Robert Sharp

Pupil Barrister

Tag: Debate (Page 21 of 27)

Eye for an eye

27 July 2006 / / 20 Comments

A couple of sound-bites have been been bandied around the political theatre these past few days. They almost sound like truisms, and have thus escaped any kind of critical examination.
First, we’ve heard Condolezza Rice say that any ceasefire

must be “lasting permanent and sustainable.”

Why? Surely any ceasefire is better than none? Even during a temporary and shaky ceasefire, people aren’t getting killed. There may be strategic – even humanitarian – reasons why it is preferable not to let up on the Lebanon bombardment, but Condi isn’t making those arguments. We’re left with the implication that, if Israelis are going to be attacked in Haifa, we might as well bomb some Lebanese too.
Second, have a look at these comments from Tony Blair, to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions:

Let me repeat what I said yesterday. It is important that Israel’s response is proportionate and does its best to minimise civilian casualties, but it would stop now if the soldiers who were kidnapped—wrongly, when Hezbollah crossed the United Nations blue line—were released. It would stop if the rockets stopped coming into Haifa, deliberately to kill innocent civilians. If those two things happened, I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I will be the first to say that Israel should halt its operations.

Forget the debate about proportionate or disproportionate force. The logic here is that because one side are the first to start something, they must also be the first to end it. This kind of justice may work on the playground… but on an international stage this logic leads to a morality contingent on what other people do. Weather-vane ethics. Since Israeli military operations have not been effective at securing the release of the Israeli prisoners, or in stopping the ball-bearing laden rockets being shot into Haifa, it is legitimate to ask whether the bombing of Lebanon is right or wrong in itself.
Given the source of the ideologies on both sides in the conflict, it is unsurprising that this entire situation is being conducted according to Old Testament morality: An Eye For an Eye, et cetera. We need something more radical.

Craig Murray

12 July 2006 / / 3 Comments

Craig Murray is the former ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan. He was dismissed from his position after highlighting human rigts abuses by the governing regime, and has now written a book about his time there. Unfortunately for Craig, some of the documents he uses to back up his case are, according to the lawyers, apparently protected by Crown Copyright. So he has been forced to remove them from his site or else face a court battle which would amount to the price of a London house.
That’s unfortunate for Craig. Unfortunately for his detractors, the documents are (according to Chicken Yoghurt):

If you haven’t seen the documents, they’re available here, here, here, here, here, here, and as a bittorrent here.

I’ve always thought it funny that net denizens use the word ‘here’ to describe something that is quite obviously ‘there’, but nevermind. The documents are also here, because I know a minority of people will appreciate a .SIT archive.
I link to the documents because I have read them, and having read them I believe that:

  1. they have no commercial value in themselves (i.e. even if Criag’s book makes money, it will be because of Craig’s ideas and biography, and not because these documents are valuable in themselves); and
  2. they do not contain anything that is a threat to national security – bringing this government into further disrepute in this matter does not harm national security… in fact, I think it enhances it.

There’s also a discussion over whether obscure bloggers can do this kind of publishing with impunity, but I don’t think that is intertesting or relevant here. However, since there’s an open question over whether duplicating other people’s stuff is above board, Chris Lightfoot suggests that people request the same documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

A Most Respectful Letter from an Englishman in Scotland, to a Scotsman in England; In Which the Subject of Their Shared Britishness is Discussed at Some Length.

6 July 2006 /

This was my shortlisted entry into the Ben Pimlott Essay Prize. The winning entry, by Rowland Manthorpe, was published by The Guardian last week.
Read close, o my best beloved, and picture the scene. It is a cold and idle weekday in February. The dance-floor at L— Nightclub is barely a third full. The clientele are young, but in this light it is difficult to be sure that they are over eighteen. Many wear those jumpers with hoods you will have seen in photographs. Thin girls in white denim dresses have braids in their hair. Three youths in turbans lurk in the corner, by the dirty pillar that blocks the view from the bar.
Chunky hip-hop performer ‘Sway’ saunters on stage with the arrogance of a MOBO winner (for that is what he is). Behind him bounces his accompanist for this evening, DJ Turkish. They are both wearing Union Jack tea towels over their faces, like patriotic bank robbers. “These rappers couldn’t see me coming if they were vaginas with spectacles,” shouts Sway, before telling us a story about the mysterious Land of Harveynicks. The entertainment has begun.
We are in Edinburgh, Scotland’s capital – yes, you know it well, my friend! – in the shadow of the famous castle, where legions of tourists flock each summer to watch the tartan fuelled military tattoo. It is a place where English residents of the city complain that, these days, it is being over-run by Australians. It is a place where a man with a Ghanaian name is reciting American-inspired slam poetry, to a beat hammered out by a Turk from North London. And what of this young audience? Believe me when I tell you, if you were to conquer the countries of their parents, then truly the sun would never set upon your Empire.
Let us be clear, so we make no mistake. Your task in 2009 will be to unite all these people: The tartan tattoo day-trippers, the snobbish English students, the sullen Sikhs… and Sway, who waves the Union Jack proudly, just as you asked. You must convince them that they are one people, and that they all belong to the same privileged club. You must describe the values and the traditions that they must learn to love.
Continue reading

Ben Pimlott Essay Prize

1 July 2006 / / 2 Comments

I was delighted to be shortlisted for this year’s Ben Pimlott Essay Prize, run by the Guardian and the Fabian Society. The theme this year was “on whether history can help us define British identity”.
It was great to pull together some of the ideas on Britishness I have been reading and writing about online. Tragically, I fear my essay was too much like an extended blog post with not quite enough depth… and my particular offering was pipped at the post.
Rowland Manthorpe is still a student (and a good looking one at that, dammit). His winning essay is published in today’s Guardian. Excerpts from mine will be posted to Guardian Unlimited at some point, I believe. I’ll wait for the dust to settle before discreetly posting the entire thing to this blog…
Over at The Sharpener, Paul has posted his entry, while at Ministry of Truth Unity finds a true Brit: A Pakistani immigrant, British Citizen, hoping to become the first Asian MSP by standing on a platform of Scottish Independence.

Immoral Monarchy

29 June 2006 / / 33 Comments

At qwghlm, Chris dissects the ‘myth of 62p’, the amount that the Royals cost each UK resident, each year. He rightly points out that the figure is derived from the civil list, and does not include those associated costs such as security for royal visits and weddings. I might also add that the 62p figure is derived by dividing the total cost (£37.4m) by the population of the UK (approximately 60m), whereas it should be divided by the number of taxpayers, which would yield a significantly higher figure.
While I understand the nature of Chris’ argument, I fear it will fall on deaf ears. Debates over cost will always be futile, because – as he points out, in fact – many monarchists will declare 62p to be good value for money, and would be glad to pay more.
The argument over the monarchy is an argument over the very system of politics, not value judgements over the allocation of our shared wealth and resources. The debate cannot therefore be about value-for-money, or economics. The monarchy institutionalises privilege at the very centre of our political system. It would still be immoral even if it were free. In fact, it would still be immoral if the Queen paid us to be Head of State. Cutting down the civil list, and persuading the Royals to pay tax, are mere fudges designed to give the impression of progress, where in fact none is being made. It would be more honest if Her Majesty had kept her Royal Yacht, her private jets, and locked the tourists out of Buckingham Palace. We would then look upon her as she truly is: Not some kind of A list celebrity, but as the hereditary ruler of these islands, with dominon over us all, her subjects.
Queen's Coronation

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑