What actually occurs in our minds when we use language with the intention of meaning something by it? What is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences, and that which they refer to or mean? What relation must one fact (such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other? Using sentences so as to convey truth rather than falsehood?
There is a program on BBC Radio 4 entitled A Point of View which features the view of a variety of people in the public sphere. I think it might be worth a listen to this podcast at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001xfxk
It's only 9 minutes. You may haver to register and sign in to the BBC iPlayer to listen to the program - assuming you can get the BBC on line in the US
John
Nicholas Gray (born 17 April 1948) is an English political philosopher and
author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and
philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European
Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
There appears to be an outcry against
smart phones. In particular ‘parents’ are worried about the effects of mobile
phone usage by children and teenagers. On a more political business level, the
United States Government is suing Apple in an antitrust iPhone monopoly lawsuit.
It is claiming that the company has illegally prevented competition by
restricting access to its software and hardware. “Apple has maintained its power
not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behaviour”
according to US attorney general Merrick Garland.
So on the one hand, excessive and
addictive mobile phone usage is causing deep psychological and behavioural
problems in children and teens, and on the other, exclusivity by one
manufacturer is restricting other companies from greater competition and
proliferation of mobile phones.
Indeed, the usage of mobile
phones has dramatically changed a lot of human behaviour and social
interaction. The increasing technical capability of mobile phones, from simple phones
to include voice messaging, then text messaging and on to internet connectivity
and a variety of video connections (face time, WhatsApp etc..) has indeed been
a technical revolution which has dramatically changed social interaction. The drive
to combine computer innovation with personal communication and enhanced capabilities
has been relentless.
Before any of this got going, I
can recall reading the ‘funny papers’ and marvelling at Dick Tracy’s two way
wrist radio which began in 1946. Now, we
have the smart watch which seems to be an even more compact personal computer.
The implanted chip may well be on the verge of making us all cyborgs.
So where do we go from here? There
is no doubt that the addictive effects of the smart phone are causing
significant disruption and changes in our behaviour, and not just in children
and teens. Sleep patterns and other aspects of our behaviour have been
modified. How did we manage before the proliferation of mobiles? It takes an effort
to remember. The telephone box or kiosk in stores, on the street, at airports
and railway stations were prolific. The dial was eventually changed to push
button and the method of payment and connection was simplified. Can you
remember “Push button B” or was it A? Some people could somehow tap the cradle buttons
and get connected for free. All very different now.
As to meeting up with friends, arrangements
were made in advance or one just turned up. It was a more fluid and clearly
more interactive approach to relationships. One spent more time with friends and
relations in person, out of necessity and circumstance. Of course one could
spend a lot of time on long phone calls, but that was more to do with distance
and with close friends and family. It was also in addition to personal contact.
The telephone was usually on a
table in the hall. The long lead, the extension and multiple phones around the
flat or house came along for convenience and increased usage. So far as
businesses were concerned the installations of multiple lines and switch boards
were introduced. There were many operators and an information service along
with telephone directories galore. So much paraphernalia and many people were
involved with telephones. When one called one always spoke to a person. It took
a while before the answerphone was introduced but one would generally speak to
a living being. On the whole, the telephone industry employed a lot of people
and became widespread multinational public as well as private companies. In any event it was all people. First and
foremost we interacted with people.
Much has changed. Now any interaction
with organisations is met with interrogation and instruction by a voice telling
us what number to tap, or what to say, with advice to go on line in the first
place. The website should be the first port of call with its list of frequently
asked questions, none of which are the one you want to ask. Also one no longer
taps buttons, one speaks or swipes across an image. The style and method of interaction
has dramatically changed.The days when
people walking down the street, talking to themselves and gesticulating, might be
considered in need of help, have become an everyday fact of life. One does have
to admire the dexterity and skill which some people - generally the young -
demonstrate when texting. Of course the language we use has significantly
change. When did access and impact or text become a verb?
One used to have access to something or make an impact on something or someone
and write a text or send a message. We now access, impact and text all over the
place.
In any event, people being
born into this world have an entirely different perspective and approach. Much
of it seems to be great cause for concern. Children are apparently becoming
more isolated and perhaps actually less communicative despite the ease with
which they can communicate through their smart phones. They are also prone to
be influenced in a negative way by the myriad of stuff that comes through to
them because so much of it is crap and deeply worrying. Sadly, the scams,
bullying and scatological material is as prolific as the very valuable
information that is also available on the net. Unfortunately, the sad character
of a great number of human beings has led to the creation of the dark web and
hacking. All of this has given great cause for concern.
Controlling and policing the internet
is extremely problematic. Blocking and editing material is far more difficult
that one can imagine. The difficulty of using technology to control technology
has become apparent. To attempt to ban and control the use of technology in any
way is equally problematic. Making it illegal for children to have smart phones
is not a solution. Because of the rather sad nature of our society and for matters
of safety, for a child to be able to contact a parent or call for help in an
emergency is perhaps something of a necessity.
The tragedy is that the use of
the internet has become a weapon in the hands of some people. One finds oneself
thinking about it as one does about the use of guns in the United States.In the absence of being able to ban guns,
because of a constitutional amendment, many citizens speak of “responsible gun
ownership”. It is only a matter of teaching people, and children in particular,how to look after guns and use them ‘responsibly’.
What on earth does that mean?
Should we now be speaking of
teaching responsible use of the internet in the hope that the phishing and
other forms of scamming and negative social engineering will disappear? How far
can one legislate and criminalise internet activity without massive infringements
of civil liberties and damaging political social engineering as well. I feel
for the parents whose anxiety over their children’s stress and anxiety
apparently brought about by the proliferation of smartphones, is overwhelming. I
heard a mother this morning, on radio 4’s Today program, seeking to find a way
forward and trying to set up a group or lobby of parents to find a solution. It
only adds to one’s own stress and anxiety.
I confess I spend a lot of time
on the internet. I enjoy the stuff I find surfing around the web. It keeps my
80+ year old brain engaged. It can be very helpful as well as deeply
frustrating when dealing with officialdom; but on the whole, it’s a great invention,
despite the number of scams and chicanery all over the place. One can be alert
to these things. As an instance in point, when you get an email informing you
that a package has failed to be delivered and you are not expecting any such
package, how did the delivery firm, you’ve probably never heard of, know your
particular email address? Not difficult to work out it’s for the bin. Yes there
is a lot of it, and of great concern, but there is so much more to enjoy and to
share.
I do not know what the solution
is. That education should make the difference is a given, but education, like stiff
sentencing for deterrence, has made little difference in world affairs. The
problems in Middle Europe, the Middle and Far East, and the African continent
are all conducted, discussed and debated by educated people who cannot seem to
find common ground and closure of hostilities. It is not so much that one must
make children aware and to beware of scams and chicanery, one must make
children not want to become mendacious scammers, thugs and bullies. With the
likes of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and, yes, Boris Johnson and others, so
easy to spout lies and give voice to delusions, is it any wonder that some
think it’s ok to behave in that way.
But if you want a bit of diversion
and cultural education in the artistry of writers Billy Wilder and Charles
Brackett, director Mitchell Leisen, producer Arthur Hornblow Jr under the
banner of Paramount Pictures go to this site: https://ok.ru/video/3084433033961
Called Midnight, it was
released in 1939, the same year as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of
Oz to name but two in that extraordinary year which took the world into
quite another era from which I believe we are still recovering. Anyway it’s
worth an hour and a half of your time. You won’t regret it. You’ll like the
acting as well.
I sometimes wonder about the
process of thinking in the United States of America. In particular the thinking
related to the prosecution of Mr Trump and a number of co-defendants.
In the indictment by the state
of Georgia, the state wrote: “Trump and the other defendants charged in this
indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and wilfully
joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favour
of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or
more acts of racketeering activity.”
The group, the state charges,
“constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in
various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false
statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false
documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer
invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and
perjury”
Part of the evidence against him
and his co-defendants revolves around and incident on the 2nd January
2021, when in a recorded telephone call, Mr Trump asked Brad Reffensperger, a
Republican serving as Georgia’s top election official, to overturn the election
by stating “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which
is one more than we have because we won the state”. Mr Raffensperger refused.
The Fulton County District Attorney,
Fani Willis, prosecuting the case, has already obtained convictions of some of
the co-defendants in the case who have pleaded guilty to some charges. Scott
Hall, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro have all made plea deals
with the prosecution..
We have had a hearing for the
last few weeks over the suitability of the Ms Willis to continue prosecuting the
case because of a relationship with another prosecuting lawyer involved in the
case. There in nothing about this relationship that has anything to do with the
evidence against the defendants. It is solely an attack on the character of the
individuals concerned with the prosecution and NOTHING to do with the evidence
against the defendants. I repeat NOTHING to do with the case against the
defendants.
The Judge, Scott McAfee,
overseeing the case, has been listening to ridiculous evidence concerning Ms
Willis and has now stated that there was an “appearance of impropriety” and
that either Ms Willis or Mr Wade (the other prosecutor) should leave the case
to resolve that. The claim was that their behaviour had compromised the integrity
of the case. The judge disagreed yet still went on about appearances. In what
way? As stated before, four defendants have pleaded guilty without Ms Willis
and Mr Wade’s affair causing any distraction or loss of integrity.
The insanity of the claim is overwhelmingly
obvious to anyone reading about the case or listening to this charade playing out.
The defence lawyers had argued that Ms Willis should be disqualified because
her relationship with Mr Wade, whom she had hired, had compromised the
integrity of the case. How a personal relationship has anything to do with the
case against the defendants is a mystery. What has a personal relationship got to do with the evidence against the defendants?In what way does an affair between Ms Willis
and Mr Wade affect examination of the evidence against the defendants for conspiring
to commit acts of racketeering in Fulton County, in the State of Georgia? I repeat myself as I am baffled.
If there is any impropriety, it
is allowing the defence to even have a hearing about their contention that it
does. The failure of the Judge to take a firm hand and give short shrift to the
hypocrisy of the defence’s proposition makes one very concerned about his
ability to conduct a trial where the defence will do anything to try to divert
attention from the facts in evidence. Mt Trump and his co-defendants behaved
like gangsters and are continuing to do so at every opportunity. It is so
glaringly obvious to the rest of the world, yet, apparently not to the citizens
of the United States of America, and worryingly not to the judiciary either.
When are the courts going to actually take serious decisive action against the
chicanery of Trump and Co.?
“I would have thought
the best thing to stop the dinghies would be to supply safer transportation
across the channel, straight to an airport, show them the Welcome to Rwanda
Brochures and send them on their way with a cash bonus of £20,000 to help them
get settled once they arrive. Better yet, just fly them straight from the
nearest airport in France.”
We now have the following report from BBC News by reporter
Kate Whannel, 13 March 2024:
”UK to pay failed asylum seekers to move to Rwanda under new
scheme:
Failed asylum seekers are being offered up to £3000 to move
to Rwanda under a new voluntary scheme. The plan, first reported by The Times,
is understood to be a variation of an existing voluntary returns scheme, where
failed asylum seekers receive cash to return to their home country.”
So where are we on the question
of deterrence? The mixed signals presented by the variety of strategies to implement
the Government’s Rwanda scheme are bewildering. Does anyone in the Home Office
or, indeed, in the entire executive government of the United Kingdom, have any
idea of what they are doing?
David Neal, who was serving as
independent inspector of borders and immigration from March 2021 was fired from
the position last month, and has yet to be replaced. His view of the department
has been less than complimentary. He is quoted as saying immigration failures
went to the top. The Home Office is dysfunctional and in urgent need of
reform, the recently sacked independent borders inspector has told the BBC’s
Today Podcast.
I would go further and suggest
that the entire government is dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform. I do
not understand what the Prime Minister is hoping will happen between now and the
formal end of the current Parliament on the 17th December 2024. Allowing the 25 working days to prepare for
the election, it must be held on the 28th January 2025, but surely
it should be held within this calendar year. To continue to drag things out as if
their legislative program had any hope of long term validity is delusional in
the extreme and decidedly counterproductive and injurious to the nation as a whole.
This conceited, selfish self-serving clinging on to power is an embarrassment
of colossal magnitude.
The present conservative party’s
machinations over the last 13+ years have weakened and destroyed the character of
the United Kingdom. They have produced a self-centred egotistical society with
serious economic and cultural divisions, more prone to dishonesty and violence
then ever, through their austerity measures and failure to maintain the public
services essential to the well-being of a modern nation. National Health and
Education have been reduced to a shambles. The damage inflicted has been so
deep that any new government, no matter what their political persuasion, will
have an almost impossible task of recovering and remedying the situation. I say
‘almost’ out of some vestige of hope, as I cannot be so thoroughly pessimistic.
The very wealthy in any country can
do what they like and go where they please without any worry. There is also a comfortable
middle class that, at the moment, can carry on and lead reasonable normal
lives, but not without some anxiety that their security could come crashing
down. The bulk of the population is struggling, although it might not appear so
on the surface. That state of affairs seems to apply to most of the developed democratic
nations. It is certainly the case in the United Kingdom. I may be wrong and, if
so, I am willing to be corrected.
As to the United States I no
longer have any idea. The political landscape can only be described by reference
to the Grand Canyon, the divisions are so deep. The current tendency to idolise
and support a psychotic demagogue, despite his overt criminality, pending
convictions and overwhelming unsuitability to hold any office, is staggering.
It will be an end of the great experiment of 1776 and after 248 year it will
perish from the earth. What is so sad is that it will take a lot of the rest of
the world’s democracies with it.
As you can tell I am not in a particularly
happy frame of mind this morning. I will go and have a nice lunch to cheer
myself up. Thankfully there is still a kitchen to escape to.
Celia and I recently went to the
National Theatre to see Dear Octopus, a play by the novelist and
playwright Dodie Smith, which was written in 1938 and opened in London at the
Queens’ Theatre, on the 14th September 1938.In her book, Dear
Dodie: The Life of Dodie Smith (1996) Valerie Grove comments:
“The real first night, at the Queens Theatre on 14 September
1938, began gloomily. The crisis in Czechoslovakia was on everyone's mind.
During the first half, the house was subdued, faces grave and laughs few. It
seemed to have become dull. Then, in the first interval, a dramatic deus ex
machina, Charles Morgan, arrived from The Times with news, which
spread like wildfire through the theatre, that Neville Chamberlain was flying
to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden. It was as if the whole audience breathed
a sigh of relief. And from then on the play went superbly, and built to a
magnificent reception."
The play opened at a time the
world was in turmoil and so it is now.There is a passage in the play which has particularly stayed with me. It
is a dialogue between Charles and his sister-in-law Belle, who at one time had
feelings for Charles. It comes in Act II, half way through scene three:
BELLE.
You've never written your
book Charles, or gone into Parliament.
All the things you planned
as a boy
CHARLES.
I've never done any of
them.
BELLE.
You would have done if
you'd married me.
CHARLES
I wonder. You women are
much too fond of fancying you can make geniuses of men.
And anyway, there are far
too many books written and far, far too many people in Parliament.
BELLE.
Don't pretend Charles. You
had great gifts.
CHARLES.
Not really, Belle. You
see, when I came to have a little leisure to explore the minds of other men, I
found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else. I was
always expecting to get some epoch-making new idea, but I never did. I think I
might have had a shot, at politics—but there were so many far more important
things to do.
BELLE.
What things?
(The dance music stops. Talk and clapping can be
heard.)
CHARLES.
Surely you have realized
that any house that contains Dora also contains a number of Little Jobs? You would
be surprised, for instance, what a very large number of shelves I have put up
and an almost equally large number 1 have taken down. (He walks down c.) Then
there have been children to play with, dogs to take walks, gardens to plan,
neighbours to visit.
BELLE.
And you call these things important?
CHARLES.
I do indeed. I call the
sum-total of any man's happiness important.
BELLE.
Have you been happy, Charles
CHARLES
So happy that I am
sometimes tempted to erect a statue to myself. I should like people to be
reminded that happiness isn't quite obsolete. (He goes back to BELLE.) Have you been happy, Belle?
BELLE.
That's rather a cruel
question.
The exchange is very much of its time. Indeed it is very
similar to the sort of emotion and thinking taken up by Noel Coward in This
Happy Breed written in 1939, again written during a world at war. The idea
that the family is paramount. It is a toast to the family, “To the
family—that dear octopus from whose tentacles we never quite escape, nor, in
our inmost hearts, ever quite wish to."
What strikes me most however,
is the phrase “You’ve never written your book or gone into Parliament. All
those things you planned as a boy”. How
many of us have stumbled over this thought? Most of the people I know must have
had the notion, although I can think of a number of friends who have at least
done the writing, and one or two who have dipped into the pond of public
office. Having done neither, I greatly admire those who have.
During a particular discussion
at a friend’s house, over dinner. I was asked by the host “If you had been Prime
Minister of Israel on the 7th October, what would you have done?”.My first inner thought was, if I was prime
minister anywhere at this particular time, what would I do? It is an easy question to ask.
Indeed, how often have we heard journalists ask opposition politicians during
an interview “What would you do?”. There is never an easy answer. I like to
think, that if I had been Prime Minister of Israel, then October 7th
would never have happened and there would be peace in the middle east.
Nonetheless, we have what we
have. Would my response have been different from Mr Netanyahu? Again, I like to
think so, but the emotions of the moment and the feelings of rage and despair being
felt by so many around one, would make the decision exceedingly difficult. There is a scene in Lawrence of
Arabia (co-written by Robert Bolt) which depicts the Arab Army who come through
a village that had been devastated by the Turkish Army. They pause looking out
at the Turkish troops in the distance:
Is
it not an easy scene to watch any more than the current flow of newsclips from
Ukraine or Gaza. “Not this” is all one can say. Think of the future is all one
can ask. There is a road to Damascus.. In the meantime there is the horror. There
will come an end and there will come some kind of resolution. Whether it will
be sufficient to end the heartache and resentment among the participants to the
carnage, one can only hope. Agreements are tough to maintain. The Good Friday Agreement
of the 10th April 1998 still manage to hold, although on occasions it
may seem fragile. Curiously it is a hovering peace that one hopes will settle
solidly on the ground. So long as talking
continues that should happen. ` I do not know what prejudices have been handed
on to the youth of Northern Ireland during the last 26 years, but the fact that
the current first minister, Michelle O’Neil is from the Sinn Féin
political party, is some
progress towards normalisation.
The
other matter brought up by the dialogue in Dear Octopus is the excuse proffered
for not writing the book or seeking public office “I found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else.” Too often have
I found, in reading journals and other publications and listening to broadcasts
and discussions, that much of what I feel deserves attention or consideration,
has been ably and clearly expressed by another with a wider platform and access
to a wider audience. In some instances by a public servant, journalist, writer
or commentator. Quite often amongst my friends and acquaintances, which is
probably why they remain friends and acquaintances. I tend to avoid
confrontation and continued association with people who have opposing and
strongly held views. That would be my loss. Sometimes confrontation can be
instructive and even helpful to clarify or improve one’s own thoughts.
Once, in conversation with some people, I heard one
person remark to another, after that person had expressed an opinion on a
certain matter “A lot of people think that” to which came the response “Oh really?
I must change my view at once”. I don’t think I am quite a contrarian as that,
but perhaps I should change my mind about a lot of things. A damascene moment
is perhaps just around the corner, but in the meantime should I take no
prisoners?
I was listening this morning to
the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 and a couple of members of the House of Lords
were interviewed in relation to the Rwanda Bill now before the House of Lords
for scrutiny, amendments and approval.The bill is the fabrication of the Government in response to the Supreme
Court’s decision against deporting refugees to Rwanda on the basis that there
was insufficient evidence to declare that Rwanda was a safe country. It was drafted
to override the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and any legal
pronouncements by the Court of Human Rights.
The apologists for the Rwanda
Bill such as Michael Howard are amazing in their duplicity of thought. Whilst
arguing that Rwanda is a perfectly safe country, and people should have nothing
to fear by being sent there, he firmly believes that the policy is right and
will act as a deterrent to people attempting the journey across the Channel
from France. He added this at the end of his interview on the Today program this
morning.
“After all France is a perfectly safe country… and if people have the option of staying in France
or going to Rwanda it’s a fair bet that they might choose France”
So Rwanda is a safe country, but the prospect of being sent
there is so awful that the risk of being sent there outweighs the risk of
crossing the channel in a rubber dingy. I wish someone could explain that is
more detail.
The other argument put forward by
Lord Howard was that the unanimous decision of the five justices was wrong and
overstepped their role as unelected judges in deciding government policy. The separation
of powers is rightly accepted, but it is for parliament to decide on such
matters and not the judiciary. Parliament is sovereign in all matters. The Divisional
Court had stated that the Rwanda Policy was lawful and this bill is to restore
the status quo that Parliament is sovereign. It is not for unelected Judges to
adjudicate against that, which the government claim is what the Supreme Court
did. Parliament is accountable, they are elected representatives, the Judges
are not. In respect of the separation of powers, in this instance the court has
overstepped the mark.
So what we have is effectively a
constitutional issue relating to conflict of law and legislation or rather argument
as to the interpretation of legislation by the courts. What is legislated by
parliament becomes law. The courts enforce and interpret the legislation with
regard to the law as written in the statues produced by the legislature
together with the already existing common law - at least what little of it
still exists. If the Government thinks that the courts have wrongly interpreted
the law, then it can produce legislation clarifying the position, to better
reflect the intentions of Parliament. Which is what is going on at present.
Before that happens the proposed
legislation must be approved by Parliament, which includes the House of Lords,
although the final say is down to the House of Commons. Fort5unately in this
case, not everyone agrees with the likes of Lord Howard, even though the
majority of the Lords is made up of Conservative Party adherents. There are some ex-conservative ministers who
disagree radically with Lord Howard. Lord Kenneth Clarke being one.
The Rwanda fiasco is the policy
of our present Conservative Government. There is the matter of the separation
of powers – executive, legislative and judicial – but this government’s party majority
in Parliament is such that its policies, no matter how stupid or venal, are
bound to get through. In effect, because of the nature of the system -
Government always being made up from the majority parliamentary party - the
executive and legislative end up being one and the same. So the only other
separate power to scrutinise and balance the workings of the government is the
judiciary, who are, quite rightly, left to be independent. The judiciary ensures the continuance and strength
of the rule of law. Parliament may make the law but it is the judiciary that
has to enforce it and bad law can sometimes be found to actually be contrary to
the rule of law. Hence clarification is sometimes necessary. The Government can
do what it likes up to a point. The judiciary have a duty to make that point to
the government,
What also surprised me about Lord
Howard’s interview was that he kept referring to Parliament being sovereign and
saying elected representatives are the ones who are accountable, as opposed to
judges who are not elected. Parliament is not just the House of Commons, which he
seemed to be implying. The House of Lords is not elected either, yet it is part
of the Parliament. Are the Lords not accountable? Should their views be ignored
as well? Every person is accountable for his/her actions. It doesn’t take a
vote to decide that.
Parliament may be sovereign, but
it too is subject to the rule of law. Legislation based solely on opinion and
not on fact and evidence is a poor basis for creating law. Those politicians
who proudly proclaim to act on their belief have led us into the worst of nightmares
and wars. The not so long ago belief in non-existent weapons of mass
destruction is an instance in point. Deterrence has not worked as an effective
policy since the severity of the Hammurabi Code nearly 4000 years ago. If it
had, the world would be without violence or dishonesty.
Which brings us back to the
Rwanda policy. Deterrence or fiscal necessity. Cheaper to send the refugees
abroad that to have to deal with them in the UK? Either way is expensive. Given
the numbers that are likely to be sent there and the cost involved per individual,
it may be more economic in the long run to let them stay, find employment and
start paying taxes. I know that’s not so simple to do in this day and age by
anyone, let alone a refugee; but, it may be more profitable as time goes by.
In any event, I don’t know, just
expressing an opinion on the options. To
paraphrase Michel Howard, France is a perfectly safe country, if people now had
an option of staying in France or going to Brexit Britain, it’s a safe bet they
might choose France.
The Supreme Court of the United
States is no longer to be seen as an independent institution and part of the
checks and balances built in to the Constitution of the United States. The
separation of powers in government is a bedrock of American Democracy and the
independence of the judiciary is vital in upholding the rule of law. The
judiciary is there to prevent the executive branch of government or the
legislative branch from becoming a dictatorship.. The Supreme Court has been
the final arbiter in the legal system establishing the limits to which the
executive and legislative branches of local, state and federal administrations
can exercise their power. The principle that no single individual is above the
law within that framework is at the core. The rule of law is paramount.
To even consider the argument that
the head of any executive branch of any organisation is immune from upholding
the law is tantamount to accepting dictatorship. To even make the argument is,
in my view, an outrage. Mr Trump’s attorneys have stretched the concept of
immunity for the holder of the office of President of the United States well beyond
its limits. The argument that a sitting president is immune from prosecution of
any kind unless or until he is formally impeached and found guilty by a two
thirds majority of the senate is despicable. That any individual would be allowed
to kill off any opposition and remain in situ is preposterous, or is it that Mr
Trump would seek to emulate Mr Putin for whom it appears this doctrine applies.
The founding fathers,
unfortunately, never contemplated a leader capable of such mendacity, chicanery
and criminality as Donald Trump, and so, in deciding on the question of a
finding of guilt by the Senate, chose a two thirds majority rather than a
simple majority. They clearly shied away from unanimous as being too onerous or
difficult to achieve. One also has to bear in mind that when the constitution
was established the senate was a much smaller body of 26 people, which is only
a quarter of the current membership; however, the fact of presidential
impeachment has nothing whatever to do with the basic principle of law. No
person is above the law, and most particularly when it comes to crime.
It is of course possible for a
person to be granted judicial immunity by the State for individual offences,
but only in exchange for testimony against other offenders. No one has blanket
immunity because of office. That would be contrary to any public policy in any
democracy across the world. Dictatorships are another matter, but be that as it
may, for the Supreme Court of the United States to even hint that the lower
courts’ unanimous decisions thus far need any examination or debate is, as one
commentator put it, “selling American democracy down the river”.
Not only is the decision to
accept the question atrocious, but the scheduling and delay is deliberate interference
in an overdue prosecution of Mr Trump and his co-defendants, some of whom have already
pleaded guilty. The court knows full well what it’s doing as they could easily schedule
and settle the question in a matter of days. This court is no longer worthy of
any respect and has merely prepared the planks for the coffin in which to bury
the last vestiges of democracy in America.
If the American voters do not
come out in fury at this outrage then there is no hope for what we have come to
think of as the free world. All we will have left is a Trump dictatorship and a
Putin autocracy. East and west with the bodies pilling up in between or
accumulating in the frozen north and south.
There are too many conflicting
energies at large in the world. President Macron suggesting western troops on
the ground in Ukraine which would no doubt lead to an escalation of war. There
is also a call for a prolonged cease fire in the Middle East, which is having
little effect in the face of Mr Netanyahu and his supporters. Violence in the Gulf
of Aden, the Arabian Sea and Yemen continues. The list of conflicts supposedly
in the interest of restoring peace is growing. Why does it always seem
necessary to create carnage to bring parties to a conference table?
My anxieties continue to fester,
what with the inability of governments to come to terms with its citizens.
Elected representatives are meant to work at improving the lot of the individual
citizen by improving the lot of all citizens. There is dissatisfaction on all
fronts. In France, farmers are turning signs upside down, to indicate their world
has been turned upside down. In the UK strikes, never before contemplated by personnel
in the NHS, have become repetitious, as have actions by rail and transport
workers. Politicians are always declaiming what ‘the people want’ when in fact
they are merely claiming what they want. Representatives no longer care about
what their constituents actually think, but are so immersed in bolstering a party
line that they will say anything and make the feeblest excuses and arguments to
support the party line, and at the same time claiming opposing parties have no
plan whatsoever. It is no longer about what the people actually want and need,
it is about staying in power. Keeping the job is all that matters. Public
service is mere lip service. In the UK the electorate is somewhat at sea,
floating like refugees on the Raft of the Medusa waiving rags to attract the
attention of some distant saviour on the horizon. Never has a painting been more appropriate to
the current human condition across the world. One can only ask, what has changed
in the last 200 years besides the capabilities of a mobile phone, which is
actually useless in the middle of the ocean without a network? We are left with
waving rags for any kind of attention.
I have a problem with certain
aspects of the legal system. To begin with, I am a firm believer in the rule of
law. I also believe it should be every citizen’s right to have recourse to the
law in order to clarify a difficult and possibly injurious situation which
affects them. This access to law is available not only to individual citizen’s
but to groups, corporations large or small and the state itself. There are
proceedings brought forth by the state. Criminal activity is an instance in
point. It is part of the state’s duty to legislate for the health and safety of
the nation, hence anti-social and criminal activity is, on the whole, prosecuted
by the state. If the state itself falls short of its duty or makes serious
mistakes in the performance of that duty, then it too is held to account in a
court of law.
There are certain rules and
regulations which the state must follow in order to proceed with a criminal or
any state prosecution. It has a duty of care to observe the laws relating to
the enforcement of the law itself. It must be seen to be fair, reasonable and
accurate in the discharge of its duty. So if someone has a grievance and
believes that the state is wrong in law, and is being unfair, unreasonable and
inaccurate, then they can call upon the court to adjudicate as to the actions
of the state, and decide whether the state is indeed wrong in law and being
unfair, unreasonable or inaccurate. To that end there must be evidence that the
state is wrong in law.
The personalities of the
individuals involved, employed by the state, whose job it is to administer the
law on behalf of the state, have nothing whatever to do with the law. For a
complainant to state that they do not like a particular individual involved in
the process is neither here nor there, if it has nothing to do with the law on
the case in question. Some people are nice. Some are more efficient than others.
Unless the individual is corrupting the evidence and manufacturing a case where
there is no case, then the complainant has no case.
Therefore, to manufacture a
complaint based on “I don’t like the way you have behave” is a complete sham
and should be slapped down as soon as it arises. To even allow such a complaint
is an abuse of the court. To allow it on the pretext of ‘being fair to all
parties’ is an insult to the integrity of the court. A sham is always a sham
and pandering to such duplicity demeans the court. A court of law is too important
a place for such puerile debate. Any law officer who participates in such
scheming and dishonesty should be ashamed and disbarred. Mendacity has no place
in a room which relies upon individuals who are compelled to take an oath to
tell the truth.
I realise that individuals do not
always adhere to an oath in a courtroom, but for an officer of the court to
violate their professional duty of care and participate in machinations which
have no validity or scintilla of integrity whatsoever is beyond the pale. Therein
lies my problem with certain aspect of the legal system as displayed in the
United States and in particular the State of Georgia. Did someone say frivolous?
A flagrant attempt at obfuscation
by attacking the character of a prosecutor, to divert the gaze of the public
from gross criminal activity for which they seem to have no answer, is actually
being allowed to take place. I find it incredible that behaviour of the kind so
widely deployed during the prohibition era by the likes of Al Capone and other
such gangsters is now being repeated by Donald Trump and associates, who have
clearly modelled themselves on that gang.
Indeed they both have home retreats
on the Florida coast. Mar -a-Lago and Palm Island are but 70 miles apart. I would not be surprised if Mr Trump suffered
from the same disease as Mr Capone, apart from psychotic narcissism.
The current political landscape is
not one that can be appreciated in the same fashion as a pictorial landscape.
It has nothing like the vision of a Van Gogh, Constable or Turner.The present American landscape is particularly at
odds with the beauty to be found in its actual landscapes. I am thinking of the paintings
from the Hudson River School. The work of its founder Thomas Cole and later
members Frederick Church, John Frederick Kensett and Albert Bierstadt are
rather fine examples of mid nineteenth century
landscape paintings.
There is something about Bierstadt’s work that favours
Turner.
Rocky Mountain Landscape, 1870
,
Lake Tahoe, 1868
He was also a war artist, the Tim Page of his day.
Guerilla Warfare, Civil War, 1862
So where can one go from here?
The seemingly endless exposition of Trump’s background and narcissistic
behaviour has no effect whatever on his Maga supporters. They have no truck
with the written, photographic, filmed and other recorded evidence that shows
him up to be a complete sham. He is the personification of the snake oil
salesman that has been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail
since the pioneering days of the American landscape. Numerous writers and
historians have depicted his kind for centuries and still they emerge to
bamboozle the surprisingly vast numbers of ignorant and gullible citizens, who
for some obscure reason are drawn to them. They think of Trump as ‘one of us’
despite every indication to the contrary. He speaks in their vernacular all the
while proclaiming to be so rich that he is immune from corruption, as well as
mendaciously claiming to be a self-made man. As to being self-made, one has to
accept that he has constructed this dangerous duplicitous figure, himself, all
on his own. He is indeed a self-made charlatan of the first order, despite all
his advantages at birth. He has bribed, bullied and cheated himself into the
spotlight and into the American landscape.
Just over ten years ago on the 12th
December 2013 I published a blog about journalism and ethics. There is a
Journalists Code of Ethics carefully written out by the Society of Professional
Journalists (an American Society headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana) which,
following a preamble has four main headings:
Seek truth and report it
Minimize harm
Act independently
Be accountable and transparent
The United Kingdom equivalent,
the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a membership of
approximately 24, 528 as of 2022. The SPJ has a membership of only around 7000.
The preamble of the SPJ’s code of
conduct now reads:
Members of the Society of
Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of
justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure
the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An
ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four
principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in
its practice by all people in all media.
The preamble as printed in 2013
reads as follows:
Members of the Society of
Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of
justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to
further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive
account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and
specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.
Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.
Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behaviour and adopt this
code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
There is a slight change of
emphasis in the two paragraphs, the earlier version laying more focus of the
behaviour of the individual rather than members generally. It specifies that
journalists have a duty of care to the public. That phrase “The duty of the
Journalist…” is more imperative that merely “striving to ensure free exchange
of information that is accurate, fair and thorough”. Integrity and
responsibility are vital to journalism if it is indeed to be seen as ‘the
forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.’
The section on seeking the truth
and reporting it has a few changes as well. One of current criteria, the ninth
in the list reads: Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering
information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital
to the public.
In 2013 at number 8, it read:Avoid undercover or other surreptitious
methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not
yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained
as part of the story.
You will note the additional
admonition in the earlier reading indicating that when using undercover
surreptitious methods it must be vital to the public interest and the methods
should be explained as part of the story.
I believe that there should be an
additional admonition that whatever undercover of surreptitious method is used,
it should never fall within the scope of the criminal law. There should also be
included a lengthy definition of just what can be classified as being vital to
the public interest. A dictionary definition of the word states inter alia: of,
relating to, or characteristic of life; necessary to the continuation of life;
life sustaining; concerned with or recording data pertinent to lives; necessary
to continued existence or effectiveness; extremely important; essential.
The United Kingdom equivalent,
the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a similar code
but stated more simply as a sort of 12 step program.
At all
times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of
freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
Strives
to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and
fair.
Does
her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
Differentiates
between fact and opinion.
Obtains
material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of
investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and
which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
Does
nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless
justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
Protects
the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material
gathered in the course of her/his work.
Resists
threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress
information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained
in the course of her/his duties before the information is public
knowledge.
Produces
no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a
person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability,
marital status, or sexual orientation.
Does
not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any
commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work
or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
A
journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when
interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
Avoids
plagiarism.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, are
much the equivalent of section’s 8 and 9 of the SJU Code.
The phone hacking case is a
perfect example of the colossal breach of a journalist’s code. It descended
into criminality and the information obtained was far from being vital to the
public interest, let alone the public interest. It may have been of interest to
some of the public but one cannot possibly make a claim ‘in the public
interest’. There have been other examples. Most gossip and many so called human
interest stories are hardly newsworthy, but fill up a lot of column inches. The
crux of seeking the truth and reporting it is, or should be, just what is “in
the public interest” Some reporters and publications clearly have a very wide
and very loose definition of what is in the public interest. I repeat, what
some members of the public are interested in, is not necessarily in the public
interest.
Dishonesty or violence involving governments,
elected officials, civil servants both state and local, armed forces, police
forces, legal and judicial bodies, medical and health institutions, influential
global corporations and companies affecting large portions of the work force
and economy, journalists as well, should be open to scrutiny by the press.
Seeking the truth and reporting
it is difficult at the present time. There is so much information floating
around the world across every form of communication, on every platform now
described as social media, and every type of news outlet on the planet. There may
be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of persons describing themselves as
journalists or reporters. On viewing the reporting from many different spheres
it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion.
Distinguishing between news reporting and advocacy in the light of present day
events and present day aspirations as to what constitutes a civilised society,
is a conundrum. The diversity of cultures, economic and educational levels, and
human experience are difficult to accommodate.
What reporting can be like in the
Russian Federation under Putin’s State and judicial control is practically
impossible. Seeking and telling truths to the population has become a criminal
offence. Even though, it would appear that, other voices from outside the
country are available, they are not listened to or accepted by the general
public, as the citizenry accepts mainly what is being purveyed by Putin fed
information. At least that is what I am led to believe.
Should I have any reason to doubt
the reporting about Russia? Steve Rosenberg, the BBC correspondent in Russia is
extremely plausible and has spent quite a number of years in Russia since 1991
including a spell in Berlin. He is clearly well acquainted with the Eastern European
situation. His comments and analysis are delivered with authority, so I have no
reason to doubt him; however, that does not mean that the whole of his
reporting or analysis is accurate. Indeed, how we accept analytical reporting
depends mostly on what we tend to already believe.
Therein lies the problem. In the
United States the situation is extreme. The repetitive assault on the validity
of the 2020 general election and the behaviour of Donald Trump and his supporters
in the Republican Party has been so full of lies and mendacity that the
majority of news reporting seems more like editorial rather than factual reporting.
There is a barrage of reporting which cries out against the ‘big lie’, and
because the reporting, of necessity, characterises the Maga crowd as liars and self-deceivers,
the comments appear to be entirely subjective rather than objective reporting,
accurate and fair. Indeed almost all of reporting on the political situation in
the United States is now editorial and opinion. How can it be anything else? The
polarisation of political thinking as developed to such a degree that reasoned,
informed and studied argument seems to have been eroded leaving nothing buy
rigid entrenched views. The divide between reason and ignorance is almost complete.
The United Kingdom, in light of
what is happening with the current government’s desperate, futile and cringeworthy
attempts to cling to power, willing to say anything no matter how duplicitous
and ridiculous, is going the same way. The distance between the major parties however
is not so pronounced as in the USA, nonetheless the cracks are getting wider. The reporting is also becoming more analytical
and opinion based that factual. People
are in fact turning away. The flag ship ‘Today’ program and Laura Kunessburg’s
Sunday slot are losing audiences. It would seem even the BBC is having
difficulties with its reporting. It claims to be emphatic about being unbiased,
yet most of its reporting is now analysis by ‘political’ or ‘named’ correspondents.
Facts tend to blur with analysis.
There is a Declaration of the
Duties and Rights of Journalists which was written in Munich. It covers mush
the same as the code of ethics stated above. It was adopted by six syndicates
of journalists of the six countries of the European community in Munich, 23-24 November
1971.
Preamble
The right to information, to free
speech and to criticism is one of the most fundamental freedoms of every human
being. The whole complex of duties and rights of journalists derives from this
right of the public to know facts and opinions. The responsibility of
journalists vis-a-vis the public has precedence over any other responsibility,
in particular towards their employers and the public power. The mission to
inform necessarily includes the limits journalists spontaneously impose on
themselves. This is the subject of the present declaration of duties. Yet these
duties can be effectively respected in the exercise of the journalist profession
only if the concrete conditions of professional independence and dignity are
implemented. This is the subject of the declaration of rights quoted here.
Declaration of duties
The essential duties of the journalist in gathering, reporting on and
commenting on events consist in:
1)Respecting
the truth no matter what consequences it may bring about to him, and this is
because the right of the public is to know the truth.
2)Defending
the freedom of information, of commentaries and of criticism.
3)Publishing
only such pieces of information the origin of which is known or – in the
opposite case – accompanying them with due reservations; not suppressing
essential information and not altering texts and documents.
4)Not
making use of disloyal methods to get information.
5)Feeling
obliged to respect the private life of people.
6)Correcting
any published information which has proved to be inaccurate.
7)Observing
the professional secrecy and not divulging the source of information obtained
confidentially.
8)Abstaining
from plagiarism, slander, defamation and unfounded accusations as well as from
receiving any advantage owing to the publication or suppression of information.
9)Never
confusing the profession of journalist with that of advertiser or propagandist
and not accepting any consideration, direct or not, from advertisers.
10)Refusing
any pressure and accepting editorial directives only from the leading persons
in charge in the editorial office. Every journalist worthy of this name feels
honoured to observe the above-mentioned principles; while recognising the law
in force in each country, he does accept only the jurisdiction of his
colleagues in professional matters, free from governmental or other
interventions.
So I continue pondering. I know
that objective truth is important. It is vital in the public interest. We can
all ask ‘What is truth?’ but never mind the philosophy, we all know the
difference between truth and fantasy. Every reporter knows that and should
stick to it.
The codes I have included here
may seem repetitious and redundant, but I thought it important to include them.
There is an International Federation of Journalists which was founded in Paris
in 1926. Its Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists was adopted at the 30th
IFJ World Congress held in Tunis on the 12th June 2019. It completes
the IFJ Declaration of Principles on the conduct of journalists (1954) known as
the “Bordeaux Declaration”. Its preamble reads:
The right of everyone to have
access to information and ideas, reiterated in Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the journalist's mission. The
journalist's responsibility towards the public takes precedence over any other
responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public
authorities. Journalism is a profession, which requires time, resources and the
means to practise – all of which are essential to its independence. This
international declaration specifies the guidelines of conduct for journalists
in the research, editing, transmission, dissemination and commentary of news
and information, and in the description of events, in any media whatsoever.
It contains 16 points. The fifteenth
paragraph states: Journalists worthy of
the name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated
above. They may not be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an
opinion that is contrary to his/her professional conviction or conscience.
“Journalists worthy of the
name” is a weighty description for any professional ‘hack’. So far as the general
public is concerned those worthy of the name are few and far between, but that
is a matter of opinion.