forced to carefully examine its wider effects now and then. As an evolutionary geneticist, Dawkins of all people should be aware of this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawkins is right to tell us that religious authorities should not influence debates on the nature of modern democracies but wrong if he suggests that their absence will guarantee a better society for everyone. It was after all, under with the ideological cloak of Social Darwinism that free market capitalists was able to exacerbate the inequalities in many western cultures.

Religion is the foundation on which most of the world’s cultures and communities are based in terms of their legal practices and social customs. Although these institutions may continue to exist under a form of secular moralism, they may not achieve the same levels of acceptance that they currently enjoy.

Dawkins may find no value in today’s religions but we can be certain that many other people continue to do so. Telling people they no longer need religion is like a telling a sky-diver they don't need to leap from a plane because it has wheels. Religion serves complex human needs and only when these need are better met elsewhere it will it be abandoned, not before. In the absence of an understanding of religion’s more subtle social and existential functions, I believe that, while this emotional plaster may eventually need to be removed, we would be better served to peel away slowly.

At the most fundamental level, I agree with Dawkins that we have the right to believe what we want and that religions should not interfere with this. However, I also this right extents to believing in things that aren't true - so long as they don't lead to behaviours that interfere with the rights of others.

By going on national TV with his message Dawkins has been given an opportunity not many of us will never have, and one he felt compelled to accept. I think it's a pity that message took the 'I am intolerant of religions because they are intolerant' stance which, as a society, I believe we are moving away from. Still, there is always Part 2 next week.

Bused Up - Public Interest Vs Corporate Power

The following is an open letter to my local newspaper regarding public transport.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Councillor Wakefield may helpfully inform bus companies (for which read First Buses, since they run a virtual monopoly in this part of the country, and a total one in Leeds) that they are “in charge of an essential service on which a number of people rely”. However, I suspect this fact is well known to them and is actually the reason that fares continue to be raised with complete impunity. Those of us that no do not drive simply have no other choice than to pay the increased costs and, in the continued absence of market competition, this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Further to this, I suspect that First’s lack of services over the Christmas period was not due to a desire to spread festive joy to their employees, as the Councillor alludes. Rather it most probably reflects an unwillingness to pay bank holiday wages when a potential decrease in passenger numbers would compromise the company’s net gain.

This is, of course, symptomatic of our country’s lack of true public transport – in the sense of a system run by public money for public benefit. Perhaps Councillor Wakefield would do better in referring to these services as ‘passenger transport’ or, like the Americans, ‘mass transit’. This may help us all overcome the idea that they are ran for our collective convenience rather then someone else’s guaranteed profit.

Considering the significance of this issue to many people in Leeds, I am baffled by the lack of coverage it received in your paper. It would have been interesting to learn, for example, if First gave any response to the accusations, or whether any routes could have been subsidised by Metro on the days mentioned. N.b. Metro is a public body that monitors transport services and subsidised routes that are not cost effective.

In contrast to the quarter of Page 14 given to this piece, three quarters of Page 2 was dedicated to two virtually identical articles on the closure of a local pub. Similarly, almost all of Page 3 was given to the groundbreaking news that an 85 year old Mickey Rooney is to play Leeds. Both these stories were covered in greater depth.

I believe this represents a serious misjudgement of your readers’ general concerns and hope this important issue will be given a more comprehensive review in the near future.