DISCUSSING SHAKESPEARE

A couple of nights ago, with the easing of the lockdown, and after many many months, we had an evening meal in our home with three guests, and were thus one under the permitted indoor limit. The windows, of course did remain open until such time as the evening air turned inclement. The talk was very varied in nature and at one point, as is usual in the company of actors, the topic drifted on Shakespeare.  Various performances were discussed and the matter of casting women in men’s roles (bearing in mind in Shakespeare’s day young boys played women) and of casting roles generally without regard to race or gender.

Views were expressed about how well could a male youth perform the role of certain women characters, given their youth and clear deficiency in truly understanding a woman’s feelings.  That was not to say that they could not appreciate femininity, but actually being female was another matter. Likewise, whilst some would praise Glenda Jackson’s portrayal of Lear, others did not.

I have not seen the performance. I can however, surmise that maybe the portrayal of such a character may have more to do with age than with masculinity; however, is being an old man more complex in nature than being an old woman?  The menopausal condition in women is an actual physical transformation accompanied by additional mental effects, whereas the andropause, or male menopause, is a far more gradual physical process, but equally accompanied by additional mental effects. Those physical and mental effects are of a very different nature, and perhaps are not so easy for either gender to include in a performance, e.g., of a male actor portraying a woman or a female actor portraying a man.

But I digress, there was also a question as to whether or not the plays had to be staged or indeed performed to be fully appreciated. I was of the view that they did not. My premiss is that the language itself, the words alone, had sufficient power to perform by themselves.  One did not need to see a performance to appreciate the genius of the writing. Reading them was sufficient to be conscious of their depth of meaning.

At the time I did not fully express this view. I stated that it was sufficient to just listen to the language, one did not need to see a performance; however, in saying that, I was wrong, the mere fact of listening indicates that one is listening to someone else performing the words. So, listening to the plays, however they are presented, stage, screen, digital device, recording etc. is taking in a performance, which is something else entirely.

The power of Shakespeare is the writing, and thus in the reading of the writing. The words perform in our minds. There are  many monologues in the plays, so much so, that one could classify them as novels as well as plays. They stand alone, and have been preserved and nurtured over four centuries for that very reason.

We are what we think, is a corollary of, I think, therefore I am. The spoken thought of the characters, their monologues, exposes their nature and gives the readers insight, not only in respect of the character, but of themselves. Who needs a shrink when you can read Shakespeare?

Hamlet clearly has a personality disorder with borderline features. His contemplation of self-harm (one of the distinct borderline features of personality disorder) is one of the best analyses of suicidal tendencies ever written. It is certainly one of the most famous. Have a close read for yourself, either aloud or in your head, listening carefully to yourself as you read:

To be, or not to be, that is the question,
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

It is a short, clear and concise line of thinking, no matter how one choses to read it.

Here are a few versions, each with their own particularities.

                                              Laurence Olivier

                                              Christopher Plummer

                                              Richard Burton

                                             David Warner

                                             David Tenant

Having read the text to yourself, out loud or not, you form an opinion as to the meaning of the text as well as an insight into the performer. How the performer chooses to speak the speech to reveal the nature of the character of Hamlet is a very individual exercise, and, in making choices, the actor also reveals a personal view of himself as the character. As to the editing of the text, that is again a matter of choice in determining the essential content and meaning of the text. However this is done, editing can either enhance the overall effect of the text or diminish its power, but the text has and will always survive the performance.

And for another interesting view:

REMEMBER - THE CLUES ARE THERE

The assaults on Dominic Cummings following on from his remarks to a Parliamentary Select Committee, are not surprising. The attack on his credibility is prefaced by the fact of his journey to Barnard Castle. What has an admitted car ride got to do with credibility? He gave an account of his movements at the time, at a press conference in the rose garden of No: 10. His comments, at the time, were supported by the Prime Minister and his colleagues.  During the course of his ‘evidence’ to the Committee, he amplified his initial rose garden comments and profusely apologised for having made the trip. He clearly regretted his disastrous decision at the time. 

One has to remember that being stupid is not being dishonest. A mistake of judgement can be pardoned, or not, depending on the size of the mistake. Should he have resigned at the time? Probably, yes. But, in keeping with the Johnson Government’s reactions to breaching ministerial codes of conduct, he did not. Despite the numerous errors of judgement, the arrogance and bad behaviour of some, not a single minister in the current government shows any spark of integrity or decency, by resigning from the gang of Boris. The flim flam of excuses is cascading down from the top, always followed by “The public aren’t interested, let us move on, we have important business to do”. Boris' go to mantra.

So, finally, after much soul searching, a bit of hubris and, no doubt, peevishness, Dominic Cummings did resign. Or was he sacked, or constructively dismissed? Whatever you call it, he was out of the gang. He is now a Johnny come lately whistle-blower. As a result, the wagons are  circling.  His comments bear no relation to reality. After just one day, his comments have faded away. Despite the glaringly obvious fiasco surrounding the Indian Variant, by allowing the continued flights between the UK and India, with little or no control at either end of the 16 daily flights, Mr Cummings comments about unfitness to govern bear no relation to reality. 

Would someone please explain what reality Boris Johnson resides in? His bumbling hesitancy has severely dented his roadmap out of lockdown. The idea that the 21^st of June would be an end to restrictions, given the current spread and rise in Covid cases, is clearly in jeopardy. Come what may, and regardless of the potential consequences, he will go ahead with his roadmap because of his ridiculous and tenacious clinging to image.   If he does have to extend the current stage of his roadmap, he only has himself to blame. The country, however, will more than likely go along with whatever he decides. Few will demand a vote of confidence. Few will demand his resignation. Few will even remember Dominic Cummings. Most will have moved on.

There was a catchphrase for the panel show ‘Through the Keyhole’ which can easily be applied to No: 10 Downing Street “Watch closely, because remember, the clues are there as we go through the keyhole”. You would think News coverage is watching closely, and maybe it is, or appears to be, but it is not remembering. A roundup of Boris Johnson’s absurdities over the years would not come amiss. 

I refer you again to an article by Edward Docx, published in the Guardian on the 18^th March 2021, headed: Boris Johnson is the archetypal clown, with his antic posturing and his refusal to take anything seriously. So how did he end up in charge? Look it up and read it, or you can read it posted on my blog of 20^th March 2021.

The question still remains unanswered, and Mr Cummings’ views on the subject should not be dismissed just because you don’t like the man. He is the architect of Brexit and I detest what he has done to this country. He has let the dogs out, and they are crying havoc. Racism, skulduggery and all sorts of scams and mischief have abounded since, and increased during lockdown. He has nothing to be proud of. He has however, at last seen a glimmer of light. What he was part of, and deeply involved with, is unfit to govern this country. That he has come to it so late is perhaps the real reason to question his judgement and, perhaps, maybe, his credibility.

WHAT BORIS DID KNOW AND WHAT HE DIDN'T DO

There was something about the eight hour Dominic Cummings marathon, giving ‘evidence’ to Parliament’s joint Science, Technology and Health select committee, that reminded those of us born before 1955, of a young John Dean giving evidence before the United States Senate Watergate hearings. Cummings was suitless and very casual, whereas John Dean was Brooks Brothers smart. John Dean gave a very clear and detailed account or what the President knew and when he knew it. Dean had near enough an eidetic memory and his evidence was backed up by tape recordings of the conversations between the interested parties involved in the debacle of Watergate. 

                    John Dean                                                  Dominic Cummings

Whether Mr Cummings ‘evidence’ is to be credited is perhaps more questionable. He does not claim to have an eidetic recall of events, though he did, at times, refer to notes; however, his overall depiction of life at the top is, in my view, more than credible. What did Boris and Co know, when did they know it and what did they do about it?

 

The fact is, that those of us who have lived through the pandemic so far, and who were paying attention, can certainly testify that the handling of the pandemic by Johnson and Hancock was as shambolic and as bumbling as Boris Johnson appears to be. His manner is not a façade of bonhomie, it is the character of the man. I can well believe Mr Cummings view of Johnson reacting to whatever he reads in the papers. Image is all that matters to him. Referring to the movie ‘Jaws’ with “I should have kept the beaches open” in reference to lock down, is very much in keeping with the Johnson personality.  

 

This government is clearly not fit for purpose. It is all very well to say that the pandemic presented the most unique and difficult circumstances, never before encountered by any current leadership, throughout the world; but, sorry, there are people who do know and have modelled just such events occurring. They appear to have been ignored, much less sought for, either by the relevant ministers or their scientific advisers. Apparently, Mr Valance and Mr Whitty did advise, but, that initial advice was ignored as well. The dithering over what turned out to be crucial decisions, was clearly brought to light, and given the events that transpired following on from the indecision and confusion, a vote of no confidence must surely follow.

 

A classic example is what has happened in Bolton. The powers that be hesitated stopping all travel from India despite the immediate facts emerging from that country for a full two weeks. The obvious and long connection between the UK and India is no surprise or unique set of circumstances. The spread of the Indian variant was more or less guaranteed as a result of Boris’s need to look good about his roadmap out of the pandemic.  Governance is not about image. He is clearly unfit to govern.

 

I do hope Mr. Cummings' notes, emails, texts and Instagrams are as effective as Mr. Dean’s memory and tape recordings.

VIOLET ELIZABETH BOTT A.K.A. PRITI PATEL

I find it difficult, in the light of various journalistic concerns, to be silent about the Home Secretary. Note in particular George Monbiot's piece at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/19/britain-borders-covid-government-indian-variant-migrants?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other)

 

With her history of bullying and harassment of staff in the workplace dating back to 2015, and having been found, in November 2020, by Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister's Independent Advisor on Ministerial Standards, to have been in breach of ministerial codes of conduct, stating that Ms Patel’s approach “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying” and that she had “not consistently met the high standards expected of her”, she still remains in office. She has a history of maverick action, including undisclosed meetings with Israeli politicians and lobbyists, in breach of ministerial codes. Her views on Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion and immigration are as far right politically as one can imagine. It is as if she is trying to completely erase her own family background. They came to the UK as immigrants from Uganda, most likely to escape the developing Buganda Crisis. They were effectively refugees. That is not how Ms Patel would see it. The arrogance and certainty with which she bullies her way around is remarkable, yet she continues in office and no one seems willing to stop her. What has she got on ‘Just Boris’?  She flaunts herself about with impunity, like an early Margaret Thatcher clone. No one wants to speak out because of possible accusations of being racist and misogynistic. I cannot understand, given the clear evidence of her appalling behaviour, why she is not forced to resign or sacked. She is clearly a disgraceful politician with fascistic dictatorial tendencies.  Just like Mr Trump, her narcissism expunges any semblance or vestige of integrity.

 

Ms Patel with Mr Modi in 2016

Apart from everything else, together with ‘Just Boris' they are dangerous. Their attempts to make post Brexit ‘deals’ with India’s Prime Minister Modi could well have released a new surge of the Covid 19 Indian Variant.  Presumably, in order to avoid offending Mr Modi prior to an arranged meeting, they delayed blocking arrivals from India, knowing full well about the growing crisis in India due to the new variant. Other countries acted far more swiftly and as a consequence have avoided the problems that are now circulating around the area of Bolton, Greater Manchester. There are over 16 flight a day in and out of Heathrow to and from India, according to the airline schedule.  That continued for some time even though Ms Patel and Mr Johnson had full knowledge of the dangers of the variant.  Finally, they could no longer avoid stopping the traffic and cancelling the meeting. What damage has been done is still to be calculated, but those who have caught the variant will not thank the Home Secretary and Prime Minister.

 

This state of affairs is likely to continue until they are voted out of office or made to resign or stand down. How can any member of parliament have any truthful confidence in this leadership?

 

I am sending a copy of this rant as a letter to my Labour MP in the hope that she may do something. At least raise a voice and ask appropriate questions in Parliament, not just once but over and over again until they resign. Don’t let them just move on and claim no one is interested anymore. Someone in Parliament, please do the right thing.

A VISIT TO HOLLYWOOD VIA PALM BEACH

Continuing the tribute to Hollywood Character Actors, and the writers who provided them with great dialogue, we have Charles R Moore (120 credits), born 23 April 1893 in Chicago, died 20 July 1947 (age 54) Los Angeles. He was mainly uncredited and played a variety of porters, elevator operators, cooks, janitors, waiters, bootblacks and various servants. He appeared in over 60 films in the 1930’s alone, 6 films a year, including Million Dollar Legs (1932) with W.C. Fields and Jack Okie, Blonde Venue (1932) with Marlene Dietrich, Cary Grant and Herbert Marshall, directed by Joseph von Sternberg, The Constant Woman (1933) from a play by Eugene O’Neil, with Conrad Nagel, Manhattan Melodrama (1934) with Clark Gable, William Powell and Myrna Loy, He was Her Man (1934) with James Cagney and Joan Blondell, Front Page Woman (1935) with Bette Davis and George Brent, directed by Michael Curtiz,  Saratoga (1937 with Clark Gable and Jean Harlow, Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939) with James Stewart, Jean Arthur and Claude Rains directed by Frank Capra, Sullivan’s Travels (1941), with Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake, written and directed by Preston Sturges. He worked with a number of Hollywood legends.

One of his best scene stealing appearances was in The Palm Beach Story (1942) also written and Directed by Preston Sturges, with Joel McCrea, Rudy Vallee, Claudette Colbert and Mary Astor. 

Porter: Yes, I know who you’re talking about, you mean, the young lady who lost all her clothes.

Tom Jeffers:  She lost all her clothes?

Porter: Yes sir, but we fixed her up with a blanket when she got off at Jacksonville.

Tom Jeffers: She got off at Jacksonville?

Porter: Yes sir

Tom Jeffers: Alone?

Porter: Well you might practically say she’s alone, the gentleman that got off with her gave me 10 cents from New York to Jacksonville -Watch your step lady- she’s alone but she don’t know it.

Tom Jeffers: Well, never mind the philosophy, then she’s at Jacksonville...

 

The film is on YouTube. The scene is at 56.13 into the film.

 It is well worth an hour and a half of your time.

Siegfried 'Sig' Arno

You will also spot the excellent Sig Arno (156 credits) Born 27^th December 1895 in Hamburg Germany, died 17 August 1975 (age 79) in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles. He left his acting career in Germany in 1933. As a Jew, Arno had to go into exile. In the following six years he travelled through Belgium - there he directed the movie "La gloire du regiment" (1937) - Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands - here he acted again in different plays. Finally, he went to America in 1939.

 

Amongst his films are It Started with Eve (1941)) with Deanna Durbin and Charles Laughton, Du Barry Was a Lady (1943) with Lucille Ball and Gene Kelly, Thousands Cheer (1943) with Kathryn Grayson, Gene Kelly and Mary Astor, Up in Arms (1944) with Danny Kaye and Dana Andrews.

 

Also in the film were the wonderful William Demarest (165 credits), Roscoe Ates (152 credits), Robert Greig (107 credits), and of course, the great Franklyn Pangborn (238 credits).

It must be remembered that these actors were all born in the last quarter of the 19^th Century and sound films only began in 1929, by which time they all had theatrical careers. Enjoy the film.

A QUESTION OF JUDGEMENT

I have received comment concerning the piece A QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH (10^th May 2021):

“ (I) Prefer the ECtHR (European Convention on Human Rights) concept of a balancing exercise. Better than religious worship of Constitution stretched to unreal rigidity by Supreme  Court - and don’t even get started on Scalia's purist perversion of 2nd amendment.

x

Dred Scott.”

A view with which I must concur. I am reminded that The Rule of Law, which is without doubt (in my view) what holds any society together, is quite distinct from the Rule of Lawyers. There have been over the years, some very distasteful and horrific decisions rendered by some of the highest courts. The rules have at times been, unfortunately, interpreted by allegedly learned men, who have been unable to hide their deep held prejudices and bigotry.  They make very great mistakes. As a result of those mistakes, it has been necessary for legislators to correct those errors of interpretation by passing laws which override the misinformed judgements of the judiciary. In general, those mistakes had caused such alarm and disturbance amongst the citizenry, that their representatives were forced to act, particularly if they wished to continue to be representatives.

Gross mistakes made by the rule of Lawyers are, generally, corrected by The Rule of Law, which maintains (a) that we do not cause harm to each other as human beings, and (b) those mistakes which cause harm must be rectified. It can sometimes take quite some time to rectify those mistakes, and it can also take some time to recognise that a mistake has been made. It all depends upon the minds of men and the prevailing attitudes in a civilised society. The more civilised we become, the stronger we become. At least I hope so.

Looking back to the above comment, some of you may know that the name Dred Scott, refers to the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). The Supreme Court of the United States, rendered its decision on the 6^th March 1857. It was one of the most shameful opinions ever given by the court.

The Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American Citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

Dred Scott

Dred Scott was an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, which were free areas where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in US Federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the US Supreme Court 

Chief justice Roger Taney stated, amongst other matters:

Justice Taney

“The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?”

 

“We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”

“Now, ... the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. ... Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the [36°N 36' latitude] line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void.”

You will note that the tone and line of thought is completely impersonal and barely refers to ‘black people’ as human being. This line of thought had been prevalent in the minds of Lawyers for a more than a century.  Some 70 years earlier, before the Court of Kings Bench in Westminster Hall, the case of Gregson V. Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232 was heard on the 21^st to 22^nd May 1783 before The Lord Chief Justice, The Earl of Mansfield, Mr Justice Buller and Mr Justice Willes. 

 

The Slave Ship (1840), J. M. W. Turner's

representation of the mass killing of enslaved people,

 inspired by the Zong killings

 

The case arose out of the mass killing of more than 130 enslaved Africans by the crew of the British slave ship Zong, on and in the days following the 29 November 1781. The Gregson slave-trading syndicate, based in Liverpool, owned the ship and sailed her in the Atlantic slave trade. As was common business practice, they had taken out insurance on the lives of the enslaved people as cargo. According to the crew, when the ship ran low on drinking water following navigational mistakes, the crew threw enslaved people overboard into the sea.

After the slave ship reached port in Jamaica, Zong's owners made a claim to their insurers for the loss of the enslaved people. When the insurers refused to pay, the resulting court cases (Gregson v Gilbert (1783) 3 Doug. KB 232) held that in some circumstances, the murder of enslaved people was legal and that insurers could be required to pay for those who had died. The jury found for the slavers, but at a subsequent appeal hearing the judges, led by Lord Chief Justice, The Earl of Mansfield, ruled against the syndicate owners, due to new evidence that suggested the captain and crew were at fault. 

Earl of Mansfield

Summing up the verdict reached in the first trial, Mansfield said that the jury:

“had no doubt (though it shocks one very much) that the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown over board ... The Question was, whether there was not an Absolute Necessity for throwing them over board to save the rest? The Jury were of opinion there was.”

 

The Solicitor General at the time, John Lee, appeared on behalf of the owners. He argued:

John Lee

“What is this claim that human people have been thrown overboard? This is a case of chattels or goods. Blacks are goods and property; it is madness to accuse these well-serving honourable men of murder. They acted out of necessity and in the most appropriate manner for the cause. The late Captain Collingwood acted in the interest of his ship to protect the safety of his crew. To question the judgement of an experienced well-travelled captain held in the highest regard is one of folly, especially when talking of slaves. The case is the same as if wood had been thrown overboard”.

Given the prevailing attitudes and reasoning of the public and the Judiciary for the past 500 years, is it any wonder it takes so long to rectify these gross and inhuman judgements.

In the aftermath of Dred Scott, the abolitionist cause grew in strength and numbers, which led to the Civil War just four years later, and the eventual passing of the thirteenth amendment. That of course did not completely rectify the situation. Seventy years on, in 1927 the 11^th Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes described the Dred Scott case as “a self inflicted wound” from which the court would not recover for many years.

As to the Zong massacre, the impression on the then 24 year old William Wilberforce, only three years before elected as Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull, was without question what spurred him on. His efforts led to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. That was 50 years after the case. Wilberforce died in 1833. He struggled for half a century to change the thoughts and attitudes of those around him.

Turning to the mention of Scalia (don’t even get started on Scalia's purist perversion of 2nd amendment), this is Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia (who by the way referred to the Dred Scott case in an effort to overturn Roe-v-Wade, a women’s rights case – he claimed it rested upon the concept of ‘substantive due process’, but that’s another story).

Antonin Scalia

Scalia who died four years ago in February 2016, was appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan. It was his death that caused controversy in relation to President Obama’s appointing a replacement so close to the end of his term of Office. This was opposed by the Republican Party most vociferously, by Mitch McConnel and Lindsey Graham. This led to the Trump appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch. The controversy over a President appointing Judges in the last year of his term led to the Trump appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in complete contradiction of Republican claims in 2016.

As to Scalia, he espoused a conservative jurisprudence and ideology, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He peppered his colleagues with "Ninograms" (memos named for his nickname, "Nino") which sought to persuade them to agree with his point of view. He was a strong defender of the powers of the executive branch. He believed that the Constitution permitted the death penalty and did not guarantee the right to abortion or same-sex marriage. Furthermore, Scalia viewed affirmative action and other policies that afforded special protected status to minority groups as unconstitutional. These positions earned him a reputation as one of the most conservative justices on the Court. He filed separate opinions in many cases, often castigating the Court's majority using scathing language. Scalia's most significant opinions include his lone dissent in Morrison -v- Olson (arguing against the constitutionality of an Independent-Counsel law)), his majority opinion in Crawford -v- Washington (defining a criminal defendant's confrontation right under the 6^th Amendment), and his majority opinion in District of Columbia -v- Heller (holding that the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to individual handgun ownership). In my view, the appointment of Justice Scalia, was a self inflicted wound. 

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a ‘trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defence or if the right was intended for state militias.

 

So we now the gunsels run riot all over America. One wonders how long it will take to rectify the insanity of that decision. Yes, the Rule of Lawyers is unfortunately the result of the rule of politicians. The prevailing winds of the time is what informs their thinking. The religious worship of the United States Constitution can indeed be stretched to unreal rigidity by some members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Religious adherence of any kind can be disturbing. It depends on whether one truly believes in the Rule of Law over Lawyers, Politicians and the Clergy, and the way they read.

 

How people think reflects how people read, more so than what they write. The framers of the United States Constitution, the chroniclers who wrote the scrolls and the numerous writers of constitutions, manifestos, pamphlets, publicity and advertising copywriters put down the words they thought in whatever language was in their heads. It is the reader who makes those words work. How the reader thinks will give the words their meaning. How we think is how we understand. How we think makes us react. 

 

Do we learn how to think, or are we taught what to think? Education and experience should teach us how to think, not what to think. Too many try to control what we think because what we think is of some importance. It affects the whole of our lives.

We therefore have to be careful when we elect our representatives or appoint our judges and keepers of the peace. How and what they think may cause harm that may take years to correct. Blind and religious adherence to certain lines of thought can cause disruption and does cause serious conflict throughout the world.

 

As examples of perfidy, certain representatives of the United States Senate are prime candidates. The choice of Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States is crucial to maintaining what semblance of independence remains in the Court. That is clearly no longer the case. Conservative politics in the United States has sought to impose its will on the American People and like a terminator it is out to destroy democracy in that country. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are still in Office. Conservative “Right to Life’, anti-Affordable Health Care Act Judge Barrett has been appointed. How she thinks will have a dramatic effect on the future of Constitutional law in the United States for many years to come, if it survives that long.

I have to thank HHJ Michael Horowitz for his comments which lead me to this train of thought.

ON THE MATTER OF VOTING

On Wednesday the 19^th of September 2012, I posted a blog titled Election – Time to Review and Think. In it I posted George Washington’s farewell address to the Nation in 1796, as he stood back from running for a third term as President of the United States. He did not think it a good idea. Originally published in David Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser on 19^th September 1796 under the title "The Address of General Washington to The People of The United States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States," the letter was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form.

 

It contained 51 paragraphs of advice and thoughts for consideration by those voting someone into high office. Paragraphs 20 – 22 could have been written yesterday and can apply to every country purporting to have a democracy and a system of suffrage.

 

20 - I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21- This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 - The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

 

The last sentence of paragraph 22 seems more than somewhat appropriate given the forthcoming elections in the United States in particular in 2022 and 2024.

 

There were no formal political parties in the United States in the 1780’s and 1790’s, and in that first election apparently less than 1.8% of the population actually voted. The 1790 census counted some 3 million people living in the United States which included some 600,000 slaves. So, in effect, only those male adults out of 2.4 million would have been eligible to vote. Some 42,782 souls managed to vote.  However, such was the popularity of George Washington that it was probably a foregone conclusion that he would be elected. There would have been no campaigning in the sense of what we have today. The candidates’ qualifications depended on reputation for deeds done. It must have been broadly about personality and stature in the community. A bit of fame and distinction went a very long way. There would have been some press as well and perhaps some meetings and rallies, but nothing like the party electoral armies in play today, with the ability to spend millions to promote a candidate by every possible means.

 

Despite the retiring President’s warnings 225 years ago (approximately 7 generations – some would only have to trace back 7 people to discover a relative who might have voted in that 1788/9 election) political parties were inevitable. The sheer growth of populations made any other possibility unworkable. Differing groups with differing aspirations required representation in the formation of any governing body. It is as Washington states, ‘inseparable from our nature’.  Nonetheless, the tenacity with which political parties hold to their particular view, and the forceful determination with which they express it, can lead to an inability to compromise. Then, the very structure of the democracy it seeks to uphold, begins to crack under the strain of conflicting points of view, and the edifice falls leaving the ruins of Public Liberty, out of which despotism can rise. It then becomes necessary, in order to restore Public Liberty, to be rid of the despot and the cycle starts all over again.

 

Does that have to be the case? Should not the zealots and orthodoxies be riven from society?

Is violence truly inseparable from our nature? It certainly seems to be endemic.

 

Democratically speaking, so far as the United States is concerned, most of the electorate is against a candidate that exhibits despotic tendencies; yet it is far from certain that enough of the majority will turn out to vote in midterm elections, or for that matter any election. The turnout of voters, particularly at this moment in time, is crucial in any truly democratic society. There are only 22 countries when voting is compulsory. I cannot say that all the countries on the list have achieved true democracy, nor can I say that the voting is entirely free of influence or coercion; however, it is a requirement that the citizen must comply with.

There are some countries, with minority governments, where it suits those in power, not to have compulsory voting, or they would be out of office and probably never get elected again. I include the United Kingdom in this. The refusal to have compulsory voting or proportional representation, is always accompanied by the proposition that the liberty of the citizen would be at stake. The freedom to choose, or not, as the case may be, is sacrosanct; yet I note for some obscure reason, the Conservative party now seeks to impose the necessity of ID cards in order to vote. To what end one asks? Most likely to put off the people who might vote against them.

 

I would be in favour of compulsory voting, but I would also favour a system, whereby voting rights were extended and more frequent. The citizens should have a right to change their collective mind. Not just once every 4 to 5 years, but more often, if needs must, particularly when it comes to referenda. Why should one vote be carved in stone. Circumstances change and people change with them. If the situation is so obviously in flux, then fresh consensus must be sought. Why should the citizens of 2100 live with the dictates of the citizens of 2000? The current citizenry does not put up with some of the things that were accepted in 1900, certainly as regards misogyny and feminism. Grow up.

 

The dismal news coming out of the Middle East, Myanmar, Yemen etc. is horrific. Indeed, the list of ongoing conflicts in April 2021 is like a belt of fire around the equator.

Could truly democratic elections change this map. “If voting changed anything they’d abolish it” is listed by the Oxford Reference as a common graffito in the 1970’s; however, “If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain. “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal” or “…it would never be allowed” and on and on. It is a common saying that comes up with every election. One can see that the vote of November 2020, changed things in the United States. That has resulted in many States now trying to abolish voting with new draconian legislation.  Plus ça Change. As stated before, something of a similar nature is happening under the Conservative Party in the UK, a government elected by some 30% of the electorate, yet they have a decisive majority in Parliament. How is that democracy?

 

My brain is a bit of a butterfly at the moment, drifting on the wind, but too much information pouring in and one doesn’t quite know where to light.

Suffice it to say that taking part in the political process is part of our duty of care. We owe it to each other to try to improve our governance, and hopefully choose the leadership that will help provide us with all the services that each individual citizen requires. Home, health, education, employment, recreation, in short, a decent and peaceful life. Plus, the odd bottle of champagne wouldn’t hurt.