The Lockerbie Release

August 24, 2009

Dear Americans suggesting “boycott Scotland” and Robert Mueller,
Before rabbiting on about the rule of law being violated in places in which you have no say why not: a) be aware of the facts at hand and b)sort out your own twisted wreckage of a legal system.

a)The release of a prisoner on campassionate grounds is considered “due process” under scots law. Meaning that it is legal process which is followed in the event of a prisoner being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Bearing this in mind the decision of the Scottish Government reflects THE LAW as it stands. In this sense Mr Mueller’s comment on the rule of law being violated can be viewed as irrelevant as any other action would have been a violation of Scots law.
The decision of the Scotish Government to engage all prisoners equally further highlights the moral superiority of the legal system. Unlike Westminster and Washington the Scotish Government does not harm the battle against terrorism by creating a seperate system in which terrorists must be tried. A double standard which debases the whole concept of justice and no doubt agravates the entire situation regarding extremist anger at the west and social alienation amonst Islamic communities in the USA and Britain.

b)For a FBI official to begin to talk about the rule of law is laughable. Especially in the context of terrorism. While it maybe Mr Mueller’s opinion that the rule of law has been shamed by this release does he hold similar views on Extraordinary rendition ? Torture ? The legality of the Iraq War ? The Rule Of Law is not Mr Mueller’s concern, he is has used the phrase as a front to hide the callous view that infects many top offcials in Washington and London- that the law does not apply equally to terrorists. A view I find abhorrent.

-O

Following on from Alam Frommer’s thought prevoking presentation to year 12 and 13 in PSHCE , I have decided to do as he has suggested and question the question.
Is Britian A True Democracy ?
Looking beyond the question at its heart lies the a familiar assumption. That it matters.
So to the question I’ve decided to ask some of my own. Does democracy matter ? Is Democracy always an aim worth striving for ?

The cynic’s view of democracy is that at best it serves as a talking shop and at worst it is simply a convinient distraction from those who really run things. And while this view is over simplified it may hold some merit.Parliament could blow up tomorow and in reality very little would change ,because it is the civil servants and people of Britain, from the highest levels of the FCO to the teacher in Colchester, that keep the country running.

Britain is a democracy , but realistically what does it being a democracy change ? Some would argue that governments pay little or no attention to the will of the people anyway . Add to this the classic arguement of society as a whole being nothing but a flock of sheep racing one another to the slaughterhouse. Is rule by the people or even from the people desirable ?

Democracy has been held up throughout the world as the saviour of the poor and the opressed but evidence suggests this isn’t the case. Taking as an example Malawi we see a democracy facing economic collapse. HIV/AIDS is present in approaching 50 percent of the population. This is a fine exaple of a nation where some economists and political scientists would argue democracy is not appropriate.
Democracy is all well and good but it relies on a number of things to operate effectivly.
These are stability , infrastucture and a base level of education in the general population. Those critics of democracy in instances where one or more of these things aren’t present argue that european democracies developed under top down systems of government and it was these top down systems which lay the bedrock for a democracy.
They argue democracy was imported to these nations before they were ready and that a central strong leader found in a dictatorship or monarchy would be preferable to a democracy riddled with corruption and destined to fail. They argue that the development of a middle class is essential in the development of a democracy. Afterall clean water is a more pressing issue than representation.

However, Democracy does matter. Without it people wouldn’t have a voice and its with your voice you defend your interests. But is it always worth striving for ? I believe so yes , but that doesn’t mean it’s true. To suggest democracy could be flawed is seen by some to be a heresy. But its worth remembering that democracy can defend itself. It’s time people took of the kid gloves and embraced openly a debate on if democracy is appropriate in all cases.cases.
If supporters of democracy win the debate good. If not then we will have to accept that.  Develoment and quality of life should be our main aim. Democracy is a route to that aim but perhaps not the shortest.

This years American Presidential election was already set to be a hugely important not to mention hugely entertaining affair from the very start of the primaries. From the near delusional messages of Huckabee storming the country in his Huckabeast to the colossal rifts displayed in the Democrats primaries which nearly ended the career of their two biggest candidates.

But it was the decision of John McCain in the selection of his running mate which sent the media and the public into a frenzy.

Sarah Palin , Governor of Alaska, was certainly not the obvious choice for a Vice Presidential Candidate. An inexperienced governor from a state whose population doesn’t match that of some of America’s major cities. So why choose her?

The answer in my view is a cynical one. Palin was chosen not for her political acumen but for her sex , in both senses of the word.

Her gender is almost defiantly a factor in the choice. The failure of Hilary Clinton’s campaign isolated many of her die hard supporters, some of whose main goal was not the implementation of any of her policies but the placing of a woman in the highest seat of power in American politics. To capitalise on this already dubious view McCain decided to select a women candidate to capitalise on these alienated “democrats”. This is politics of the most despicable kind , playing to the desires of ill informed “feminists”. What many of these feminists are not aware of is Palin own position on many issues surrounding the rights of women. Most notably her belief in fundamentalist doctrine of Christianity, the biggest oppressors of women for centuries. Anti Abortion even in cases of incest or rape.  The election of a ticket with Palin on it isn’t even a step back for women’s rights. It’s a passage back to the dark ages.

The second and equally despicable reason for her choice is the images of sexuality and vitality she brings to the campaign of the sexless and near death John McCain. Her image is that of an attractive family women, with many children. A mother battling the world. A woman battling congress and big business. The essence of the American Dream. She is some of these things but none of these qualify her for this position that has fallen into her lap. Her photogenic face hopefully does not conceal her past to the American voters. Her past is that of selling the land of Alaska to big oil. Her past is that of supporting schemes that waste the money of the tax payer she swears she wants to ease the burden on. Her past is filled with contradictions and the religious fundamentalism that will drive personal freedoms into the ground.

So my advice should she win , should McCain pass away and she becomes the most powerful leader in the world. My advice to those who believe in the basic principles of Human Rights, Liberty, the separation of church and state and of course in the important role of women in modern politics is to flee and never stop running.

The End Times are coming

Repent.

-Oliver