Notes from the Panopticon

Yet more moral hazards

In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law and order.~ Idi Amin Dada (mid-1920-2003)

A reply to the latest comments by threeportdrift and Peter Horne (see previous post).

Economic and moral hazard

There is indeed an economic hazard: if the authorities allow a failing bank to go under, confidence in the banking system might collapse, leading to the kind of financial crisis that the world suffered after 1929. And this is the moral hazard: by seeking to avoid the economic hazard, the authorities create a different one; banks will not be so careful in the future, so there is a risk of further failures. They will not be constrained by the need to look after their future well-being because they will expect the authorities to do so. So there is a trade-off. The authorities, in the case of Northern Rock, chose to avoid the economic hazard and no doubt they will bring in a raft of regulations to try to minimise the moral hazard they have created. "Moral hazard" is, perhaps, a misnomer in this case because the real effect is a shift in the nature of self-interest which must be the core of any business motivation. The important thing is that the trade-off is recognised for what it is, and that the authorities make a clearly thought-out decision based on the balance of dangers.

Help the poor

You are quite right to point out that this is similar to an argument that can be – and often is – made against providing financial support to the poor. If you give money to the poor, they will be discouraged from seeking gainful employment, others will lose their incentive to work and more people will choose to live on welfare. This is indeed a "moral hazard".

You also point out that the motive for supporting the poor is an ethical one (we don't like to see others suffer), while the motive for supporting a failing bank is an economic one (a failing bank could precipitate the collapse of the financial system, leaving the economy and all its participants devastated and unable to recover).

You don't say whether you think that the ethical motive is worth risking the moral hazard – a scrounger's charter as right-wingers would say. I suspect that you do and, if you do, I agree with you. But I would be cautious about how the poor are defined and how they should be helped. Without going into detail, people who are poor because they are unable to work should be first in the queue and the method by which their incapacity is assessed should be simple and clear, and should not be humiliating. (I have long thought that complaints about means tests are misplaced since everyone who works has to fill in a tax form, which itself is a means test. But listening to the debate about incapacity payments, I realised that the complexity of the rules and the humiliation associated with the tests are the real problem)

Falling on hard times

I also believe that people who have fallen on hard times should be supported financially and helped to recover. And the nature of the support should be such that they are given a strong incentive to go back to work (the poverty trap is an iniquitous moral hazard that has to be removed). And so on...

Taking advantage

To summarise, I believe that, when acting to solve a particular economic or ethical problem, the benefits should be weighed against the dangers of moral hazard. There is an unintended, but often predictable, danger that people adapt their behaviour to take advantage of the open hand of the state. And in framing its benevolence, there is always a risk that the state can find itself with a large and never-ending obligation.

Respect for the law

Now to your second point about loss of respect for the law. This goes to the heart of my point about moral hazard. The reason this issue is so important is that the law must earn respect, it should not be taken for granted. It is wrong that governments, like those of Robert Mugabe get away with grave misdeeds just because they are in charge of making the laws. It is iniquitous that a monster like Idi Amin was allowed to live out his life in comfortable exile just because he was a former leader of state. And in a different league, it is wrong that the British government should hide behind the doctrine of Crown immunity.

When I drafted my reply to your first comments, I tried to set out a list of necessary conditions for any law to be based on a firm foundation. It was too tough a task for a short note so I gave up. (It did, however, bear some relation to the list of criteria which Peter Horne cited.)Perhaps I should have persisted.

Bringing law into disrepute

My first criterion is that laws should not discriminate against any significant minority of the population. And I think all the examples that you cite are cases where efforts were made, not only to discriminate against minorities, but also against majorities. So the laws that so troubled Ghandi and the other notable civil rights protestors you mention would have fallen at the first hurdle. Your examples illustrate my point; they do not undermine it. If a government tries to do something by passing laws which brings the law into disrepute, it runs the risk of undermining respect for the law and opens the door to legitimate protest. This, as we saw in Northern Ireland, can lead to serious and fatal civil unrest.

Euthanasia

Other areas where there is "civil disobedience" on a lesser scale include the laws against euthanasia. The objection to these laws is widespread. Institutions which practice it are tolerated but any individual who participates in the act risks prosecution and incarceration. But this depends on the whim of the authorities, not a happy situation in an open society.

Sailing close to the wind

I do not agree with your last point about the effects on moral standards of moral turpitude of some of those in the public eye and those who feel they can circumvent the law. People will question their moral compass. It is human nature to sail close to the wind, but a complex and poorly-enforced legal structure has the paradoxical effect of creating a race between law-makers and the rest of us to find or to plug the loopholes in the law. A simple legal structure which reflects a morality which most of the population accepts will result in a decent and law-abiding society.

Law and religion

As for the escape to religion and fundamentalism, I believe that the horrors of Sharia law, the burning of heretics, the unofficial imprisonment of young women in the Magdalen Laundries of Ireland, and the social mayhem created by missionaries in the nineteenth century all speak for themselves. Legal structures based on religious conviction have repeatedly shown themselves to be fatally flawed. The fact that there is now an upsurge in evangelical movements is itself a demonstration of the way in which society is losing moral cohesion. And this, I believe, stems from governments legislating without giving full consideration to the moral hazards which their laws will generate.

Peter Horne and Leslie Stephen

In reply to Peter Horne's comment, I would agree that all human action has an impact on others, but the degree to which it affects others can vary considerably.

I agree that moral issues should be considered when deciding whether to curtail the liberty of individuals. It is the complexity of deciding what is worth doing, and whether the law is an appropriate mechanism for achieving any given aim, which makes me think we should err on the side of caution. My object has been to draw attention to the way the flood of laws introduced by the present government has made us all a little bit nastier. And that includes government ministers, political parties, civil servants and other administrators who, instead of focusing on serving society, duck and dive to gain advantage. One human quality that has vanished because of this over-administration is compassion. Automatic penalties without the intervention of a human being are becoming the norm.

Authority and autonomy

Swinging the emphasis in defining what laws are acceptable, from preventing harm to others towards which restraints are injurious, makes – to my mind – little difference. The point is that, in both cases, there is an authority which claims to know best what is good for others. And I deny that this is ever true (except for children or persons who are seriously lacking in mental or moral capacity). The key to good law lies in the three tests you mention, in research to discover what measures will be effective, and in open discussion and debate. With the vast number of laws that have recently been passed, it has obviously been impossible to carry out this process. And we are all paying the price.

Moral Hazards

The first sign of corruption in a society is that the end justifies the means. ~ Georges Bernanos (1888-1949)

Between a rock and a hard place

The term "moral hazard" has been around for a long time. It popped into consciousness most recently when Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, invoked it to explain why it is not always a good idea for the government to bail out a bank – specifically Northern Rock.

It's like this. People are grown-ups who navigate through the world by taking risks, some of which work out and some of which don't. This is especially true of the banking business. If the risks taken don't work out and the bank finds itself up s*** creek without a paddle, there will be a nasty fall out. Ordinary people with money in the bank will get hurt. If the government bails out the bank using tax payers' money, then the next bank will be less careful, believing that – if the worst comes to the worst – the government will pile in to save it. Risky business practice will become the norm and we shall all go to hell in a hand-basket.

But a big problem remains. We, the poor bank customers, do not have the resources or the understanding to know whether a bank is acting prudently or not. And we would not be given the information on which to base a decision even if we asked for it. So we have to rely on government regulatory systems to check things out for us. Hence the dilemma when government watchfulness fails.

Law of unintended consequences plus

There are many other moral hazards we need to worry about, most of them relating to government activity. It's a bit like the law of unintended consequences but, in the case of moral hazard, the dangers created are evident at the start. The hazard is created by the wilful folly of decision makers.

Loans for honours

Let's start with a topical one. Donations to political parties. For the benefit of readers outside the UK, the Labour government has twice been caught flouting the rules on accepting political donations. The first time, they broke the spirit but not the letter by accepting loans instead of gifts and offered to repay the lenders with honours. The second time, the jury is still out. The claims and counter claims about who did what and who knew what when are the typical spats that go on between politicians when they have broken the rules and been caught out. "I didn't know and didn't mean it" is a feeble response which would not be accepted as a defence in court. Yet that is exactly what we are getting from the politicians who frame our laws.

Why should politicians get away with breaking the law while expecting the rest of us to obey it? Perhaps it's because they have power and the rest of us don't. And it's probably why David Blunkett (former Home Secretary) seemed so indignant when he was caught using public money to pay for his girlfriend's train tickets. The moral hazard here is that respect for law is eroded when the powerful show a blatant disregard for it (if, that is, they think they can get away with it).

Drug culture

And then there is legislation against drugs. Celebrities do not even try to hide the fact that they break the law – and those same celebrities are feted by the political clique and even by royalty. The moral hazard here is obvious. On the one hand, ordinary oiks caught with drugs receive, at the very least, a criminal record and a good chance of going to prison. Their life chances are often ruined, while the rich and famous continue to smoke and snort with impunity.

Politicians bemoan the decline in respect for law and order; they berate an ill-disciplined youth for its failure to behave responsibly. But how can you persuade disadvantaged young people to respect the law when, at the same time, the politicians who frame the laws (and their celebrity friends) fail to do so? You see what I mean by moral hazard.

Slush funds

Which brings me to laws that are unenforceable. The war on drugs is costly both in financial resources and in wasted lives. The demand for drugs cannot be stemmed. Organized crime finds it has a lucrative business and a good percentage of the population is happy to ignore the law. What is it about governments around the world that they cannot break the habit of banging their heads against this particular brick wall? They know they are not going to win (just as the US failed to stop alcohol consumption in the 1920s). Instead they have created a moral hazard. Lakes of illegal money are used to corrupt politicians and officials and, in some states of the world, to subvert entire governments.

Criminal records for all

Moral hazard also comes from the efficient enforcement of regulations that are routinely ignored. Such a high proportion of drivers have been convicted of speeding that many of them accept the status of convicted criminals as normal, not something of which they should feel ashamed. This situation should not be accepted with equanimity and at least the government minister who was caught driving while using a mobile phone was convicted and fined. But he still attempted to mitigate his crime by claiming that he was dealing with important affairs of state at the time.

The hazard here also undermines respect for the law. Unless criminals represent only a small minority of the population, then criminality becomes normal, fear of punishment loses its sting, and punishments become harsher to enforce the law. We end up in a situation where you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I am fined for putting my bins out on the wrong day, why should I leave it at that? I might as well do some fly tipping as well. Not a big deal in comparison with the other examples, but corrosive all the same.

Less is more

According to the Liberal Democrats, "Since 1997 this government has passed 365 acts of Parliament and more than 32,000 statutory instruments." This has introduced well over 3000 new criminal offences. When the government was caught out in the loans-for-honours fiasco, it responded by introducing yet more legislation and has now tangled itself up in that.

The most horrific part of the unfolding saga is not the facts of the case, but a statement by Wendy Alexander (leader of the Scottish Labour Party) in which she rejects any suggestion of "intentional wrongdoing". Her statement clearly shows that an important politician no longer feels bound to obey the law. "I did not mean to do it" may be a mitigating factor – but it is definitely not a defence.

So the government itself has fallen victim to the barrage of moral hazards which it created.

Slippery slope

Mervyn King thought long and hard before the rescue of Northern Rock was put in place. One assumes that an assessment was made and he accepted that the failure of the bank would pose a greater danger than the moral hazard created by the rescue package. Would that the government made more decisions in this way. If only it would think harder before creating so many new laws.

And there is little evidence that society is improving as a result of all this legislation. Prisons are overcrowded and convicted criminals are released early to make room for new ones. Middle-class criminals discuss the hazards of life with 9 points on their driving licences (next strike and the licence is gone), petty thugs wear ASBOs* as a badge of honour, and government ministers wriggle when they are caught on hooks of their own making. The investigation of a major corruption case is abandoned when a dodgy ally threatens to take its business elsewhere. A self-confessed drug user sings at the funeral of the Princess Diana in front of a congregation that included past, present and future prime ministers, the assembled royal family and a world-wide television audience.

The legal structure has started to creak. Respect for the law is flying out of the window at all levels of society – including the political classes. There is ever-present danger of the endemic corruption which dominates so much of the world. In the map below, the darker the red, the more corrupt the nation. Frightening isn't it?

• An ASBO is an Anti-social Behavior Order. It can be requested by the police, or a local authority and is imposed by a judge without a trial. The person on whom it is imposed is restricted from acting in certain ways or being in certain places. Violation of the ASBO can result in a prison sentence. So it acts as a method of punishing an individual without needing to prove that they have committed any crime other than violating the ASBO.

Bully boys

"I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers" ~ Kahlil Gibran (1883 – 1931)

The news that a 19-year-old girl from the largely Shia town of Qatif has been sentenced, by a Saudi court, to 200 lashes and six months in prison, after she and a male friend were raped by a gang of seven men, adds poignancy and relevance to this article. Both victims were originally sentenced to 90 lashes for “illegal mingling”, for riding in a car together without a chaperone. The girl’s lawyer was banned from the courtroom and his licence withdrawn when he appealed against the original sentence.

The rapists were originally sentenced to terms ranging from 10 months to 5 years, sentences which were also increased on appeal. The two cases, the illegal mingling and the rapes, were tried at the same time and in the same court.

Let me first establish my credentials. I am straight. I am attracted by women, not by men. I have homosexual friends of both sexes. I have been propositioned by men and turned them down because what was on offer was not to my taste.

So what is it that homosexuals do which is not to my taste? They are people who are just like the rest of us but who are attracted to the bodies of others of the same sex. They get pleasure from indulging in activities that are parallel to the ones I like to indulge in with my wife. My preference is to do these things with a woman, not with a man.

For homosexuals, the practices they enjoy with willing partners were illegal in this country until very recently. They remain illegal in many countries. And everywhere homosexuals are discriminated against merely because of what they like to do with each other.

Let's not beat about the bush. Let's be clear about what discrimination is. It is bullying pure and simple. It is picking on individuals who don't fit into the norm. It is picking on the kid in the playground because he wears glasses. But what is special about some forms of bullying is that they are:

• ignored by those whose job it is to maintain law and order (e.g. disproportionate numbers of black people in prisons and mental institutions)
• tolerated (e.g. churches exempted from female equality legislation)
• officially sanctioned (e.g. laws against homosexual acts)

All pretty obvious stuff, so why go through it again? It is because the laws against homosexuality – which were brutally enforced until so recently – were as wrong then as they are now. (It is likely that the brilliant Alan Turing, who did much to win World War II by deciphering enemy codes, was hounded to death by an unrelenting police force.)

Laws which stop people doing what they want to do – unless of course they hurt others – are wrong. So how was legislation against homosexuals justified? And how are the prejudices which still lead to discrimination (e.g. restricted employment in the church and armed forces) justified? The justifications fall into 4 groups:

• Religious
• Unnatural
• Unsocial
• Disgust

Religious objections

Religious objections continue to be the most effective. They come from powerful institutions which influence the framing and interpretation of laws. They also enjoy a peculiar exemption from normal debate because people's religious beliefs are treated as sacrosanct (no pun intended). In Britain for example, churches continue to discriminate against homosexuals – as they do against women – with impunity. Their justification is in scripture and in the beliefs and feelings of their adherents.

What is it about sexual preference that makes it so difficult for churches to accept? They are happy to ignore or sidestep a vast array of other scriptural strictures ("thou shalt not kill" leaps to mind), while homosexual behaviour leads to deep discomfort, and even to schism. At the same time, it is an open secret that homosexuality has dug its roots deep into the workforce and hierarchy of many churches, resulting in little harm to their operations.

The harm that does result is caused by the moral hazard inherent in covering up activities that are officially outlawed. This leads to corruption and institutional paralysis in the face of evidence of abuse. It is the same moral hazard caused by the celibacy of Catholic priests and nuns which, notoriously, has led to child abuse scandals across the world and the payment of millions in hush money. And some church institutions in which systematic abuse took place survived almost to the present day (e.g. the Magdalene laundries in Ireland).

Churches would be cleaner and healthier places if they accepted that most homosexuals, like most straight people, are decent, honorable and caring members of the community. Their sexual preferences hurt no one and, as individuals, they have much to offer to the community. Acceptance would make it easier to police the bad apples (straight as well as gay).

Nature in all its glory

The claim that homosexual acts are unnatural can be attacked from three directions:

• First, what is wrong with unnatural? The list of unnatural things that are part of everyday life is endless. Births by Caesarian section, wearing clothes, flying in airplanes, circumcision, enforced monogamy, baptism, inoculation, pain relief… Why single out homosexuality as unacceptable because it is unnatural?
• Second, who says it is unnatural? The fact that so many people in so many places and times have been willing to indulge in acts which carry the severest penalties suggests that their impulses are common, powerful and natural. Any field with farm animals reveals that homosexual activity goes on among all kinds of animals, not just among humans.
• Third, what's so good about natural? Dying of malaria is natural.

The "unnatural" lobby sometimes argues that homosexual relationships are, by definition, barren. But that is not an excuse for legislating against them or discriminating against them. Priests and nuns are required to be celibate by their calling. Infertile couples of all kinds have sex and, outside of Ceausescu's Romania, no-one is forced to have children. The argument is spurious.

Moral turpitude

Does homosexuality disrupt society? I'll give two examples to explore this hypothesis:

• Imagine a man propositioned by a woman but not tempted because he is homosexual. His tastes are frowned upon by society, so he enters into a relationship with this woman for whom he has no desire. This unhappy relationship could easily become socially disruptive; finding a man to make him happy would be more likely to result in harmony.
• Now imagine a woman reaching marriageable age at the end of World War I when there was a shortage of men. For companionship, she chooses to live with another woman and discovers that she is not averse to sexual experimentation with her companion. When this relationship becomes known, they are shunned by society. That shunning is socially disruptive. Not their loving act.

People's sexual preferences are part of who they are. I would not be happy in a homosexual relationship and I do not expect a homosexual to be happy in a straight one.

Finally, the argument that homosexuals might corrupt our children. This argument is spurious too. A homosexual would only corrupt a child sexually if he or she was a paedophile (and there are almost certainly more heterosexual than homosexual paedophiles).

And homosexuals who want to adopt, or otherwise organize themselves to bring up children, are just as likely to be as good parents – or bad parents – as straight couples.

" It's disgusting and should be banned."

I was careful to say at the outset that, when propositioned by men, I declined because it was not to my taste. I did not find it distasteful or disgusting. I just did not want to do it. There are a whole range of things I like to eat that my wife dislikes because of the taste or texture and she is not slow in saying so. I sometimes feel hurt when she says that the custard or sticky drinks that I enjoy are disgusting because it spoils my appetite. Disgusting is a nasty word for something you dislike. It is used deliberately in the context of homosexuality in order to raise the emotional temperature. To justify the bullying.

Truly disgusting acts are those where someone is made to suffer, like locking up homosexuals or executing them (as happens in Iran).

Legalised bullying

None of the justifications for legislating or discriminating against homosexuals carry any weight. So why was legalized bullying against a minority tolerated for so long? It is because there is an impulse in many people that makes them feel justified in telling others how to live their lives. And even to call for their prejudices to be turned into laws.

The controlling impulse of those who claim moral superiority and those who think they know best is a powerful force. No longer able to discriminate against homosexuals, the "do it my way" brigade are picking on other groups: smokers; fat people; drug takers; immigrants; asylum seekers; Polish plumbers; women who want abortions; just women (in many countries and communities, especially Islamic ones); terminally ill people who want to end their lives (and friends and relatives who, distressed by their suffering, want to help them); non-violent drinkers; adolescents; children; parents…

There is an unrelenting desire to bully non-conformists and minorities. Homosexuals have proved very recently that minority groups no longer have to accept all that is thrown at them. So let us all learn a lesson from them and not give in to those who want to push us around.

It would be even better if we curbed the urge to tell other people how to live their lives. Providing information is good. Giving a helping hand when asked is good. Offering unsolicited advice is bearable. Forcing people who don't hurt others to conform is unacceptable. This I find disgusting.

Damart Days

Autumn is a second spring where every leaf is a flower ~ Albert Camus (1913 –1960)

Damart is probably the best-known manufacturer of thermal underwear in the UK. Every year, as autumn arrives along with the falling leaves, a Damart catalogue pops through the letter box. Until now my wife has thrown it in the bin. This year she has kept hold of it. She is starting to feel the cold.

We're neither of us old but we are "getting on". The delusion of immortality is fading. Aches don't go away. Pains and other symptoms begin to seem serious and could presage an illness that will stay.

When you read about the latest health scare or news that this, that or the other activity predisposes or increases the chances of being afflicted with this, that or the other condition, nothing is said about the fact that the best predictor of getting cancer or succumbing to a heart attack or a stroke or going bananas is getting old.

Now I'm not trying to be morbid or to depress anyone. I am quite happy most of the time. I am content to be "getting on" despite the disadvantages. The drawing in of the years, like the drawing in of the days, makes me reflect on how lucky I have been. How lucky I am.

I haven't achieved a great deal in my life. In many ways it's been an "also ran" sort of life, the kind of life that most people lead. Many of us try to bulk up what we've achieved but, personally, I don't see much point in that. I hope I haven't made too many people unhappy during my life and, if I've achieved that, then I'm glad.

Life continues to offer challenges and moments of excitement and novelty, and in my small way, I keep trying to push my horizons forward, learning new things and sometimes making new friends. Listening to other people, mostly through what they write, is a good way to avoid stagnation.

There are things that make me sad. I feel sorry for people whose lives are closed and limited, and who can never experience the richness which I've enjoyed by having the luxury of choice. My parents left Czechoslovakia when I was less than two years old and I often think of what might have been. The lives of generations of people in the Eastern bloc were crushed by a dynasty of greedy megalomaniacs who claimed to know best how lives should be lived. They didn't of course. They simply enjoyed power and control and the luxury that came with them.

Today, people continue to live under the heel of other megalomaniacs and in even more misery than the compatriots I left behind. These monsters ensure the continuation of poverty in much of Africa, the Middle East and South America and are responsible for many broken lives.

How quickly things change when tyranny subsides. Many people in South East Asia are joining the lucky generation, even in China. And India shows that it is not only dictators who prevent people escaping poverty and enjoying the freedom that general prosperity brings. It can be overweening bureaucrats too. Indians call them the abominable no men.

I am one of the lucky ones who lived in an open society in the 20th Century. I am horrified by how carelessly that openness is being thrown away.

At the beginning of this piece, I mentioned the delusion of immortality which dominates our lives. I should also mention that many people cling to that delusion – in the face of all the evidence – by looking forward to an afterlife. (Remember that most suicide bombers are drawn into their terrible trade by the promise of an afterlife.) How much stronger we would be if we recognised that our lives are all that we know we have. Whether or not there is an afterlife, if we could just accept that life is the only thing we can be sure of we would, perhaps, recognise how very precious it is.

For me this is the very foundation of what is right and wrong. If I have nothing other than my own life, the same is true of every other person. If I fail to enjoy my life to the best of my ability, I have nothing. That is also true of every other person. So I should like to help everyone with whom I come into contact to enjoy their lives. Not to tell them how to live their lives – because their lives are theirs and not mine – but to offer a helping hand and to share. To share with absolutely everyone who wants to share with me. No-one is different: quick or slow, big or small, white or black, woman or man, weak or strong, old or young ...

Nothing big (it's far too easy to get it wrong) but in little everyday ways. The only true and lasting happiness, after all, comes from companionship with others.

    Damart days are good days for me. I hope they are good for you too – when you get there.

Child abuse Australian style (the Stolen Generations)

Ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation. ~ Khalil Gibran (1883 - 1931)

The other day I heard the story of Leonie Pope on BBC Radio 4's Saturday Live hosted by Fi Glover. It is a truly horrific story that reinforces one of the messages of this blog. We must always be vigilant; we must never allow the acts of governments and their agents to go unscrutinised.

Tragedy emerged

Leonie, now 35, was adopted by a Welsh family over 30 years ago. She grew up in Wales and now has a family of her own. It was only when she decided to trace her origins that the tragedy of her background emerged. She was the child of an Aboriginal mother who was tricked into giving her up for adoption; she was told instead that she was signing a paper about inoculation. The crime was aggravated when Leonie's mother asked where her baby was and the nurses told her that her daughter had died. When she asked for the body so she could bury it, she was told that it had already been disposed of. And the lying went on when Leonie arrive in Wales; her adoptive parents were informed that her natural mother had abandoned her in the hospital.

Leonie was one of seven children, each of whom were taken away from this Aboriginal mother. And sadly only one of them succeeded in finding her before she died.

Children taken away from parents

This story is not unusual. Starting in 1910 but continuing to the 1970s – I'll repeat that, the 1970s – 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken away from their parents and raised in church – I'll repeat that, in church – or state institutions or were fostered or adopted by white parents. Leonie was lucky because most of these children received little education, many of them were abused, and most ended up in low-grade domestic or agricultural work. The story of another family treated in this manner is told in the film Rabbit-Proof Fence and in

the book by Doris Pilkington on which it is based.

These children were all victims of a policy implemented, not only by the Federal government, but also by individual Australian states, to take Aboriginal and mixed-race children away from their parents and assimilate them into European society. The emotional damage has been devastating. Between 10% and 30% of Aboriginal children were removed in this way and many have fallen victim to depression, alcohol and drug abuse; and some have resorted to delinquency and violence. And the families and the societies from which they were stolen have never recovered.

Appalling consequences

The appalling consequences of this policy were revealed in a national inquiry, Bringing them Home, published in 1997. In the face of the evidence, the Australian government has offered neither apology nor compensation to those affected, many of whom who are still alive and living with the consequences. Indeed, a former minister for Aboriginal affairs has even denied the existence of these people, while government lawyers continue to argue that the removal of the children was done for their own good.

Now, at last some progress is being made. A report issued in 2002, Restoring Identity, has been welcomed by ministers in four of Australia's states.

Reluctant to show remorse

I can barely control my emotions as I recount this sorry tale. These actions were carried out by a democratically-elected government in a country that proudly calls itself the "Lucky Country". A government of a wealthy state, an important member of the free world, not only behaved in this manner, but is reluctant to show remorse for such gross violation of human rights.

The politicians involved could claim that they reflected the mood of the electorate, many of whom – no doubt – thought of Aboriginals in the same way as Americans in the Wild West thought of Native Americans – as a nuisance to be disposed of. And for much of the period of the policy, Aboriginals did not have the right to vote and had no representation. (They were given the vote in 1965 but, even now, there are no Aboriginal elected representatives.)

Nurses lied

Leonie was not taken from her mother by politicians, but by nurses and doctors and social workers. And these people happily lied to a woman who had gone though the twin emotional traumas of birth and bereavement. In their privileged position, they had power over this mother and they abused it. Such callousness is the stock-in-trade of functionaries charged with carrying out policy. Habituated by the daily grind of working through a case load, irritated by the emotional reaction of those effected by decisions they are powerless to challenge, these functionaries treat people as objects.

We must always being vigilant. Civil rights are very fragile. Never forget that, in another time and another place, some of those 'objects' could be you and yours.

Picture Credits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/saturdaylive/saturdaylive.shtml

samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/media/media-archive.htm

Rabbit Proof Fence still

Power Structure

When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 –1826)

Understanding an institution requires an examination of its roots. The governments of the nation states we know today are the direct descendents of monarchies. And even if those monarchies are overthrown by revolution, the new governments inherit their structure. They work the levers of power using the pattern set by their predecessors. Soviet Russia had a powerful secret police system because the Tsars bequeathed it one. In turn, modern Russia has a powerful internal security service because it never gave up the one left by the Communists. But this is straying from my subject.

Monarchies developed to protect those who lived in their sphere of influence. Have no doubts – people in those days needed protection from ubiquitous marauders. And it was good to have a local strong man providing this protection. But the local strong man required funds to fight off the predators and he exacted tribute in money, kind and service in order to do so. This set him up rather well with lands and fortresses and debts of duty, so he continued to demand money even when there was no external threat. There were local criminals to keep under control and natural paranoia has always been easy to exploit.

Death and Taxes

The tribute is still paid today. It is known as tax and, along with death (a very appropriate pairing), is the only inevitability in life.

The structure developed by these strong men and imposed on their vassals –now known as government – has many similarities to the protection rackets operated by organised criminal gangs.

If you are shocked by this analogy, think a bit harder. Pay your taxes or we will bankrupt you, and maybe even lock you up. Pensioners feeling the injustice of paying council tax at a level they cannot afford, have been thrown in prison. Obey our rules or you will be sorry.

But, you respond, aren't taxes are used to help the poor and the weak? Yes they are – but Mafia families also help out their own when it suits them. It helps to maintain their power.

"Made Men"

The dynastic wars fought throughout Europe up to the start of the 20^th century can easily be seen as the wars of rival criminal gangs squabbling over territory. The nobility were the "made men" of their era and they behaved appropriately. Imagine what Al Capone would have said if his henchmen told him they had "whacked" a usurped rival (suspected of buggery) by sticking a red hot poker up his arse. Now you have the idea, just keep looking for parallels. You will find many.

It is important to realise that a well-ordered society does need protection. It needs a tough champion to keep order. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia when the strong man disappeared. The country quickly fell into a turf war masterminded by very unpleasant war lords – no more unpleasant than medieval kings with their purges and witch-hunts, but very nasty and very up to date. Again, we have no shortage of examples.

Mafia Family

If we look at the terror tactics used by dictators such as Saddam Hussein, we are again reminded of a Mafia family – or even the Doge's Venice. Saddam's supporters were forced into a loyalty coupled with brutality by being constantly watched. They were threatened with becoming victims themselves if they failed to be vicious enough to others.

But what has this to do with democracy, you may ask? It is all about power.

Protection Racket

As Churchill famously wrote, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." And the problem with democracy, especially representative democracy as practiced in Europe and America, is that it is not very good. And it is not very good because it attracts into government those people who have a taste for power – just the kind of people who are attracted by the idea of running a protection racket. It makes them feel important and gives them control over other people's lives. With the process of democracy, they can achieve power without risking their own skins. But they do share at least one characteristic with the monarchs of old. In order to be successful, they must be completely ruthless. Why? Because they have chosen to inhabit a world where ruthlessness is the only indispensible quality.

The advantage democracy has over other forms of government is that, when operating well, it allows power to be transferred easily from one politician to another. The innocent population no longer gets killed in the cross fire.

Killed in the cross fire

But this does not happen infallibly. At one extreme, democracy is distorted by elections being rigged; or oppositions banned; or constitutions changed or suspended when a leader, drunk on power, refuses to give it up. More commonly, gerrymandering is used to limit the power of the electorate. And unwillingness to give up power is very common. Edna Healy has described the "horse's eye look" that prime ministers get when their power is waning but they do not want to abandon the top job.

The drug of being Capo di tutti capi is both powerful and addictive. It is only the strength invested in the democratic process, and the guarantees of civil liberties, that protects us from those we need to be our leaders. We must defend the structures that have been put into place to mitigate the efforts of politicians to impose their will on the population. We must resist their unfettered use of the new Panopticon. We must ensure they understand that their mandate is limited, that they will always be scrutinized and held to account.

Most people don't seek power. They don't want to interfere in other people's lives. So how is it that politicians find it so easy to whip up a mob and let them loose on their enemies? To stir up hatred against a group of outsiders? To create a new order of demons? A subject for future examination.

Everything in moderation – including Health and Safety

The wise man in the storm prays to God, not for safety from danger, but deliverance from fear. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

I quote from a petition on the Downing Street website:

A 79-year-old disabled lady in the rural village of Urchfont, Wiltshire, has spent the last 8 years tending lovingly to a very small 'triangle' of land at the entrance to the village, including funding the plants from her own pension. She has now been told by council bureaucrats that she must stop unless she gets a licence, wears a fluorescent jacket, carries and places 3 signs in the road, and has a permanent lookout with her. Failing this, the plot will be tarmaced. Officialdom gone mad.

I urge you to sign the petition. Click here and you will find yourself speaking directly to Gordon Brown (almost).

This story is just one of many. Here are some more examples of officials bringing in rules or acting restrictively in the name of health and safety:

• Sarah Thompson of Keele University has conducted a survey of schools to identify activities which have been banned for fear of the children hurting themselves. These include playing conkers, football in the playground, and skipping.
• According to The Times, 7600 trees have been felled in the past 5 years for safety reasons in two London boroughs (with few replacements planted). Other authorities which are cutting down trees in large numbers include Manchester and Edinburgh.
• Local authorities are becoming increasingly concerned about their liability in the event of food poisoning when school groups provide food at functions, and are therefore restricting their freedom to do so. Village fetes run the same risk.
• Tesco prevented a clown from performing an act with balloons because a very small number of children are allergic to latex.

Why should the other 99% suffer

Let's examine that last example in a bit more detail. The incidence of latex allergy in the population is 1%. This is comparable with peanut allergy (no-one has yet suggested that peanuts should be banned but you never know…) The effect of both allergies is serious; it can be devastating and sometimes fatal. But this does not mean that the other 99% of the population should suffer.

The right strategies would be using appropriate warnings to enable sufferers to avoid risk and teaching the best methods of handling a reaction. Life is not fair and spreading disadvantage as widely as possible is not a sensible or a sustainable approach.

These examples of over-reaction to perceived risk are in the public domain. I would now like to focus on a largely-unknown instance of the unintended consequences of the spread of health and safety regulations. It should warm the hearts of many a die-hard Tory.

Anti-social behaviour

My father-in-law was chairman of a boy's club which specialised in adventure training. More important, it specialised in providing boys who had fallen foul of the law (often boys from Borstal institutions) with the opportunity to participate in adventure activities. These deliberately placed them in scary situations which they needed courage, stamina and self-discipline to overcome. They were well supervised and none of them came to harm apart from scratches and bruises.

The founder of the club was an ex-military man, a sergeant-major, and his adventure centre provided a brick in the wall which held back the tide of what would now be called anti-social behaviour. And it worked. An amazingly large proportion of the boys and young men who came to him from Borstal turned their lives around after the experience and "went straight". Overcoming scary situations, achieving physical goals, had given them confidence and self-respect for the first time in their lives.

Proper implementation

All this came to an end in 1993 when four teenagers died in a kayaking expedition off the coast near Lyme Regis. In this case, the company organising the trip had failed in its responsibilities. Its managing director was convicted of manslaughter, thereby proving that the legislation in place was sufficient.

The accident did not merit further legislation (proper implementation was enough). But after the tragedy, all adventure centres came under the scrutiny of health and safety. My father-in-law's club had no choice but to stop taking boys who were in danger of going off the rails. Instead, it changed into the equivalent of a leisure centre.

The founder of the club, the ex-sergeant-major, died recently. The congregation at his funeral was enormous, with people standing in massed ranks in the car park. Many of these mourners were men who had benefited from the opportunity to participate in his scheme, to test their mettle and go on to lead productive lives. We can only guess at the number of crimes committed because no more boys and young men are given the same opportunity.

Acute over-exertion

My point is this: everything we do carries a risk. Some of us will always be willing to take risks in order to lead richer lives. But none of us can do anything that does not carry some kind of risk. And avoiding risk carries a price. Without going out of our way to do anything unusual, we run the risk of being accidentally hurt:

• On the road: 271,000 people were injured in road accidents in 2005 (88% suffered minor injuries, 29,000 were seriously injured, and 3200 were killed).
• At work: 328,000 injuries occurred at work in 2005 (91% were relatively minor and resulted in less than three days off work, 28,600 were major injuries, and 212 were fatal).
• At home: there were 2,701,000 reported accidents at home in 2002 (the latest year for which figures are available), almost half of which were caused by falls. In 2004, there were approximately 3900 accidental deaths at home, again mainly caused by falls.

It would, of course, be much better if these accidents did not occur. Most wouldn't if we stayed in bed all day (and the 90,000 accidents a year caused by "acute over-exertion" would certainly be avoided). But I think you will agree with me that life would greatly impoverished.

Whenever we restrict what we do to reduce the risk of coming a cropper, we pay a price. And sometimes this price is too high. We must find a way of achieving a balance between the fearful, who encourage the extension of safety restrictions (for our own good they say), and those of us who are more adventurous and realistic about the dangers of life.

Evidence and hard facts

And I have an idea.

Before enacting rules that stop pensioners from making a garden for the pleasure of others, or prevent ex-soldiers from running courses to test the mettle of young men at risk of going off the rails, or stop clowns from twisting balloons into interesting shapes to entertain children, or insist that boys play conkers wearing goggles, or forbid girls skipping, health and safety officers and insurance companies should be required to submit proposals to an Ofcom-type regulator (Of-free?).

They should support them with evidence, with hard facts, to put their proposed restrictions into context. For example, officials should enumerate how many injuries and deaths they expect to prevent, and over what period of time, by cutting down trees in our city streets. The debate about each and every restriction would then be out in the open and the officials might think twice about some of their sillier ideas.

At the same time, in another example, insurance companies should enumerate how many accidental damage claims would be avoided by pushing up premiums to a level that make the cost of organising village fetes impractical.

If you have ever bought an airline ticket, or travelled by train, or hired a car, you will have agreed to forego rights and protections which you might have expected the supplier to provide. And you have to sign a release form every time you have a medical procedure.

There is no reason why we should not be willing to take similar risks when walking down the street. As Donald Rumsfeld said (sometimes you are right even if you are wrong), "stuff happens". A council's obligation should be limited to situations where it is negligent or has failed in its statutory obligations. It should not be obliged to have an officer standing by in case someone slips on a leaf that has fallen off a tree or is banged on the head by a conker.

This whole area needs a serious rethink. There should be a limit on the extent to which the excuse of protecting our safety is used to restrict our freedom.

Sign the petition here. You have until the 13th September.

Should Burkas be banned?

"If you dig a hole for someone else, you'll fall into it" ~ Hungarian proverb

The flurry of excitement when a few more women started to wear the burka reminds me of the furore when men started to grow their hair long. There is an obvious difference this time because the political climate is more frightening, but at root the issue is the same – an attempt to force individuals to conform to an unimportant convention. What is more interesting is what lies beneath.

Rift opening up between peoples

Men with long hair represented a power struggle between generations. The burka is a manifestation of a rift opening up between peoples. And as with long hair, the reaction from the media, political leaders and ordinary people is disproportionate.

     Jack Straw complained about the burka, saying 'I felt uneasy talking to someone I couldn't see'. When I first heard this comment, I was inclined to sympathize. Then I thought harder. He is, presumably, perfectly happy to talk to people on the phone. And as for the statement by the Dutch cabinet that 'burkas disturb public order, citizens and safety' is simply outrageous. They are talking about mere clothing.

     I have a confession to make. When I see men wearing Hassidic outfits, I am taken aback by their outlandishness. I feel the same when I see someone with an unfortunate facial disfigurement. No doubt the feeling springs from the same emotional well, but it is a weakness in me that I try to overcome. Above all, I try to avoid my internal reaction rebounding onto the person who is going about his or her business. It is my problem, not theirs.

     But this is a complex controversy and it provides a rich seam of insight which can be mined to illustrate several aspects of human interaction.

     First of all fashion. The upsurge of hijab wearing by women in the West is quite new. (The hijab is the generic term for the various different types of head covering worn by women in various Muslim countries. The Niqab and Burka are versions which respectively cover up most or all of the face). A few, mainly-newly arrived, immigrants, continued to dress as they had before they came to the west. By the second generation, most were happily moving towards greater integration in both dress and habits.

Neo-hijab

The neo-hijab fashion is a reaction to the upsurge in hostile feeling that followed 9-11 and 7-7 and, I would guess in the Netherlands, to the murder of Theo van Gogh. It suddenly became important for young women to wear a badge that identified them with their community. But it was also a fashion statement not so far removed from the recent enthusiasm for body piercing and tattoos. Without the drama created by the media and by politicians, it may well have subsided with little comment.

Bricks through windows

     The visceral reaction against it illustrates how a population responds when it feel threatened. Those of us unable to control our feelings throw bricks through windows, push bags of faeces through letterboxes, and spit at people in the street. The less physically courageous write letters to the papers, express outrage at the way our culture is at risk from a flood of foreigners, and demand that something be done to stop this overwhelming tide.

     And those of us unable to face our feelings, who want to maintain a facade of liberality, focus our fears on the burka. You might say that this is a much milder reaction. But it fuels the fires of conflict as much as all the others. Politicians who found excuses for complaining about the burka should know better. It is part of their job to encourage better feelings in the community, not to validate a primeval hostility to the outsider.

Liberty disappears

     Let us now move elsewhere, to countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq where women are forced to cover up. The Taliban beat and whipped women in the street for failing to follow their dress code. Iranian police are stopping women in the street, warning them not to show their hair, and arresting them or impounding their cars if they attempt to argue. Even in Iraq where the "liberating" forces have brought in female soldiers to try to keep the peace, government officials and police refuse to speak to women unless they wear their veils. It is now impossible for them to move around Bagdad with any of their hair showing. Liberty disappears quickly once it becomes acceptable to enforce fashion.

     If it is acceptable to impose convention, people feel justified in their prejudices. Repression becomes part of the received culture of society. Racial prejudice was acceptable in the American South until it was undermined by civil rights protests in the 1960s; anti-Catholicism was acceptable in Northern Ireland until a thirty year civil war broke out; anti-Semitism was acceptable in most of Europe until the Nazi's took it to their bosom and unleashed the horrors of the holocaust.

Women cover their chests

     Finally, let us examine the idea that women should cover their hair at all. The traditional explanation is modesty. But this requirement for modesty is all about women being constrained to avoid inflaming the passions of men and this notion is openly acknowledged in Afghanistan. It is an example of the imposition of a restriction on one group of people (women) by another (men) in order to deal with a problem that is entirely their own.

    But let us not be too complacent. It is universally accepted that women in the West should cover their chests when going about their daily business. We must ask ourselves if that convention is very different from the requirement to cover up hair. Don't scoff. Bear in mind Cole Porter's resonant words:

In olden days a glimpse of stocking

Was looked on as something shocking

Now heaven knows

Anything goes.

     And it is a much better world because of it.

Image credits:

www.bbc.co.uk

http://www.brandywiners.org/AnythingGoes/AG_boat.jpg

What is the panopticon?

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." ~ Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

At the turn of the 18th century, Jeremy Bentham proposed a design for a prison. He called it the Panopticon. It contained a central point from which prison warders were able to watch all the prisoners simultaneously, while remaining themselves unobserved. Bentham claimed two important advantages for this design. Firstly it would reduce costs (prisoners would not know whether they were being watched or not, so warders would not have to be on duty all the time). Secondly the prisoners (potentially under scrutiny at all times) would improve their behaviour. Their morals would be reformed as a consequence.

Ideal prison

It is all too easy to draw a parallel between Bentham's ideal prison and today's world. Most obviously there are the "safety" cameras which enforce the rule of the road, congestion charge cameras which record comings and goings through swathes of London, Oyster cards which follow the movements of passengers on the underground and buses. A less structured system – for the moment – are the many private surveillance cameras. These have the potential of watching our actions wherever we are – if only their information could be co-ordinated, collated and analysed. And that time is not too far away.

Then there are initiatives by local government to watch our rubbish disposal habits and home improvement activities.

This is all direct observation. But there is also indirect surveillance: mobile phone use, money transactions, the whole fingerprint, DNA database and identity card project. In China, information provided by internet service provider Yahoo was used to convict and imprison a writer who sent an email to an American journalist detailing media restrictions imposed by the Chinese authorities.

We are not watched all the time. But we can be watched whenever the authorities feel like it. So will our morals be reformed? And will that lead to a better society?

But wait – Bentham's design was intended for a prison, for convicted criminals. Is that what we have all become in our new surveillance world? If we are caught on camera, the consequences of accepting a quick fine and a criminal record are far less risky than arguing the case in court. As a result, more and more of us become criminalised.

Is there an advantage in having a better behaved population? And to obtain this, is permanent observation the price we have to pay?

Women whipped in the street

Again, we must pause for thought. The Taliban government in Afghanistan imposed moral values on the population. The religious police found women whose dress or behaviour fell below their standards and whipped them in the street. Is this the sort of justice to which we aspire? And let us not forget that until the 1960s incautious (male) homosexuals in our own country caught by the authorities were put on trial and sent to prison. They would have found it harder to be discreet if the Panopticon society that is being built now had existed then. They would have found it much harder to fight for their rights. Most would have become criminalised by default; the rest would have been forced to stay below the radar.

These are just two examples which demonstrate that authorities, when they think they have a right (duty) to improve morals, become both oppressive and dangerous.

Authoritarian governments have always sought ways to keep their population under control but in the past British governments curbed their controlling instincts. In 1898 an effort to treat anarchism as an international offence was crushed by the reluctance of Britain Switzerland and Belgium to participate. Interestingly the move was sponsored by the USA. Over the next few years the anarchist movement withered away as its efforts to disrupt society by, often suicidal, terrorist acts failed to generate sufficient following and support.

Why do the authorities feel justified in constructing this new high tech Panopticon? Why do they treat the population that they "serve" as prisoners, branding more and more of us as criminals? I believe there is a reason for this – but more of that another time.

Image credits:
http://www.prisonwall.org/postcard/pri.htm
www.runningscared.org