The Art of Art

25/09/202225/09/2022 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Even a monkey can turn the Organ Grinder’s wheel

The following thoughts are likely to flatten the ego’s of some of those who consider themselves ‘artists’. It’s a personal view that is not much talked about, although perhaps many share it. But before I begin I need to emphasise that my argument is not an either/or polarised between this and that or artist and technician. All artists are to some degree technicians and all technicians are to some degree artists. The key here is the phrase ‘to some degree’ which is best described as a sliding scale. Where precisely on the scale is the matter for debate here because frequently I hear of technicians who call themselves artists, partly through vanity but also because of their inability to think without polarisation. Here is an example of what I mean.

The writer once took part in a concert in his local town. There were several musicians, violins, two Chinese pianists, a singer and my own contribution of humorous poems that I had written.

During the interval the performers shared a side room in which to relax. During the conversations I made a remark quite innocently but I immediately realised caused offence to the two pianists. I made to following remark, ‘it’s a great that there is at least one original performer in the concert’. It was meant quite innocently as an observation on the technician / creator dichotomy but clearly I hurt the pride of the musicians who must have been brought up to believe they are artists.

My view is indeed an unusual one but based on sound reasoning which is this. That musicians who are not extemporising but following musical notation by a third party, are fundamentally, copyists. They have learnt to become technically proficient at playing one or more musical instruments through repetition. In my view they are therefore technicians, more than artists.

They will argue that there is an art in the way they ‘interpret’ the composer’s instructions and I would not deny this. Any piece of written music can be played to express the emotions of the musician and in that there is indeed a golden nugget of artfulness. But I would reply that the composer’s contribution is 80% or 90% of the piece and the interpretation of the player is more as a technical expert, somewhere on the line between artist and technician.

Another personal example is from my experience as a young architect. I was being ‘mentored’ by a rather overweight gentleman called ‘Les’ in the Architects and Civil Engineers Department of a well known Corporation. Les smoked a pipe and overflowed the edges of his spinning chair with his large body. One day, an architectural technician came over to Les with some ideas that clearly Les didn’t think much of and sent him away. Les mumbled at me his notion that technicians were no good as designers, to which I replied sagely; ‘knowing the language does not make you a poet’. Les’s pipe almost popped out of his mouth with astonishment and a glimmer of respect that this ‘youngling’ had made a profound observation, and was not a complete fool after all.

An example from another creative art shows how broad this issue is. Consider painters. There are again two types of painters. A ‘copyist’ who copies original works of art, or photographs using a photographic style, and those who create a painting from life or imagination. At the most extreme, a copyist can become a ‘forger’; so skilled are they in mimicking the original artist. However, I would still maintain the artist who creates original art, is 80% to 90% an artist and the copyist is 20% to 10% an artist. A forger must be 100% technician or else be greeted by the police forgery squad in the morning.

Picture credit: thecollector.com
comment: *expect an early morning call*

The same reasoning works in reverse. Original artists are never completely original. They will have been influenced by their training and life experience in who, what, how, why, when and where they create their art. This will include studying other artists, art history, media, photography and all the other experiences that bombard the senses. They will then knowingly or unknowingly express this in a novel or similar way to others and in this respect their ‘originality’ as an artist is indeed tainted. Only the truly most original and those expressing something of the ‘spirit of the age’, will find critical approval and become famous and founders, or part of, a group of mutually influential artists such as the Impressionists.

Consider how copyright law determines the topic of originality and ownership of an original work of art. I once went to a shop that sold the marine photographs by a photographer from the early twentieth century. The subject matter was mainly the magnificent sailing boats of that time taking part in the Americas Cup circumnavigating the Isle of Wight, England. I bought a book of these photographs and happened to comment to the owner of the shop (who was a descendant of the photographer) that I intended to copy them in water colour. To this he strongly, objected saying that they were protected by copyright law. He misunderstood copyright as only applying to exact copies, not representations, but no matter.

In this example there is a question of law which is, who has copied what? If the photographs were of just the sea and clouds then the photographer is largely responsible for the image, as nature is created for everyone as what we call today, ‘Freeware’. However when the photograph is principally of an artificial object, then the creator of that object (in this case a marine architect) must be presumed to own the image of the object or at least an ethical ownership of the image. A yacht might take years to design and build and photograph a fraction of a second. The ‘art’ of the photographer is the choice of view, light, background etc. to which some creative input has been made. Read a photography magazine. They are principally technical.

To think of a more exact ‘copying’ using a camera, if you went to the Louvre in Paris and took a picture of the Mona Lisa and started to sell these images, might not the museum object? After all copyright law protects exact copies of images, (not interpretations) and as the photographer has only used technical skill, these would be exact copies. The copyright once belonged to originator Leonardo di Vinci, who being dead, is passed to the current owner of the object.

Artificial Intelligence is now producing completely original images that exceed the creative imagination and technical prowess of even the most skilled artist. These are based on a vast ‘back catalogue’ of natural and man made images from the past that the AI has viewed, remembered and uses to create new art.

The owner of the AI algorithms might claim ownership of the ‘artificial art’ but the merit is clearly more applicable to the artificial intelligence than the human intelligence. The see-saw of balance between the technical skill and originality is once again subject to scalar opinion.

I personally do not believe the computer programmer who set the AI on the path of gathering and reinterpretation, is any more that a computer scientist. The seemingly ‘random’ connections taking place in the AI to produce originality, is the same process as takes place in neural connections in the brain of the artist but lacks ‘soul’ and ‘consciousness’.

As AI has no legal entity or ‘human right’; what it produces could arguably be without ownership by a human. No doubt the lawyers will debate this matter for the next century!

But in my view, AI is 99.999% technique, that is, a copyist. It has no concept of whether the images it produces are meaningful. When AI is able to prove it has a creative imagination, a soul and consciousness, I will concede.

Don’t Bother Us

01/01/202207/02/2022 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

It happens sometimes, that social norms change. On the balance of probabilities, not all of these changes will be for the better. This leaves the challenging task of pinpointing the changes that are for the worse.

In pursuit of this task, I offer to the reader the common experience of telephoning a company or government department for some purpose or other. When you reach the correct recipient, you are greeted by yet another recorded message. It tells you politely that ‘you are in a queue’ and ‘we apologise for the delay due to an unusual high volume of calls’ and if it can get away with it, ‘call back later’. The caller is expected to think that he or she was in some way, adding to the problem for ringing the company at a busy time. We are expected to blindly accept the company policy of not employing enough call takers to answer the telephone in a timely manner.

You know this because there is never the message, ‘we have failed to employ sufficient people to speak to our customers and not valued you.’

The ebb and flow of demand is in some way is understandable. There is a phenomenon that makes shops sometimes empty and sometimes full. Anyone who has worked in a shop will have experienced this. Companies that operate public transport know that their buses and trains are insufficient to meet the demand in the rush hours and making huge loses the rest of the day. We get that, but it should never be a 24 hour excuse. Customers with any sense are going to use competitors instead, or in the case of government departments, start sending endless emails and create another problem.

My reply is that this attitude or ‘go away’, if accepted, is the ‘thin end of the wedge’. Of course phone calls can often be made again, later, but what happens when the stakes are higher?

One current example is the manner countries are operating their hospitals during the Covid 19 pandemic. Because of the fear of the hospital not being able to deal with a sudden high demand from patients with Covid symptoms, the solution is to empty the hospitals of other patients and any newcomers; refuse to give them beds. The system of ‘triage’ (treatment according to immediacy of need) is dropped. Cancer patients are sent home and those awaiting urgent operations are told to seek private treatment (certainly in the UK at least).

Picture Credit; Wales Online ‘Patients waiting up to 13 hours for a bed’.

Suddenly the health service’s problem of not having enough hospitals, beds and staff for national emergencies such as wars, famines, plagues, epidemics, pandemics…is not the hospital’s or anybody’s fault except the ill for being too many in number.

‘This situation is completely unprecedented,’ explains the UK government minister, in the hope that the public will accept the lie that pandemics have never happened before and are not at the top of the list of known and planned for threats to public health and social order.

Because society has already accepted the ‘don’t bother us’ reply to reasonable requests. The breaking of Hippocratic oaths by doctors and dereliction of duty and possibly criminal law by hospital managers and government ministers apparently goes unnoticed or at worst tolerated.

There may be differences around the world as to the degree of the point I am making but as a generality, the ‘don’t bother us’ excuse for poor planning and execution has become acceptable.

We should all ask ourselves; are governments guilty of watching people die for lack of or negligent plans for such events? If the current pandemic is not sufficient example to chew on, the next is indisputable.

Due to climate change, wars, famine, economic decline, inept and / or corrupt governments in the world today, there are mass migrations of people. Some are seeking a better life, some an easier life, some free hand outs, some legitimate political asylum. The problem of deciding on the motive of these people and whether to accept them as citizens is regularly discussed. In some blocks like the European Union, a policy which is acceptable to all it’s nation states is notably absent.

Historically, countries have prospered when they have had a benign policy to immigration and at times people have been encouraged to migrate and become citizens of say, Australia and the USA. But with more people on the planet than ever before, the sharing of resources is now problematic. Migration has to be controlled in an ethical manner respecting the human right to claim political asylum…but for governments the ever rising numbers of applicants has been put in the ‘difficult’ box.

In situations of life and death like this, the ‘don’t bother us’ reply that many governments would like to and have made, becomes immoral and bordering on fascism.

The United Kingdom has experienced a large rise in illegal immigration since it left the European Union. Before, it was able to co-operate with France, it’s nearest neighbour and controller of ports, roads and railways. But since the Brexit kick in the teeth to France, the French have far less interest in being part of measures to control the dangerous crossing of the English Channel. This a 30 mile stretch of water with dangerous tides, bad weather and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

People, families, have died attempting this crossing. One solution promoted by the current Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is to turn migrant boats around mid channel. You might as well erect a sign here or in the straights to Italy or Greece saying, ‘don’t bother us’.

So how is it that the UK can continue this ignorant (meaning to ignore in a base and uninformed manner) attitude and why are there no protest marches demanding taking the problem seriously? After all ‘immigration’ and ‘controlling our borders’ were two problems that swung the vote in favour of leaving the European Union.

Could it be because the citizens of Britain have become used to ‘don’t bother us’ as a reasonable reason for sending people away?

It is internationally enshrined in law, that a person must travel to a country before being able to claim political asylum. You might wish to question why when counting the washed up bodies on the beaches of Kent and Sussex. Why is it not possible to go to the British Embassy in say, the People’s Democratic Republic of Congo and make your case for UK political asylum there? No money will have passed hands to illegal traffickers, no houses will have been sold to pay the traffickers, no political confidences should have been breached creating a need to flee, and documents should be to hand. Certainly staff in any country’s local embassy, will have the best evidence to hand for proving or disproving claims. Even the creation of an ‘humanitarian visa’ for immediate travel would be a step towards respecting the basic human right to life and travel.

Why is it not so? I recently heard on the BBC radio that the reason you cannot claim asylum in this way is because Embassy’s will be unable to cope with the demand.

This is probably true, at least in the short term. People will be rushing to capital cities and setting up camp sites in the grounds of Embassy’s of their choice. But are they wrong to do this? Are they seeking preferential treatment? No, just wishing to make a claim for international help and avoid the perilous journey at the hands of criminals to safety.

Consider how much better the recent withdrawal from Afghanistan would have been if the processing of refugees was not taking place on the tarmac of the airport under the watchful eye of the Taliban, but in a safe and timely manner in an Embassy? There might be a coffee machine instead of a Kalashnikov.

But as things stand, governments reduce the risk of their various Embassy’s being ‘overwhelmed’ by forcing refugees risk their lives and perpetuated criminal trafficking gangs and modern slavers, before their claim will be considered.

The ‘don’t bother us’ principle is used to justify the injustice of the rules of the nineteenth century being applied in the twenty first. It’s as if the universality of the internet had never happened.

The question we should all be asking is, what will be our next vital need to be refused by our government on the grounds that the system cannot cope? Is their answer something we should question or tolerate?

The Bill

01/04/202102/04/2021 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

There is presently being considered in the UK parliament a ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’. It is wide ranging in it’s intended effects. So much so that citizens are worried and they are asking questions are;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are stricter legal powers the best way to achieve the intended result?

In other words, is shooting the cockerel the best way to have a lie-in?

It is coincidental that the timing of these proposals coincided with a public vigil for a murdered woman, Sarah Everard. Sarah was tragically murdered, allegedly by an off duty police officer, whilst walking home.

The vigil was held in Clapham Common in South London. Unfortunately there were ugly violent scenes when police enforced the Covid regulations, which ban such public events. The confrontation had been foreseen. Prior to the vigil, an organisation called ‘Reclaim These Streets’ approached the police and then the High Court. The High Court told the organisers to sort it out with the police.

The question has to be asked, how ‘negotiations’ failed to find a solution that eliminated the risk of confrontation and violence.

picture credit: thedailymail
comment: how the media encourage dualistic thinking

People with an iota of problem solving sense and mediation skills, will know that if you set up two sides with conflicting agendas, they will always disagree with each other.

The BBC News webpage comments; For almost a year, the ambiguities and omissions within the coronavirus restrictions have left both the police and the public grasping for answers as to what is possible in public. It’s so complex we’ve even seen people fined for walking while holding a cup of tea.

The Covid ‘regulations’ are already a cause for antagonism between the public and the police. The police are having a hard time maintaining public confidence in their impartiality and fairness. The Police are currently lumbered with issuing Enforcement Notices, fines of £200, under the Covid Regulations.

Personally, I can see good reason to remove the police from the enforcement of Covid rules.

Police are principally responsible to protect the public from those breaking criminal law. They stopped being responsible for lost dogs and parking on double yellow lines long ago, so why are they involved with Covid rules?

One possible solution would be to create a new temporary role of ‘Covid Enforcement Officers’. This process of specialist enforcement officers has already been successfully with non-criminal offences, such as parking fines. Police used to issue parking fines decades ago. Then Traffic Wardens were created for this purpose and currently used ‘Parking Enforcement Officers’ have the role.

The Home Office might be able to recruit volunteers to enforce Covid Rules, given the large number of community spirited citizens who have already put their names forward for public service during the emergency. Alternatively, or as well as, the Home Office could pay CEO’s in the full time role. Alternatively or in addition, the Home Office might use the services of those currently paid to ‘furlough’ at home. This at least would be a better use of tax payers money. The role might also be given to a strictly selected portion of those ‘homeless’ and living in hotels at public expense and even released prisoners. Both groups who might well rise to the being awarded public trust and benefit for the rest of their lives for some experience of employment. My point is that there are many avenues to explore before dismissing the role of CEO.

Let us next examine the subject of public protests during the Covid state of emergency. It cannot be denied that where there is a public protest planned over an issue of current high public interest, there is good reason for respecting public feelings. If the government restricts the human right of protest it runs the risk of appearing draconian. When the government and rule of law is perceived by citizens to lose the high moral ground, ‘policing by consent’ becomes difficult to impossible. We see this in Hong Kong and Myanmar at the moment where protest has effectively been made illegal.

The problem for the British government that the vigil in Clapham Common posed, was for a potential ‘mass Covid spreading event’ to take place. This was the fear and Police had a duty to prevent such an outcome. They would be sure to be blamed for not using their powers should there be a subsequent localised outbreak of Covid infection.

The problem solving method used was for both sides to line up against each other like in a medieval battle. Even the High Court ran from this confrontation. All were victims in my view of the process of dualistic thinking or ‘either or’ solutions.

The way I would look at this problem is that it is not only a ‘police’ responsibility. In most problem solving processes, problems will be found to be widely shared. Who might the other stake holders be?

Just of the cuff I would suggest that the problem was owned by the organisers, those attending, the Park Authorities and the by-laws, the National Health Service (local hospitals), Human Rights organisations, the Courts, scientists of the health and social variety, the local MP and London Mayor’s Office, Legislators and the Home Secretary.

The only intervention the government could conceive was a new law, because that is what governments do; a classic case of ‘digging the hole deeper’. This is how they intend to make the present police powers more stringent;

The Bill being proposed wishes to prevent public protest that creates “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

The lack of any nuance to this ‘nail – hammer’ thinking was, in my opinion, is woeful. If the complexities of solving a problem are embraced, then solutions are abundant.

For instance in the case of this public vigil by, say one thousand people, it can be be managed to achieve the clearly set out objective…to let people have their moment of remembering peacefully and without disproporthionate harm to themselves or others. After all, if strangers mix inside a supermarkets without creating mass Covid spreading events each day, then a single outdoor event is considerably less risky. Experience of public gatherings outdoors, including when not socially distanced, has shown that mass Covid events do not take place afterwards. This was shown to be the case at recent public protests in the USA such as the Black Lives Matter marches or the infamous storming of Capitol Hill.

Aside from the spread of infection it is hard to see why any peaceful outdoor protest should culminate in;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” if managed properly.

There are clear Covid rules of social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing and the attendees would willingly follow such rules as they Sainsbury’s where public disorder is not considered an imminent threat.

A vigil by definition, is a passive affair where people sit or stand with candles and placards to express their feelings of solidarity, sadness and, in this case, discontent that a young woman’s public murder makes many women feel unsafe.

Imagine how a Problem Solving / Protest Management Meeting that I am envisaging, might have taken place. There would be numerous attendees with multiple points of view but with a overlapping and shared desired outcomes. The aim of the meeting will be to express and examine all views in a spirit of co-operation to solve a shared problem. The fruit of such meetings is that solutions can be just as impactive as force, but in a subtle and almost invisible way.

So if you were the Superintendent of Parks, would you not be a good person to involve in how to make this peaceful event as safe as possible whilst supporting the Human Right to protest? You could provide detail maps of the park showing entrances and exits, toilet facilities, how previous public events had been managed, first aid and other emergency considerations (normal for large gatherings), catering etc. etc. in as much detail as you need and that’s just the Park Keeper.

The Fire Service say they could provide sand bags for people to sit on at the required distances…good idea…and safe bins to dispose of used candles. The local press and police might hire a drone to take photographs from above. The police use it to monitor events and the press get some great photograhps. Those attending are told that by staying on their sandbags they images will be spectacular visually, whilst respecting privacy and not spying on indiviuals. Instead of a grid, an local artist might design a shape for the sandbags and candle holders, like a flower of rememberance. You get the idea. It’s soft management designed to delight not draw battle lines.

The Covid Enforcement Officers might have produced some posters which will be clearly displayed at the entrances to the Vigil Arena, reminding attendees of the Covid safety rules and the fines for infringement.

I could list the inputs of each party but you get the picture. Towards the end of the meeting the person representing the local police, shares that there is intelligence that the an anarchist organisation are planning to attend. There is a history of them creating public disorder and damage to property. A few mug shots are shared.

Are These People Mourners or Political Activits?

The Police therefore commit to having 200 riot trained officers on hand but out of view, in case of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”. They confirm that there are existing laws under the Public Order Act, Criminal Damage Act and Breach of the Peace to make arrests and allow the vigil to continue peacefully.

Dame Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is at the meeting and says that she intends to take part in the Vigil. Everyone applauds. Apparently, several other celebrities and leaders of Human Rights and Women Safety organisations are also going to take part. There is decided to be a VIP area next to the area designated for the Press.

In this hypothetical scenario the event takes place and the Anarchist ‘rent-a-mob’ do make an appearance. They are ‘kettled’ away from the vigil into an area that the Park Superintendent recommended which is surrounded on three sides by high fences. Flood lights had been secretly positioned their and their switching on allows for CCTV surveillance to begin and the press to get some good pictures. The police keep them there until the vigil has ended and the park is clear. Two anarchists are arrested are, both for previous offences using outstanding warrants.

My conclusion is that any public protest with warranted public interest and sympathy, should be allowed to take place under Covid regulations, and the Regulations should be amended to permit this. It is for the committee of interested parties to decide what level of public interest and support exists, not the courts or the police.

In summary, when the only parties involved are cast as protagonist and enforcer, the result will tend towards the violent scenes sadly witnessed on Clapham Common. Giving the enforcers more powers to enforce is no solution, and leads to the very thing purported to avoid, that is;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

So in answer to the question at the top of this essay which was;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are they the best way to achieve the intended result?

…my answer is no. The existing laws were sufficient for the nine arrests made at this vigil. Next time, organisers should seek the help of the ‘partnership approach’ to public protest event planning. Use it or ignore it at your peril.

A New Kingdom

17/03/202017/03/2020 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Prejudice is to have an opinion based on false feelings and, or false information. It is to be so fixed in opinion that even when new facts are presented, prejudices are not eradicated.

Prejudice manifests as both positive and negative opinions and feelings. We can praise those who are not worthy of praise and hate those who do not deserve hatred.

Prejudice requires a process of discriminating judgments based on casual classifications such as gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality. The classifications are in themselves chosen irrationally. This is commonly through received opinion either within a group of mutually minded and self selected people, or through inherited ideas and opinions which are accepted and shared uncritically.

Prejudice has been a problem for social groups across time and the world. It has created wars, injustice, repression and hatred between individuals and groups since the beginning of time.

‘He hears but half who hears one part only.’

These are the words of Aeschylus the ancient Greek playwright, written around 500 BC when a new form of clear thinking was heard, if not always respected.

Failure to listen to previously excluded or new facts because they do not support a belief based on opposing facts, is a form of false thinking.

Such a weakness is what temporal law and it’s practitioners aim to rise above, but even and sometimes especially in a Court of Law, arguments present opinions based on a version of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.

There are few who are not a product of their own prejudices and the opinions that reveal them. There is always something that will make a person ‘turn away’.

Throughout history, those who have refused to adopt the prejudices of their peer groups, have been murdered or imprisoned. Rarely are they respected and given the respect they deserve. When this respect is given, their moral authority raises them to a respected position in society, or post death, to sainthood.

picture credit: en.holyorderofststephen.org

Such a clear view and the ability to speak it, is commonly found in those with a highly spiritual understanding. The word ‘mystic’ is unfortunate in English for its similarity to ‘mist’. In a mist we cannot see and are lost, which is a good metaphor for humans who do not possess clarity of thought. That is the precise opposite of mystical ‘vision’.

A mystic is a person who has achieved perfection at all levels of being, including thought. They do not necessarily express ideas that conform to social, religious or cultural norms.

This has lead to their persecution throughout history as they do not say what people expect and require them to say in order to support shared prejudices. The very presence of a clear thinker, such as Socrates, is an affront to the uninitiated.

The initiation that humans are better for acquiring is the ability to train their observations to override what they have not observed. With this ability, people are able to act with complete compassion and love of others, whatever these people may believe or represent.

God blesses those who love and are without judgment towards others.

Such people are needed today and yet how many ‘saints’ are presented in the media? Certainly there is a long line up of ‘sinners’ and the ‘misguided’ – some in positions of authority that they do not deserve, and some on their way to the prisons in shame.

This process is continuing and the present time will create opportunity for men and women of high moral authority to be heard and respected. You will know them for they are without prejudice and pride.

They have walked on the earth before and are here now. Times of tumult and disruption of the norm, herald their recognition and the beginning of the enrichment of societies.

The enrichment is not the type that has lead previous and present generations i.e. wealth and fortune.

‘Jesus said that we could not serve both God and wealth, and it is obvious that Western society is organised in the service of wealth.’

John B Cobb ‘Eastern View of Economics’

To have one’s treasure stored in a parallel dimension, is not a common aim in modern Western Society. And yet, a literal and metaphorical polar shift is already happening and this will bring about a complete change of society.

Black shall be white and white shall be black.

Only when all men and women have abandoned their prejudices will they be able to see their own society and those who make up society, that they had not seen before.

The truth, as someone once said, is stranger than you think.

Green Gold

23/08/201923/08/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Once upon a time there was a human baby. It grew and became strong and healthy. Then, after about sixteen years, an extraordinary thing happened to the body. A great cloud of poisonous smoke filled the lungs. Toxins began to flow around the body and various organs responded with panic. Unfortunately, there was also an amount of ‘satisfaction’ associated with this smoke. The organs argued with the brain telling it to stop allowing breathing smoke.

The body continued to breath smoke and rumours spread that the lungs were turning black at the edges and in a few years they would become diseased and not function at all.

The organs decided to challenge the lungs and were astounded by the reply. The lungs said that the rumours were all ‘lies’ and that they should mind their own business. The organs could see that the health of the whole body was there business, but the toxin had spread and the name of the toxin was ‘stupidity’.

Picture copyright credit: Ranger Rick

Today, in August 2019 the ‘lungs of the world’, being the Amazon rain forest, are on fire. The country with the largest number of fires is Brazil. There are over 25,000 according to the BBC News website, which has little reason to misreport the problem and used the National Institute for Space Research as their source. The President of Brazil, Mr. Jair Bolsonaro, has responded with a volley of denials and obfuscation, of the type that we hear so often from right wing leaders today. But he, does have an interest in denying the size of the problem and that no other countries have a right to be concerned. He sees the forest as a resource for mining and logging and agriculture, which from a purely economic development point of view, it is. The problem for the ‘rest of the world’ is that the blinkered thinking that accompanies ‘national interests’ is in the wrong century. In a world where sharing global opportunities and problem solving is becoming ‘normal’, the attitudes from the nineteenth industrialist capitalist governments and entrepreneurs, prevails in Brazil. Interestingly Mr Bolsonaro accused the President of France Mr Macron, of being just such a ‘colonialist’ while the reverse if true. Mr Bolsonaro is ripping the heart out of his own country in just the way the colonialists used to do in their greed for natural resources.

The Amazon rain forest contains many layers of richness. Not least are the million or so indigenous people who’s very lives depend of the forest. When I was in school we were taught that the forest people practised a technique of farming known as ‘slash and burn’. Tiny pockets of forest would be cleared and crops planted for one or two seasons before the thin soil could produce no more. Then the people moved on and the forest and it’s animals were able to re establish the ecosystem.

What is happening now is the early stages of desertification.

picture copyright credit: straitstimes.com

The world cannot allow it’s lungs to die. Although much well intentioned re-afforestation has taken place in the northern hemisphere, the small scale and the type of trees planted means that the effect on the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not enough. The Amazon rain forest is the only place where the carbon dioxide can be absorbed on the scale needed to prevent a rampant rise in the average temperature of the planet.

So what is the solution? Clearly the rain forest has to be saved for current and future generations. The Brazilian government are only responding to the promise of economic prosperity for their country and citizens. They might be persuaded to change their short term destructive policies if they made more money by not destroying the forest.

I suggest then that it is sold, square metre by square metre to the rest of the world. Who would buy it? Well not governments but ordinary people. I believe that people would willingly purchase a few square metres as they can at present buy micro land on Scottish estates to gain the legal title of ‘Lord’.

The area of the rain forest in Brazil is 477 698 000 hectares (source: brazil.org.za). One hectare equals 1000 square metres, so if you sold one hectare to 1000 buyers at 100 US dollars each, you make 100,000 dollars per hectare. This is 47,769,800,000,000 US dollars! Even if only ten per cent of the rain forest is sold in this way, that is 4,776,980,000,000 US dollars. I expect that is more than miners, loggers and farmers are going to pay in tax to the government in a thousand years!

The process to purchase your piece of rain forest could be standardised and completed as any legal process of acquiring land title; either as an owner or tenant. The only extra clause / covenant purchasers would be required to agree to is that they will permit the land to remain pristine or allowed to ‘re-wild’ as much as that is possible. Each individual would be limited in the number of square metres they could buy to prevent devious exploitation. The price of the land might be double or even triple what a logging company or beef farmer is going to gain in the few years the land would be productive. Any tenancies could be renewed every ten years or so, if not sold freehold and the Brazilian government will be able to spend the money on the prosperity of it’s citizens as it wishes.

Picture copyright credit: Rainforest Foundation

Attempts to ‘mine’ or exploit the forest on a large scale would be a legal nightmare on account of the number of owners or tenants whose location and consensus would be difficult to obtain!

In this way however, the business of Brazil would become the business of the rest of the world. By keeping the rain forest from becoming a desert, Brazil maintains it’s indigenous population, fauna and flora and become a gate keeper on the world’s increasing need to store carbon dioxide. It is likely in the future that these will become of greater economic value to Brazil than the nineteenth century approach of logging, mining and ranching. Perhaps shares could be bought in each tree for the carbon it absorbs to enable ‘carbon neutral’ deals to be made with polluters like air lines and industry.

Brazil has a unique and irreplaceable resource to benefit all it’s people, indigenous and settlers. There is a fable about a goose and a golden egg, that President Bolsonaro would be wise to inform his economic advisers to integrate into national policy before the land is worthless to anybody for anything.

Love Your Brother and Sister Humans

16/05/201916/05/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Once again the lawyers and politicians are going around in circles.

For in the United Kingdom a cross party group of MPs have had a go at defining Islamaphobia ( a word not contained in my Word spell check!)

Before looking at this definition it is worth thinking back a year or so when we were treated to the spectacle of Teresa May and advisers thinking up a definition of Anti-Semitism. This at a time when hatred of Muslims was a far more important problem.

Perhaps the group of MP’s missed a trick. A school child might think that to define Islamaphobia you substitute the word ‘Islam’ for ‘Hebrew’ in the Anti-Semitism definition.

Not a moment too late has the spot light now moved onto our Muslim brothers and sisters who are suffering hatred in the UK and other countries, in a way that the Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany.

It is good someone has the intelligence to write a definition of what is the problem. This is the first step to the review of existing laws and any supplementary or new UK legislation.

Here is what the cross-party group came up with;

‘Islamaphobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’

Here is the first test of the statement. Let’s change the religion in question.

‘Christianaphobia is rooted in racism and is the type of racism that targets expressions of Christianness or perceived Christianness.’

So the attack on the congregation in Christ Church New Zealand was racist? I think not.

Consider for a moment what racism is, since it is being included in the definition in question.

It appears that there are numerous definitions; made more confusing the ‘ethnicity’ being considered the same as ‘race’.

My contribution to this word play would be to suggest that there is only one race, the human race. This is split by ethnic difference based on environmental, genetic, cultural, linguistic and other fundamental factors.

So here is what the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination said;

The term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

If this definition were adopted into UK law then the signs at airports instructing EU Members to queue here and all the rest to queue there – would be illegal.

Fortunately gender and race are universal constants and in my view, nothing to do with prejudice based on ethnicity or religion.

Taking a step back from what we are discussing here is the unpleasant aspect of being ‘human’ – hatred of ‘the other’.

As members of the human race to our shame we have a long history of dividing ourselves up into tribes or villages or clans or nationalities or supporters of a football team and seen this as reason enough to wage war on ‘the others’.

All the prejudice in the world is an expression of intolerance towards other humans.

It’s expression ranges on a scale from minor to major. Football hooligans are at the pathetic end of the scale and fascist government leaders at the other. In between is all the prejudice – hidden and open – that we carry within ourselves.

Hatred based on religion is therefore simply another expression of intolerance ranging between sour looks to beheading.

My definition of Islamaphobia would be;

Hatred of Muslims

Now can we get down to the real problem? Because until a child steps forward to take over the role of Prime Minister, no single person appears to see the problem with any clarity.

The head of the National Police Chiefs Council, Martin Hewitt, is dismayed at the vagueness of the definition. He believes it will cause confusion and hamper the effectiveness of the police against minor and serious crimes motivated by religious hatred.

In law, precise definitions produce laws which are executable.

If I had any advice for the devout of any religion, it would be to remove all cultural affectations in dress and any other public signification of your personal beliefs. Put these items on in the place of worship if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Hitler had to identify Jews by ordering the placing of a yellow star of David on their dress. To preserve your dignity and safety – I would advise not to make it easy for the biggots.

When the time and place is right – in a tolerant society – freedom of religious expression will be protected.

To base new laws on eliminating hatred is in my view to start at the wrong end of the stick. I believe the best way to introduce tolerance is to introduce love, as well as eliminate hatred. One cannot exist without the other but we can at least set the balance straight. So this debate is not just for the law makers, it is for all the humans.

Raise a hand if you are a human!