Vote Me!

08/12/201908/12/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The day is approaching this December 2019 when the good citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to vote in a general election.

The outcome is being described as the most significant for a generation, so you would expect the process to be fair. Certainly, whoever wins is going to perch on the moral high ground of victory and fight off all criticism for a very long time indeed. Whether they will be entitled to be so smug, I suggest, is open to debate.

You see, I have a problem which is; how democratic is the voting system? My quandary as a voter, is that I approve of some of the policies of most of the parties. It should be explained that in the UK there is a left wing party, Labour and a right wing party, Conservative and Unionist. The middle ground is occupied by the Liberal Democrats and Greens. Other nationalist parties represent Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland.

In the United States of America, the choice is more polarised between the Democrats and Republicans. Let us take this as an example. What if, as a US citizen, you decided that the choice was too small. Who do you vote for if you want to stop climate change but encourage industry? Who do you vote for if you want the state to pay for health care and a prosperous arms industry?

In a Spin About Voting?

My point is that with polarised choices, there is no room for ambiguity that emerges from personal political perceptions and priorities. Worse still the politics of voting reduces to personality rather than policies.

Even in the UK, where the choice is greater, the democratic options are more confusing. Many voters now just spoil their ballot papers by writing ‘I don’t agree with any of this.’ They are being asked to vote for a leader they didn’t take part in selecting – unless they were the tiny minority of party members.

They might distrust all the candidates on offer and feel ambiguous about their policies.

Each party writes a manifesto prior to an election stating their political motives and means. This works to an extent but has the problem for some voters that their may be slipped in controversial motives that the voter does not want to happen. For instance, the Conservatives slipped in having a referendum on continued membership of the European Union. Suddenly it became an issue even though the majority did not think it worth consideration.

Worse still, when parties fail to win a majority in elections, coalitions have to be formed. Italy, Spain, possibly the UK next week, have this problem. Two parties may come together for the sake of forming a government at the price of compromise on their manifestos.

The public will have no choice over how these mixed manifestos will be prioritised. Which policies and method will be forgotten or ignored and which prioritised? Coalition manifestos are not published before an election if considered at all. This can lead to unrealistic expectations by voters when coalition governments are formed, as in the Liberal and Conservative Government in this decade. The direction of the ship will be decided by the Captain and officers, not the crew and certainly not the passengers.

No provisional consideration is given to coalition prior to an election as all parties have to perform the pretence that they are going to win even if it is clear to all that they will not.

The dangerous consequence of this for democracy, that occurs all too often, is that a minority party gains disproportionate power by owning the swing votes. This happened in the present Conservative government who allied with the Democratic Ulster Party and much of the muddle of mixed motives over Brexit has resulted.

In recent elections we have seen and or suspected that the over emphasis on the personality of candidates has given leverage to foreign governments and fake or real ‘whistle blowers’ and ‘news vendors’ questioning the reputations and ethical principles of candidates or even parties. Democracy as we know it is easily undermined by misinformation, view the Nazi propaganda news in 1930’s Germany, if you think this is a new phenomena.

Even the date of an election day can be manipulated to support a particular party in a manner which is clearly not in the interest of fairness. In the present UK election the Conservative government chose the day in which the students from Universities will end term and be returning home for Christmas. Informed young voters are not likely to support the Tories even though the election and it’s issues mostly affects their generation.

Young Voters in the USA Choose Not to Vote

Even such a consideration as ‘is it raining’ has been measured to be significant on election days. Sending people to village halls to scribble on a piece of paper has to be reviewed as the majority of citizens in the UK rarely turn out to vote. Some living abroad for over 15 years lose their right to vote.

Lone Voter

These then, are some of the problems for Democracy. Some people say, ‘well that’s the system we have got’ or ‘it’s the best of a bad lot’ but you have to wonder if the country that prides itself in it’s democratic systems is not kidding itself, it’s citizens and the world.

I am not suggesting that Democracy should be replaced with the pedantic and often corrupt systems of power like Communism or Autocracy. I am suggesting that with the aid of computers and the internet, a more democratic process is available to elect representatives. This is my idea.

Firstly, the party system is out. The in-fighting of politicians instead of their countries best interest, is something most voters are tired of.

Instead, all candidates will put themselves up for election as ‘Independents’. Radical, yes, but read on because they can form parties after election, not before.

They will state their personal political views by placing ten stars against a list of important areas of government. This will be shown to voters as something like this ;

Education *

Health **

Defence ***

Transport *

Law and Order **

Business and Industry *

Farming and Fisheries *

Environment nil stars

Social Housing and Homelessness nil stars

In this list each aspect of legislation and distribution of taxes is prioritised by the candidate, according to their own personal views. They are not under any party pressure to support policies with which they feel awkward about or strongly disagree. They can be honest; a quality in politicians which many voters express their suspicion about.

The candidate has, say, ten stars with which to indicate how which issues they prioritise and the amount of funding they would give in comparison to others.

Now here’s the clever part. Each citizen is given the chance to indicate their priorities and how strongly they feel funding should be allocated to each on their ballot papers. Instead of one cross or tick for a party – which in the twenty first century has to seen as a crude political choice – each voter has the same number of stars as the candidate.

The last piece of this process would have to be constructed from new but it’s not impossible. What I am envisaging is on-line voting from a phone, personal or public computer. In an age when personal internet banking, shopping, even gambling! – is managed with a high degree of security and reliability, it must be possible to create a secure on-line voting application.

Ten issues are listed either as broad areas for consideration or narrow ones. The voter can either ignore these as being worthy of state support ( such as health care in the USA) or indicate a need for state intervention. The strength of these feelings can be indicated by allocating some of the ten stars used to vote with.

It will be impossible to use up more than ten stars or whatever number is allocated to each citizen, but ten is an easy number for most people. Their choice can be re-adjusted until the voter is ready before selecting the ‘VOTE’ button.

For a population familiar with the internet, voting will be accessible, timely, considered, representative and accurately describing personal views.

The final phase of the voting process is for computers to match exactly the views of voters to those of independent politicians. It is already established what the views of the candidates are and matching a set number of candidates (say 300 ) to the views of the citizen public, will be doable for a computer.

The result will be a selection of representatives who will accept office and be fairly representative of public opinion. Being politicians they will almost certainly form party cliques (birds of a feather flock together) but at least the system by which they obtained power, will have been representative.

This could be a sea change for how populations choose those who represents them. With the emphasis moved to policies and issues rather than personalities and power politics, a higher level of honesty and fairness will be achieved.

We have the technology already to achieve this. We just need the thinkers to describe how it can be done – as I have just done. Vote me!

Space Wars

14/09/201915/09/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is an enduring story of two bank robbers in the Wild West. In the film of the same name they are played by the good looking duo of Paul Newman and Robert Redford. They swagger through the film to a jolly accompaniment by Burt Bacharach (including Rain Drops Keep Falling on my Head) from one fruitful explosion to another. Inevitably the Federal authorities catch up with them and they manage to escape over the border into Mexico by the length of a horses tail. In Mexico they make a resolution never to rob a bank again, such has been the horror of their last experience. They realise they now have a clean slate to start their lives again. What happens next has always fascinated me. They start robbing banks in Mexico. A few bank robberies later, they die in a hail of Mexican army bullets.

The moral of this story in my view, explains a lot about the worst side of human nature. Remember that these are bad men even though they are played by a couple of smoothies. Humans find it very difficult to change their inner motivations, methods and objectives.

At present humans are plundering planet earth of her wealth. They have been doing it for a long time but now the scale and speed of the robbery is unprecedented. The villains have a plan;

‘Let’s start robbing again in space’.

China, Russia, the USA, Europe, even India have space programmes.

Why does India have a space programme when many of it’s rural villages don’t even have one flushing toilet and a sewer? The answer is complicated of course but one reason has to be the promise of new sources of raw materials; what in Klondike in the Wild West was nicknamed the ‘gold rush’. True to human greed for natural resources, these countries and others are not unaware of the promise of minerals ripe for harvesting from other planets and moons.

Without a World Government with an enforcement arm, it is hard to see how this rush into space and the allocation of unclaimed resources, will not turn into a laser gun fight.

On the 1st July 2019 the United States of America declared a new arm in it’s Defence Services; the Space Development Agency. Will the USA move itself into the role of World Government Peace Enforcement in space – like it has tried to enforce the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on Earth? Will the USA being armed in space be accepted by those being told they cannot do the same? Bear in mind the present difference of opinions between the USA and North Korea and Iran.

The USA may or has assumed a role of Sheriff or ‘protector’ of the valuable scientific, communications and defence satellites already in orbit around the earth. This role is enhanced by the prospect of the new 5G satellites being privately launched – over 2000 in number – to provide fast internet to rural communities around the globe. Who asked for 5G is a subject for another blog. In democracies, no one votes for what private enterprise decides needs doing for profit. Arms manufacturers usually lobby for war.

It just happens because science and technology get the smell of cordite and can’t stop themselves blowing a few banks, and a few more and a few more. Ethics committees don’t carry.

The hugely wealthy entrepreneurs, Elon Musk (BFR) and Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) both have their own visions for space exploration and travel. Will they be taking pot shots at each other across the craters on the moon or work together?

The space exploration of the 1960’s was famously driven by bitter competition between the Soviet Union and the USA. The latter likes to think it won the race but in the end what came out of those missions was a desire to monitor the earth from space, not keep going to the moon. This mutual desire and pooling of resources and know-how, evolved into a co-operative project which is the International Space Station.

Not surprisingly today, Russian and China want to co-operate in space and ban space weapons and they both signed a treaty in 2008 on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space.

On 21st October 2017, the first committee of the United Nations discussed the non-placement of weapons in space. 122 countries voted in favour of such a ban and five against, which included Georgia, Israel, the USA, Ukraine and France. 48 countries abstained, including the European Union.

The reasons for co-operation disarmament in space are obvious so let us consider reasons for having weapons in space.

There may be attempts by rogue states or state sponsored dissident groups, to interrupt or destroy or threaten to do this to civilian or military satellites.

positions of satellites at time of publishing were correct but may have moved now

The problem with this argument is that a rogue state, or state sponsored dissident group, is being lawful in it’s actions in one view and unlawful in another. Robin Hood was by some definitions, a terrorist. Black and white hats are for cowboy films. The hats in space wars are multi-coloured and nuanced.

For instance, a GPS satellite is used for civil purposes and military. So is the mobile phone network and satellites and direct satellite communications used in those areas where there is no mobile telephone network.

You can describe the action as good or bad depending on which facts you select to present. The criticism is that the ‘threat’ that the threat on which the military base their plans and actions, can be exaggerated for funding approval reasons and, or just plain politics. A government likely to declare war on false intelligence on earth is just as likely to do the same in space. Different place, same gunmen.

There is also a non-military threat; namely asteroids. These are objects that enter the earth’s solar system from outer space and may be on a collision course with earth. The possibility is that a weapon of some kind may be able to alter the course of the asteroid. Comparing the then with now, money would be better spent on protecting the earth from humans rather than asteroids in my view, that threat being more immediate.

The last Hollywood blockbuster myth is one that has appeared on cinema screens since movies were invented – alien invasion. I call this a myth since my belief is that any civilisation that has found and is watching us for malign reasons would have acted by now. Because they have not I conclude that they are benign and waiting for humans to become spiritually aware enough to stop wanting to destroy the planet and each other.

Little Blue Men (and perhaps some ladies)

This is Butch and Sundance story yet again. The question for governments and billionaire entrepreneurs in search resources and a life boat for planet earth is;

Should we spend our time and money on fighting each other in space, or on protecting the earth and building a sustainable future?

I know what my answer would be because I have seen the statistics about life on Mars and in my view, it’s a hell not worth visiting.

I hope and expect we will forget Mars as an objective in the next decade, as future space based telescopes spy out so called, exo-planets. Astronomers now believe it likely that most stars have a system of orbiting planets based on observations of light from those stars. The new generation of telescopes will find new exo-moons. With so many new places to visit that are in the ‘Goldilocks‘ range of environmental factors similar to earth, man in the future will be spoilt for choice for places to colonise.

Those who choose to live in such places will have one important choice above all others. Shall we take guns to these places? My advice,based on Butch and The Sundance, is don’t.

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.

Time Traveller

29/07/201929/07/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Good evening and welcome to another edition of Time Traveller. In this programme we ask a well known personality which seven items they would take into the future as their personal memories of today.

Our guest in the studio with me is Mrs. Teresa May, the recently deposed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Welcome Teresa May and let us start by introducing your first item which is a film you have liked of admired and wish to take into a time in the future.

Well Robin, firstly thank you for inviting me onto your programme and giving me a chance to talk on one of my favourite subjects, myself. My most memorable film would have to be For Whom the Bell Tolls. Politics, as someone once said, is ‘war by another means’ or was that me? Anyway, I recently have discovered just that. I knew that I had a slim chance of achieving anything let alone the Brexit debate. Now with a career worst legacy of a failing health service, failing prison service, failing criminal justice system (in particular the probation service), failing police service, failing education system, failing defence services (those aircraft carriers oh dear), failing transport infrastructure, failing social cohesion, failing high streets and housing provision, failing agriculture and fisheries, failing trade deals, failing immigration policy, failing universal credit benefits system – I feel that there I have done enough for the country that I love (tear). What a pity that even the Houses of Parliament are leaking and in a bad state of repair in particular the Big Ben bell that has not tolled for quite a long time.

Well, what an extraordinary legacy and one which few people could be less proud, so let’s move on. Give us you favourite piece of music that you would take with you into the future.

Ah! Yes well this would have to be one of the places I would like to visit which is the Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. I believe the Chinese have a little something walking around there already and I would like to make similar ever decreasing circles in the dust bowls and craters so abundant there and not be asked awkward questions by members of the opposition and press.

A fine choice and somewhere we hope you will be able to go and stay perhaps, in the future? Your next choice is to consider a favourite meal that you would want to enjoy on the moon.

Ah! Well that’s a easy one because I expect it will not be so abundant in the future as it is now – good old British ‘fish and chips’. Because with the Fisheries and Farming policies of my previous government will mean that there are hardly any fish left in the seas in the future and no casual labourers to pick the potatoes rotting in the fields.

Extraordinary to contemplate no fish and chips but yes, perhaps you have sown those seeds not least when you were a disastrous Home Secretary who did little to reduce uncontrolled immigration (nervous laugh). So let us move on to your next choice which is a painting you would like to take into the future.

Can I have The Last Supper by Leonardo de Cohen, even though it is painted on a wall?

The whole wall is yours.

Yes, because whilst I don’t think I am Jesus (well not yet anyway) I have to consider my last appearance in the House of Commons and how nice the other disciples, I mean politicians, were to me. There was so much praise for my character and policies, saying how clever I was and how much I had done for the country I love selflessly – I know it was all untrue but what a lovely fantasy.

OK, a good choice and one which will remind you of your prophet like status at least in your own household if you include your cat. So next we have a poem for you to choose and take into the future. What would that be Teresa May?

Well Robin, I am not really one to read poetry mainly because I can’t understand most of it written with so many words missed out. But I think the words of the hymn Jerusalem by William Blake would remind me of the ‘green and pleasant land’ that England once was before my inept environment policies to reduce climate change turned England into a burnt and unpleasant desert.

What about the other countries of the UK?

I can’t see that they will still want to be part of a Brexited desert by then and will have gone off in their own directions to maintain the models of prosperity that I strived for and never achieved.

Great, so nearing the end of the programme we just have two more requests for you. What novel would you bring with you into the future?

That’s a simple one. I’d like the Secret Life of Walter Mitty because I can identify so closely with the main character whose name I forget? Is it Teresa…

No it’s Walter Mitty.

Yes, so there is this fantacist who dreams of all sorts of accomplishments way above his or her real life potential and abilities and creates all sorts of confusion amongst the people around him or her. That so reminds me of the me I love!

Marvellous, how interesting and finally then we have to ask what play you would take into the future.

That would be The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. I have always found in my career as a politician, that it matters little what you say and more how you say it. If you sound unsure of yourself it will show, even if it’s the most obvious and benign policy you are suggesting people will want to shrug it and you off. However if you come up with the most bizarre and unpractical ideas but are completely and utterly earnest in your pursuit of them, well, doors open, as they did for me.

Astonishing. An one luxury item you would like to bring with you into the future you describe so well?

Can I have a Tesla submarine. I do believe that in the future we will no longer be living on the land on account of global desertification and will have moved into the seas to earnestly carry on the destruction of the planet to the very end. Therefore I think a nice shiny Tesla submarine powered by the phosphorescence of tiny planktony things will be the perfect place to contemplate the last days of my life.

A little domed perspex window into a world of dying coral and empty abysses?

Oh, yes, what a wonderful legacy.

Teresa May, thank you for causing all the worlds problems and being on this edition of Time Traveller.

Boris Gump

23/07/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The End Game for Brexit

Only a vain fool would want to be prime minister of the United Kingdom today. Teresa May was greatly flattered when she was asked to take the poisoned chalice of leadership. Today, 22 July 19 is her last day of holding that chalice.

There was little democracy in the process of electing the new prime minister of the United Kingdom today. Only members of the conservative party were eligible to vote – almost 160,000 of them which is just 0.000625% of the population of the United Kingdom. This process was preferred to a general election for what reason? Could there have been a fear of losing the majority of two seats in the House of Commons and therefore power?

This absence of a sizeable working majority, an apparent inability to consult with like minded partners and her private belief in ‘remaining’, was what ultimately brought down Teresa May, as I see it.

So having decided that the country has no right to choose their next prime minister, ‘they’ decided to pitch a ‘remainder’ against a ‘leaver’ as candidates to – well – leave. Which one do you think was expected…no…intended to win? Yes, the leave campaigner was always going to win.

Unfortunately for Boris Johnson, he will have to act out his dreams of being a right honourable politician whilst facing an impossible situation. It’s like arriving at five in the morning at the Glastonbury music festival after an all night concert in which all the bands were booed off stage. Only a single cleaner is to be seen sweeping up debris from the back of the stage.

Come on Boris, get your ukulele out and give us a number!

shouts someone from the crowd. They are not quite sure how he got there but they are willing to sit through one more act before the stage is dismantled.

Vanity makes you so thick skinned you find yourself being handed a battered ukulele (called the Withdrawal Agreement) and tuning it’s three remaining strings. You can now say you have been in a band at Glastonbury 2019, when your grand kids ask you Boris.

But he is not so poor a politician that he has forgotten to organise a bus to take him home. It sits at the back of the stage with the engine just ticking over. The driver leans against an open door dragging on cigarette. This bus has written on the side; ‘no deal’.

Many politicians cringe at the thought of a ‘no deal’ with the danger of a catalogue of unintended consequences emerging from it like the Monty Python one ton weight descending from above. The EU commissioners are expecting the £39 billion pound debt to be paid by the United Kingdom. Failure to do this would leave the UK’s reputation as an honourable nation in tatters, the pound would crash and investors rush to remove capital and businesses from the nation.

Yet Boris has cleverly wrapped up this ‘no deal’ option in a transparent tissue of lies paper. ‘This is on the table so that we have bargaining power’ the public are told. But of course the mere presence of this option means that there would be no deceit if it were decided to be used. After all, the problems faced by Boris Johnson are so unmanageable that ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ is an appealing Party ploy.

And when the unexpected consequences start appearing one by one, he can say that none of this was his fault. Third parties such as the EU commissioners and Teresa May and all the other political parties, were the cause of the chaos now falling from the skies.

One such cloud burst, in my view, will inevitably be the countries that make up the United Kingdom seeking independence. I expect Northern Ireland to vote to become part of Eire (and Europe) first. That will pave the way for Scotland to seek independence and perhaps even the north of England!

Boris will be like the male lead in a farce that ends with his trousers around his ankles and a chicken on his head – but then – I expect he would rather like that look.

I am disheartened when I listen to people asked for their views on Brexit on TV. They expect there to be some sort of change after Brexit but rarely state what that might be. The ‘end game’ is lost in the excitement of the ‘present game’.

I am reminded of the ‘independence’ parties held in countries in Africa as the colonial powers withdrew in the 1950’s. The national exuberance and excitement lasted several days. New national flags were flown from windows and vehicles, horns blaring. People danced in the streets all because they were ‘free’ without pausing to think what that meant.

I make no excuse for colonialism which was clearly wrong. But when the European countries left Africa there was a political vacuum. Despots and power hungry ‘leaders’ filled the parliaments and military top jobs. Corruption and victimisation of populations became normal. People found the end game was no better than before – sometimes worse.

I wonder what will be the ‘end game’ for Brexit, once the bunting has been taken down from the streets parties.

Nigel Farage will disappear from the scene because his great ‘oversimplification of the facts’ will be over.

All that will be left will be a resounding silence, little direction in the shape of cleverly managed new prospects.

The EU will treat the UK as positively second class; why shouldn’t they? And America will not save the UK from nasty Europe this time round – unless you think President Trump is a very very good person… very loyal and trustworthy person who loves British Trump…Boris Gump.

Lunar Madness – Apollo ll

18/07/201918/07/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

On the fiftieth anniversary (20^th July 1969) of the first lunar mission and landing on the moon – I dedicate this blog to all explorers.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the name given to the American space programme to reach the moon, was a bit odd? Apollo is the Greek and Roman god associated with the sun – not the moon. Was it used because the mission to send men to the moon was totally male dominated? The mission objective clearly stated, in the words of President John F Kennedy :

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.

Indeed, there were no female astronauts at that time, apparently on account that they were considered not to have the physical strength and willingness to take risks that men do. Ironically, today female astronauts are known to be physically more suited to space travel and averse to risk taking for the benefit of the entire crew.

The First Astronaut – Apollo (about to launch a thunder bolt)

It is also curious that earth’s Moon is not the only moon in the solar system. All the other moon’s are given the names of gods (except for Uranus which has moon named after characters from Shakespeare plays). The word moon is strangely containing two adjacent spheres! But more importantly Moon or Menses has proto-Indo-European linguistic roots and is older than Lunar which is Latin. Moon is closer to menses and month relating to the female cycle.

It being 1969, the male symbolism prevailed. Apollo had a bow and arrow and was the god of archery – if that is sufficient imagery for a the masculine principle seeking and penetrating the feminine circular target.

A British rocket of the 1960’s for launching satellites was named the Black Arrow. An even more curious historical eponymy is that Stevenson’s 1829 railway engine was also named The Rocket. A symbol Sigmund Freud could also have written a chapter about.

Whatever the reason’s for naming the Apollo mission, the shallowness of the venture is evidenced by the fact that fifty years on no nation has repeated it. The reason is clear. There was no material benefit in going to moon – effectively a desert. Instead in the 1960’s there was a ‘cold war’ between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. The Soviets were ahead of the Americans with the launching of the first unmanned and then a manned earth satellite. The ‘land of the free’ was out to prove its technical, economic and political superiority and they did.

The Scientist’s at the time preferred space missions to be unmanned and crammed full of scientific experiments. Robotics and remote communication meant that manned missions were scientifically speaking – a waste of payload.

But the politicians wanted pictures and pictures / film had to contain an all American explorer laying claim the moon by planting the stars and stripes flag.

As an aside, there is a conspiracy theory that the entire Apollo 11 mission was faked. This was achieved by using a Hollywood film studio to recreate a believable lunar landscape on which actors could land and leap about. Personally I expect there was a ‘back up plan’ to the real lunar landing – given that the mission was highly risky. If the American astronauts crash landed then the political fallout would be as damaging as a successful mission, rewarding. So it is highly likely, in my view, that there was a plan to fake the landing if necessary in the National interest. It is these films and images that are referred to by the conspirers as evidence of a fake landing.

As it turned out, the final descent in the lunar Lander was almost a disaster. There was only another three seconds of fuel in the tank for Buzz Aldrin to land ‘The Eagle’ lunar module.

Buzz Buzz Buzz Busy Busy Busy B

But why did these men risk their lives so publicly and for so little scientific benefit? Clearly as patriots and explorers from a gene pool of risk taking ‘settlers’ – the chosen crew were dedicated to their mission. These were not humans landing on the moon, this was America – The Eagle.

Another great irony was the ‘elephant in the moon’, which was that the destination could hardly be more adverse to human survival. It was known that the Moon was a ball of dust and rock with extreme temperatures and no means to sustain human life. It was and is, more deadly than ‘Death Valley’ in California.

Hardly surprising then that the picture from Apollo missions that brought most gasps from the crew and earth dwellers alike, was the view of the blue planet itself. Seen for the first time from a considerable distance the earth looked both majestic and fragile. A lonely jewel in a forbidding black landscape.

We know today from subsequent unmanned missions to the planets, that the earth remains the only place on which human life can exist without technological reliance. If the reason behind the moon mission was partly to find a suitable ‘life boat’ to use to escape a dying earth – then what we know now gives little hope for the perpetuity of mankind.

Only one of the moons of Uranus will be a suitable place to land when our sun expands and swallows earth in a few billion years time.

For now only Mars appears sufficiently similar to Earth to sustain colonies – but a fragile existence this would be with the need to grow food on a large scale to sustain just a few ‘settlers’. It will be a long while before there is a Mars Mc Donalds and they probably won’t sell burgers.

There is another lesson to learn from history and that is ‘possession’. Traditional declaration of ownership on behalf of a nation by explorers such as Captain James Cook, was the raising of a national flag. No teams of lawyers were necessary historically to defend the rights any indigenous people, who were usually shot if they caused dissent.

Even if no Martians line up to defend Mars from future settlers, there will need to be teams of international and interplanetary lawyers to deem who owns what. Treasures such as mine-able water ice will be precious enough for significant sums of what ever is used for money in the future. If Earthlings continue their war-like ways on other planets, as they do on their precious earth, then there will be a giant step backward for mankind, instead of one forward – a type of lunar madness from whose bourne no man returns.

M – OO – N

Ap – O -11 – O

Hammering in the Screw

14/07/201914/07/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

Readers of this blog will know that the author is fascinated by the science and art of problem solving. Problem solving is a daily occurrence and yet is rarely taught or even considered as a subject worthy of study.

The brain can acquire an commanding attitude that sometimes dismisses objectifying a problem. Either from previous experience or acquired behaviour – a solution ‘comes to mind’ that is promoted without question. This idea is regarded and defended as the only possible solution and perceived as unquestionably better to any alternative.

Let us take an example from the world of sociology, ethics, law, health and politics. The example I am using is ‘drugs’.

The ‘normal’ response to the problems created by citizens who take drugs, has been for the State to make them illegal.

Avid problem solvers will already have noticed that when the problem has a stack of layers already listed;

Social stability

Economics and Taxation

Ethics and Religion

Law

Health

Politics

– then the solution has to apply at every level of the problem.

It is not difficult to appreciate that the ‘make it illegal’ or ‘bang-em-up’ solution, only addresses one layer of the problems associated with drug taking.

In the 1930’s recession in North America a law against the consumption of alcohol was introduced known as ‘prohibition’. We are probably all familiar with the unintended consequences of this law in handing over the production and supply of alcohol into the hands of criminals. The government lost the taxes associated with the sale of alcohol and little benefit was gained by anyone except the criminal gangs. The law was repealed because it didn’t solve the problem – if there ever was a defined problem!

But even today the Indian States of Bihar, Gujarat, Bagaland are today places where alcohol is banned. Despite this alcohol consumption in India has risen 72.5%* in the last twenty years (*source Wikipedia).

In the United Kingdom in 1971 an act of parliament was passed called the Misuse of Drugs Act. This was heralded as a so called ‘war on drugs’. But because the problem was only considered at one level, the laws have failed to the extent that contemporary analysts are proposing more inclusive solutions to the problem.

Instead of examining these alternative solutions the more general point here is that they need to be wide ranging in their origins and effect. Just taking a narrow attitude such a s ‘law making’ is ineffective.

Therefore a problem solver might examine ‘what is a drug?’ first. In the religion of Islam, a drug is categorised as an ‘intoxicant’ and believers are forbidden to become ‘intoxicated’. This is clever because it does not attempt to list all drugs that are harmful, in the present and future, (as lawyers did in the UK and other Western countries) – it just bans the consequences of any drug. It does not even define the point at which a person becomes ‘intoxicated’. The clerics and interpreters of Sharia law have erred towards ‘zero tolerance’ – and gets a bad press in liberal democracies.

However, it has to be recognised that religious laws can be considerably more effective than criminal law and overcome the problems associated with criminalising drug addicts.

But even this strand of a solution to drug taking is not completely effective; some Muslims drink alcohol. Therefore a problem solver might attempt to define what degree of success in reducing the consumption of drugs is being aimed at. In a competitive world it is natural to attempt a one hundred per cent success rate, but a reality check is usually needed on what can really be achieved. Is a person ‘intoxicated’ after one beer?

Like all ‘genies’ and malign inventions – once set free they can never be completely put back into the bottle. Perhaps for this reason, in western liberal democracies at least, an increasing level of tolerance is being given to drug use and users.

There is clearly a sliding scale defining drugs, with mild drug taking at one end (coffee, tea, medicines) to hard drug taking at the other (heroine, cocaine, alcohol). Societies assess the positive effects of drugs against the negative such as in the production of medicines. Desired consequences of medicinal drugs are balanced against the side-effects, some of which may be worse than the symptoms of the problem!

Some European countries such as Portugal are treating drug addicts as patients with an illness rather than criminals who will change as a result of punishment. The statistics on the success rates between the two approaches would make interesting comparison. What is of interest for this essay, is how a change of direction and depth in the problem solving process, may be more successful than the previous direction and depth.

Clearly the politicians and law makers (with an knowledge of changing social attitudes) need to be on board with the idea of such changes , as do health and social workers and the criminal justice system.

Any lasting solution has to know what it is trying to achieve and how to measure that goal. It must also take into account how to change and how to control the various strands of the solution involving the multiple agencies within society.

Many people in power like to think they know the solution by some sort of divine gift of seer-ship. This makes them blind to whether the measures they propose will work and by what measure they can be considered effective in their goal.

Reluctance to change is familiar in problem solving and is characterised as a person engaged in digging a hole in the wrong place. When the error is pointed out ‘you won’t find water here mate!’ the digger just digs deeper.

Or when the carpenter only has one tool in the workshop, this tool is used for anything that it can hit. No question is asked whether the metal thing sticking up is a nail or a screw. The problem is a ‘metal thing’ and the solution is the only tool in the workshop.

This type of thinking is clearly insane when viewed analytically – and yet whole societies and national systems of government appear to be digging holes deeper and hitting screws with hammers.

What do you think is the solution?

Every Breath You Take

09/07/201909/07/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

For about eight years now I have been driving a 2.2 litre diesel estate Toyota. The ‘Top Gear’ television presenters drove a selection of similar cars across Europe to see which went the furthest. Jeremy Clarkson found that his diesel Jag used so little fuel that he ran the air-con and anything else he could to use more fuel. Large cars have space for large fuel tanks, so their range can be phenomenal. Mine will drive from southern Spain to the north coast of Spain without stopping – a journey of 1000km.

Last week I hired an ultra small Toyota Aygo car in the UK; a nice little automatic with a petrol engine. When I came to fill up the tank I was disappointed to find that it had travelled about 45mpg whereas my trustee diesel gives me over 55 mpg.

So why are diesel cars getting such a bad press at the moment? Diesel engines were preferred in 1997 by the European Union as a response to the Tokyo Climate Change Protocol. These engines produce on average 120g of CO2 per km whilst petrol engines reach 200g of CO2 per km. This is because diesel engines cold burn and so use less fuel. These figures do not include the energy used to make and dispose of the vehicle most of which will come from fossil fuels. It makes sense to make cars that last several decades in order to stretch out the environmental impact of production and disposal.

But the problems with just the emissions from internal combustion engines, has been re-defined. Whilst CO2 emissions must continue to be reduced, it has been recognised that the toxic gases and particulates from engines are causing a serious health risk – especially for children.

So when you examine these two types of engines, the toxic gas produced by older diesel cars is Nitrogen Oxide, in various compounds. Petrol cars can reduce this with a catalytic converter whilst diesel cars require particulate filters that are regularly maintained. If they are maintained then the NO gases gases from diesel cars can be reduced by 90%.

Governments have been victims of their own ‘political’ thinking; putting problems into compartments rather than viewing the whole issue and how each aspect of it interconnects.

Complexity challenges even those minds with an expensive private education (i.e. politicians). The lazy solution is to reduce the problem to something people can understand – especially voters.

The bottom line is that neither petrol nor diesel engines should be in use in the 21^st century. There should already be ‘electric only’ zones in all urban centres with buses and taxis leading the way.

Cars do not need to be scrapped on account of their motive power source becoming a problem. New zero carbon, zero particulate engines can be retro-fitted – even into fondly maintained ‘classic’ cars. Friends of the Earth believe we need to achieve this in less than a decade, whilst the UK government thinks 2050 acceptable.

When I was a student in London in the 1970’s, I hung a sign under my bicycle saddle with the words;

‘No Noise, No Fumes’

I didn’t buy a car until I was 30. Was I ahead of my time? No.

Electric cars had been the brain child of inventors in the 1830s. By 1900, New York City had a fleet of electric taxis. The electric car designed by an American, Oliver Fritchie, could travel 100 miles between charges but it could not compete with the Model T Ford on price or range. The rest, as they say, is history, because in those times governments were oblivious to the consequential problem they were leaving their ancestors – us.

1970’s Electric Car – with only a 40 mile range and apparently you had to stand on the roof.

Today governments spend considerable time and resources in a phoney ‘war’ against terrorism. ‘Phoney’ because conventional troops cannot overcome guerilla tactics – as was proved to be the case in Northern Ireland.

The massive expenditure of public money on this ‘war’ is justified because terrorism grabs the imagination and emotions of voters – by it’s very nature as a font of repeated horrors.

You might be forgiven for wondering which is the greater issue – millions of citizens (especially the young) dying of lung related diseases caused by internal combustion engines or citizens dying in terrorist related incidents?

When that question is considered statistically – resources should be allocated to each problem in proportion to amount of human misery and suffering it generates. They should not be allocated on the basis of which problem gets most votes and the most media coverage.

Regrettably terrorist acts will generally sell more newspapers than children dying silently in hospitals of lung diseases or adults with heart problems.

Newspapers inflict the final blow of horror and despair on behalf of the terrorists into the hearts and minds of victimised populations. Margaret Thatcher knew this and ordered a policy of non-reporting of terror related stories in Northern Ireland.

To his credit, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has identified the toxic air of his city as a very real and serious contemporary problem. He has made small steps to reduce it – such as charging motorists of the most polluting vehicles to enter the centre of London. The European guidelines on air pollution were exceeded within the first two months in 2018 in London. Is this another reason for the UK to leave Europe? No more awkward tests of the atmosphere in our cities?

When the United Kingdom first became a member of the European Union one of the directives from the European Parliament was for the UK to clean up it’s bathing beaches.

This was duly ignored for the first year. Why should the UK not continue to send it’s children to play on filthy polluted beaches? But the following year the EU reminded the UK of it’s obligation in law. The UK reluctantly (one expects) began to clean up it’s inshore waters; beaches are now awarded Blue Flags for water quality and facilities.

Now in 2019 the River Thames in London has been transformed from a toxic environment in which nothing could live, into a clean river with fish and mammals such as seals – on view from the Houses of Parliament.

So why now should clean air be such an difficult objective for successive governments?

If the problem is short term planning on account of the four year term of office for elected representatives in parliament – then perhaps politicians need to start to deal with the complexity of uniting long term and short term objectives.

The current air pollution problems in the UK are not local – just look at Mombai and Beijing. There has to be consideration – however complex- on how to integrate solutions within complementary European and global strategies and policies.

Clean air has to be one of the most fundamental of human rights. If we cannot wish it on ourselves, how is it likely to ever happen for our long suffering environment?

Quick Quick Slow Slow

03/06/2019 / Matters Blog - Things that Matter to Me / Leave a comment

The British Raj in India was a colossal enterprise, whatever your views on its moral worth. It was set up in 1858 and ended in 1947, lasting almost one hundred years. The creation of the instruments of power and their administration were not simple. They were accompanied over time by the development of education, public health, railways, missions, industry, irrigation and other essential aspects of the colonisation.

The point of interest is the time which this took to establish. To say that it took almost one hundred years would not be an exaggeration. In effect, at the time of the rebellion and the handing back of rule, the process has continued as self rule took control, and continues to do so.

Vast undertakings take vast amounts of time at huge environmental, economic and social costs. The concept of colonisation was not new and had been exercised in many parts of Africa by the British before – so they knew the complexity involved.

Complexity always adds time to tasks whether political or such things as domestic repairs. At a certain point in home DIY for instance, you realise that you don’t know what you are doing or don’t have the skills and ring a professional trades person. The reason is that one person cannot know everything.

So when faced with the intention of a task, it is important to estimate how long it will take. Will it be completed this afternoon or in an hundred years?

Reluctantly – we should apply this understanding to the process of ‘Brexit’.

The initiation and development of the European Union goes back to the 1951 Treaty of Paris and the 1957 Treaty of Rome (although it could be argued that both Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler and before them ‘Rome in the West‘ – sought to do the same by means of force rather than persuasion).

The institutions of the Union have themselves developed beyond their original aims of economic unity. The process to the present day has been complex and now involves over half a billion citizens.

It should not be expected to be unreasonable therefore that the process of leaving such an organisation is equally complex. What might be expected?

Rules of leaving as agreed when joining.
The Penalties for leaving as agreed when joining.
The Process of leaving as agreed when joining.
The preparation and planning, instigation, monitoring and completion of leaving.

Which leads to the question, ‘how long is this going to take?’

There appears to have been insufficient consideration during the formation of the European Union, to the process leaving the Union. It was after all, set up in the way of many religions, to attract new members. The unthinkable process of losing members is naturally inclined to become ‘unthinkable’.

The managerial notion of ‘we’ll deal with that at the time’ or ‘a dynamic assessment’ is not a good one when applied to organisations of this size and complexity.

Ordinary citizens can be forgiven for buying into such inane over simplifications as ‘Brexit means Brexit’. In the present western cultures where the idea of the expert is ridiculed and ordinary citizens believe themselves able to understand what they do not understand, a simple question like ‘do you want to leave the European Union‘ is not challenged as in itself, absurd.

Supported by the idea that ‘Britain once ruled over one quarter of the world’ – megalomania takes hold. The simpler the chants of those wishing to ignore complexity, the more supporters rally round.

If the problem was considered in the manner that civil servants are empowered to do, then almost certain more caution would be applied.

What is the aim?

What is already in place to achieve it?

What extra measures are needed to achieve it?

How long will it take to achieve it?

When will we know that the aim is accomplished?

These questions are the roots supporting the tree and like all roots, they extend in directions and distances unknown.

Suffice to say the withdrawal of any state from the European Union requires considerable planning and resources. The planning stage should start at the inception of the Union and be part of the conditions of joining – in order to simplify subsequent negotiations.

Any problems, such as politically sensitive borders, should be required to be solved prior to the start of leaving.

The process of leaving should be phased rather than all aspects negotiated and initiated ‘with immediate effect’.

The phases should be given generous time periods. The spectacle of the United Kingdom repeatedly applying for ‘extensions of time’ merely to start the withdrawal process is not something a manager of even a small company or organisation would be comfortable with.

Each phase would encompass one aspect of being a member of the European Union. In this way, proper consideration of the details of the present and proposed arrangements would be given.

Lessons should be learnt from the withdrawal of the European States from their colonies in Africa. Books could be written on this subject but in essence, there were problems created by the ‘political vacuum’ left after the transfers of power. These problems continue as symptoms at least, to the present day.

In my own way, I return to the reality that humans tend to become victims of their thoughts, rather than the masters.

It is possible to consider the absurd, and not realise that the matter is downright impossible to solve. Thinking itself is an inaccurate process, challenged continually by evidence from ‘the ground’.

So my own view of the process of leaving the European Union would be the phase each aspect and form consensus on this process based on the details of each phase.

To think that the process is simple and can be initiated at the stroke of a pen, has been done before. History as always is our teacher when this has happened.

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!