Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Page 266 of 328

Elizabeth the Sixth

30 May 2007 / / 6 Comments

This stinker from a Times article comparing the British and Japanese monarchies:

Elizabeth II is England’s fifth female monarch.

That makes the present Queen our sixth female monarch, not including Lady Jane Grey or the Empress Matilda.
Unless of course they mean monarchs of The United Kingdom… but since the Act of Union was in 1707, that would mean the list only numbers three, which would be doubly wrong.
Don’t worry – I’ve already written in.
The Times makes no such embarrassing errors regarding the number of female monarchs in the Japanese monarchy – it correctly reminds us that woman are barred from succession to the Crysanthemum Throne, something I have complained about before. Then, I argued that this law, at the very heart of a country’s political system, served to demean women and should be abolished. Looking at the list above, I might also point out to the Japanese that the reign of a woman often co-incides with some of the most successful periods in British history. Why not give it a try?

Redesign by stealth

25 May 2007 / / 13 Comments

I have made some subtle changes to the design of this blog. I was getting slightly annoyed with my handwritten title, the enormity of which always ran the risk of being pretentious. I’ve replaced it with some half-hidden lettering instead.
A few more alterations are on their way. I had hoped to do them all together, and launch the new design to much fanfare. However, I really don’t have the time to make a concerted effort. Eventually I snapped and began making tweaks – expect a few more in the weeks to come.

Affirmative Aliyah

25 May 2007 / / 31 Comments

A month-old article on OpenDemocracy.net has got me thinking again about differing levels of citizenship and equality in Israel. Laurence Louër highlights the growing minority of Arab Israelis, and how an increase in their numbers means an increase in their political power. This, he says, “is a challenge to the country’s very self-definition.”
Louër cites the legal organisation Adalah (with whom I have worked), who deal with Arab minority rights in Israel. Their campaigns centre around the fact that Arab citizens of Israel, be their Muslim, Christian or Druze, are not afforded equal rights as their Jewish fellow citizens. The charge, at its most ferocious, is one of apartheid. As I have found, this is a contentious word for a contentious issue – a more benign accusation might be something like ‘discrimination on the basis of ethnicity’. Either way, the complaint is that people are not all equal in the eyes of the law or the state.
Some might say that the inequalities are surely the result of social frictions, of the kind that we see in the UK. This might have some truth. Adalah’s complaint, however, is that the state also enshrines an imbalance in law. Inequalities are therefore magnified, ethnic conflict is exacerbated, and the idea of democracy is compromised.
To my mind (and Louër’s too), the most pertinent example of this inequality is the ‘Law of Return’, whereby anyone of Jewish origin may ‘make aliyah’ and take Israeli citizenship. No similar right is granted to those who might be relatives of Arab citizens, or indeed those who did, just a generation ago, actually live within the borders of what is now Israel. The justifications for this (when they are not biblical) cite the necessity of such a law to maintain the Jewish character of the state. I have written before on why I think states should not have an official religion or ethnicity. I also acknowledge that many see Arab Israeli issues as just once facet of the wider Palestinian population (indeed, Louër reminds us that most Arab Israelis define themselves as ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’). For now, then, one observation:
Isn’t the ‘Law of Return‘ an example of Affirmative Action? The state is, after all, performing a kind of social engineering, seeking to influence its social demography. Certain ethnic groups are awarded preferential treatment, gaining admission by jumping the queue. The justification for this policy is that past injustices have been done to that group, and the preferential treatment redresses the balance. If the ‘Law of Return’ is indeed Affirmative Action, then don’t the arguments against Affirmative Action apply to the ‘Law of Return’ too? How do those who have made aliyah feel about jumping the queue?

One cheer for John Howard

14 May 2007 / / 5 Comments

Dear old Melanie Phillips is correct in praising the Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s decision to prevent the country’s cricket team from touring Zimbabwe.

Cancelling sporting fixtures, as we all know, is a powerful weapon to use against repressive regimes for which such recognition is all important. … What a difference, for example, from the behaviour back in 2004 of our own government, whose supposedly “ethical” foreign policy did not actually stretch to stopping the England cricket team from going on a similar tour of Zimbabwe.

Then, the English cricket authorities were reluctant to stop the tour because of the huge financial penalties that would be imposed for what would have been a technical ‘breach of contract’. In such a situation, it/we desperately needed a political leader to protect the players, and agree that the British taxpayer would underwrite any fines. As we know, citizens have no objections to footing the bill for such things, if they are persuaded that it is the morally right action. But Jack Straw provided no such leadership. Nor did Tony Blair.
But with 400 words still left to fill, Phillips veers off course.

Mr Howard, in sharp contrast, is entirely free of such absurd and crippling cultural cringe. He believes in Australia and its Western values. He thinks these values are superior to any alternatives.
And it is this total absence of equivocation in upholding the national interest which explains his robust defence of both Australian identity and Western civilisation against attack. … Understanding that the war against civilisation is being waged from within as well as from without, he abolished multiculturalism at a stroke by renaming Australia’s Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, turning it into the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
He has also called for a “root and branch” overhaul of the way history is taught in Australian schools, and said pupils should have “some understanding” of British and European history, the Enlightenment and the influence of Christianity on Western civilisation.

Melanie Phillips seems to forget about the plight of the Australian Aboriginies. It is precisely this narrow definition of ‘national interest’ which systematically destroyed their robust, sustainable communities. It is precisely this rhetoric of ‘civilisation’ which led to the indigenous people being forced off their land, which led to families being torn apart. It is precisely this assertion of dominance which led to the demoralisation of an entire race. Phillips’ delight in these assertions of supremacy, and her praising their increase under the leadership of John Howard, is a demonstration either ignorance or hypocrisy. A robust multicultural policy, which proudly asserts the value of the Aboriginal culture in the face of unrelenting attack, is a good thing and should be encouraged. What a shame the Department of Multicultural Affairs was abolished. There is nothing ‘crippling’ about a bit of cultural cringe in this case, and Australia could do with a little more of it.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑