Running with Arthritis 2

In 2003 i was diagnosed with  rheumatoid arthritis. It was a shock! I had always been fit and healthy and had recently left the army, where I had been a physical training instructor. I was devistated with the diagnosis.  I stopped running (doctor's orders) and for the next ten years suffered a lot of joint pain. I was old before my time.

In many ways this was as much a psychological battle as a physical one. I had to learn to deal with it. Having been a fit and active young man, this was a challenge.

It was not until 2013 that things changed. Firstly I changed my diet, cutting out or to be honest reducing gluten. Gluten has an inflammatory effect and so this eased the pain. This initial step gave me the motivation to try exercising again.  Like a typical squaddie I went at it hell bent and launched myself into running. It hurt,  not surprising after ten years of little exercise.  However,  with determination I finished my first 10km race.

Why am I writing this? Well, four years later I have recently run my first marathon. It hurt. It was a trial. But I did it. On a day to day basis my arthritis is less of a problem than 4 years ago. For many years I took very strong drugs to deal with my condition.  Today I take none!

I'm not saying it's easy,  every run is a challenge.  But it's better than a life on drugs and reduced mobility.  Running is proven to increase lifespan. You don't have to run a marathon, but if you want to do something for yourself, then go for a run. Trust me. I know from experience 

Why Secular societies need Religion

Why Secular societies need Religion

In one way or another all Western countries are secular, with differing degrees of enforcement of this division between religion and the State.  This means that the laws put in place are all positive laws based on reason and formulated by people for the benifits of the people who live in a  given country. Positive laws are not only preferable but essential if we are to legislate on the complexities of modern life; we can't very well go back to the Old Testament if we wish to revamp the Highway Code. Yet, as any decison is inevitably value based we should may be assess the appropriateness of the values we base such laws on.

At present we live in a time with few all - pervasive belief systems. One that has however become onipotent in the field of modern ethics is Natural Law. This has become, as a theory, so powerful that it is now operating in the state of an unquestionable truth. However, as I have argued previously, natural law in fact encourages an egocentric attitude to the world as it enshrines our rights to look after ourselves.  Even if this were not an issue let us may be question the 'natural' nature of these laws. Few people would question the bond of a mother and her newly born child. Most would indeed see it as natural. Yet applying natural law we could argue that this is far from natural as the dependency of the child on their mother in fact imprisons both of them and therefore limits the 'freedom' of both. This is of course an absurdity as there is nothing more natural than birth and family thus a different motivation must be working, one that is stronger than the so called natural rights.

It could be therefore that there is nothing natural about Natural Rights. Although the concept has been around in various forms for over two thousand years it is to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries that we must look to understand the modern version of Natural Rights. In this time we see the slow and painful transition from monarchy to democracy. It took different paths in different countries but this process gave us the freedoms we have today. Alas as part of this we threw of the precepts of religion in favour of positivism and secularism.  This in many ways was natural as the Church stood for tradition and monarchy. However, in escaping these shackles we undermined our belief system.

With no higher authority we are our own judges relying on the Natural Laws we in fact created. These laws in turn tell us to do no more than look after ourselves. Human Rights law, based on Natural Law, has tried to deal with this problem but only really creates an equality thus falling far short of true justice. Treating people equally can have very unjust results as they may theoretical have equal chances that don't take into account the very real material and structural differences. For true justice we must look for something more, a higher goal to aim for.

Whatever great religion you look at they all have a concept of perfection,  of goodness. You can call it God or just truth, it doesn't really matter. But simply put it puts an ideal above our basic desires.  Sure we fail most of the time to achieve this ideal but we can nevertheless strive for it knowing that the alternative would most certainly be worse.

Returning to positive laws then, we must indeed base them on something. Some concept must underpin our deliberations when we legislate. A Religious State would be truly unjust as it would limit the interpretations of this concept if a higher truth and invariably become dogmatic and judgemental, yet a Secular System underpinned with a highly religious culture would indeed encourage the searching for truth in any descion. This needs to be at all levels however as otherwise it would become hollow: well meaning laws sabotaged or corrupted by the citizenry. Such a system requires therefore a reengagement with religion. All religions, it really doesn't matter which as there inner truths are the same.

Of course this system should be, ironically enough, backed up by strong secular laws and anti-descrimination legislation in order to ensure a truly healthy debate where no one feels victimised. This revolution would indeed require the rewriting of laws and constitutions so as to ensure that the concept of a greater truth becomes instrumental at every level and we do away with the promotion of the ego.

The Failure of Liberalism

It is with a stern and heavy heart that I announce the abject failure of Liberalism. This statement is not through flippancy but comes from looking at the world around us. In amongst the news stories about the “Panama Papers” and the “Global Economic Crisis” the question of 'what went wrong' seems to keep coming back to us. In the 21st Century, with laws, regulations and systems in place, the world is still a very unequal place where the rich seems to play with the lives and prosperity of millions. Is it just human nature? Are we destined to carry on making these mistakes and living in such an unequal world. Perhaps we made a wrong turn some where. Perhaps we chose to emphasise the wrong characteristics from the myriad of possibilities. 

There are many things in this world that we take for granted: unwritten rules of behaviour or basic principles of right or wrong. However, most things have at one point in our history actually been debated and decided upon. Over time these ideas then enter the social fabric and make up our subconscious system for dealing

with the world. 

For proof of this we need look no further than the fact that the written constitution has become the  undisputed cornerstone of state creation. No sooner has a desire for independence or 'regime change' been aired then a call is made for, and subsequent work is carried out on, a written constitution. In fact few countries, with the United Kingdom being a notable exception, do without having a codified constitution. Yet, the prevalence of the written constitution today does not necessarily mean that they exist in order to proclaim and embody a higher truth. Whilst Plato extrapolated the details of his 'Republic' in order to deal with often practical concerns, he never the less was attempting to discover a route to justice as Benjamin Jowett explained in his introduction to his translation: 

(...) for justice is the order of the State, and the State is the visible embodiment of justice under the conditions of human society. The one is the soul and the other is the body, and the Greek ideal of the State, as of the individual, is a fair mind in a fair body. In Hegelian phraseology the state is the reality of which justice is the idea. (Jowett. 2014)

It is a matter of somewhat questionable certainty whether we could say the same today. Where the state is the embodiment of the constitution it therefore holds that the constitution should be striving to describe the ideal: the higher truth; justice. Alas, we often relegate this concept to the realm of the judiciary, happy that the right to a fair trial and freedom of speech absolves us of seeking justice in all its forms. On the fringes of the debate we hear mention of social justice and placate ourselves with some forms of charitable work or donation. We have however missed the point somewhat.

Whilst our states and their formative constitutions are clear and practical legal documents for all to admire, few, I would hesitate, are devised with a clear understanding of what truth is in itself; but rather they copy and pass on an idea of certain natural rights. They therefore strive to achieve a fair balanced society without actually knowing what one is. Inevitably they are reactionary, that is attempting to correct the errors of prior systems. This being the case they often overcompensate in some way or rely on generally accepted concepts of justice in order to appease all.

Europe as a whole has in fact arrived at a point in history where the only truly acceptable form of constitution, and therefore state, is one that provides for a representative democracy. This has become such an accepted part of European politics that it has been enshrined in the European Union treaties as well as in the Washington Treaty. The second feature that has become unquestionable is the existence of a capitalist economy. European states are engineered in such a way as to be conducive to this arrangement and in fact create the impression that there is no other viable form. This is further strengthened by the four pillars of the EU, placing emphasis on flow of capital amongst other things.

However, whilst some prominent economists have over the centuries explored the benefits and drawbacks of a capitalist economy their ideas do not seem to have been fundamental to contemporary constitutions; moreover, that little thought has been done on what the best basis of any give constitution should be seems evident from the essential preamble to the constitutions; where little emphasis is placed on defining and justifying the economic system preferred and in fact these seem to paraphrase each other.

Modern constitutions have followed on from enlightenment thinking by expounding the natural nature of certain features. The Polish Constitution of 19972 for example talks in its preamble of universal values deriving either from God or another source as believed by each individual. These values are "truth, justice, good and beauty". However, the preamble states them rather in passing as opposed to making direct reference to them:

Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland (…) 

It is not of course the case that concepts of a definitive truth have never been directly dealt with in other constitutions. It follows that concepts proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence were still held by the writers of the US Constitution, the most famous of which were:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, we see that the framers believed that certain rights were self-evident. This, is from a philosophical point of view somewhat of an empty statement. That said, if we take that they are indeed self-evident then we must question what actual rights have been put forward. Life, Liberty and Happiness are enshrined in the US Constitution yet are we to believe that these represent justice? Is having the liberty to live in poverty just? The writers of the constitution were in fact heavily influenced by John Locke and his ideas of 'Natural Law'. The phrase 'self evident' thus concerns the natural 'god given' nature of such rights.

Moreover, there is still ongoing debate as to the relationship in Locke's theories between natural rights and natural law. It is possible that Locke's natural laws were merely conjectures of his stance on natural rights. Natural rights in turn are a somewhat basic appraisal of our animal instincts and do not elevate us beyond the animal level. Thus it could be argued that basing a constitution, and thus society, upon such natural law encourages inequality and hinders our development. Even within Classical Liberalism (of which Locke was a founding father) there were opposing camps: Jeremy Bentham (prominent Utilitarianist) for instance was adamantly opposed to the idea of natural rights claiming that they encouraged and in fact led to anarchy.    

                                                                                                                            John Locke

Returning to Poland, in comparison Poland's constitution removed itself even further from the philosophical premise that such rights exist. By focusing on the holder of such beliefs and their equality before the law the Polish Constitution sterilised the effectiveness of said rights. This is perhaps in part due to the unspoken belief in the validity of such rights and methods as eluded to above. The Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen), has unsurprisingly had a great influence on much of political thought since its publication in 1789. It's quite broad assertions, based on natural law theory, have affected both state and institutional constitutions and charters. It is in fact still quoted in the preamble to the current French Constitution of 19585:

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.

By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

However, France's interpretation of such rights is somewhat controversial. Take for instance the first article ensuring equality: 

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs.

The equality has been taken to mean no right to express yourself if it infringes on another’s sensibilities and thus all religions signs are banned in public. Here it would be easy to question whether justice has truly been found in the Platonic sense.

In broader terms, the very universal and inalienable nature of such rights poses though a problem as to what extent these rights have become mere window dressing. Stated, but rarely implemented. For that matter, is natural law theory still a viable concept? Natural Law theory inevitably promotes the individual as the basis of organisation. In an interconnected and multicultural world perhaps emphasis should indeed be placed upon other things.

Furthermore, returning to the opening paragraph, has natural law theory and liberalism actually led us astray? It promotes individualism and the idea that property and yourself are the key features of life. Its no wonder that, with these as the underlining values of our society, we are in such a mess today, four hundred years after John Locke put pen to paper. It is time to move on; to start to think again. If we are ever to develop as a society we must rethink our most basic concepts. 

Debaathisation and it's repercussions

It seems an age ago that Paul Bremer made that fateful decison to remove all Baath Party members from Iraq. In doing so he took the rug from under the Iraqi people.

Recovering from war is a tricky thing at the best of times and yet what is certain is that key positions and functions must be kept operational if the transition is to be successful.

This was known in 1945 with regard to Nazi Germany.  The Allies knew that if they removed all Nazi members they would be removing the very fabric of German society: school teachers, police officers and fire fighters.

It appears that the provisional authority were not keen historians and did in fact this very thing. Overnight hundreds of thousands of soldiers, police and civil servants were got rid of. Understandably they were a bit peeved and as they say ... the rest is history.

Do we want the same for Syria?

If we get rid of Assad what will happen?  How much of the "regime" will need to fall? I'm sure the united opposition would like to get rid of all members of the "party" but this can not happen; we can not allow history to repeat itself. ... someone has to manage the country!

European Identity - From a construct to the innate

I recently read an article on Facebook criticising the rewriting of European history through the use of school text books. The article claimed that the books were glossing over the many divisions within European history in order to create the sense of a common European identity and thus an unstoppable process culminating naturally in a European State.

I am not going to talk about the rights and wrongs of the case against the textbooks, as I have not read them. Rather, I would like to discuss the idea that there is no such thing as a European identity.

Jean Paul Sarte once said that "we are what we make of what others make of us". A bit of a confusing statement I know :) but essentially he was always of the opinion that identity is something we create when dealing with the world around us.

The question is not therefore, is European identity something that has always existed but is this something that we can identify now. Are there things that identify Europeans as different to the rest of the world which overrides the differences between the individual identities? That does not mean that we must get rid of the others. We all carry many identities: I am English, British, a husband, a man, a teacher etc .  . These all play different roles in my life.

Returning to the idea if a constructed identity; both the British and American identities are the products of very discernible historical events. If you were to ask a resident of England living in 1650 about their sense of identity then you would be unlikely to get anything wider than English.  The Act of Union of 1707 created the political entity of Britain but it took many years to forge a common identity.  This process was still going on in the 19th century. 

In a similar way American identity was forged through the War of Independence yet even as late as the 1860s this identity was still somewhat artificial. The Civil War was horrifically bloody and pitted two very different identities against one another. The south were able to declare succession due in a large part to the lack of a sense of common identity with the north.

Yet today, in 2016, would we question the existence of either British or American identity? Of course not, they have both been forged through the common histories and exploits of their respective people. As with many things in life,  hardships often play a greater role in creating identity than prosperity. The idea of a common "other" an "enemy" will cement the sense of a shared identity faster than anything else.

This unfortunate fact means that until Europeans are forced to face the world together, then they probably won't. That said, it is just a matter of time before this identity is forced upon us and we have to 'make of what others make of us'. 

Jeremy

The road to peace

As we approach the date set by the British Prime Minister for a UK referendum on EU membership it is perhaps easy to loose track of the big picture. Both sides if the in/out argument seem to focus on the business and work reasons for staying in or getting out. But is this everything?

Are we purely mercantile egoists calculating our immediate gain without any regard to history or destiny? Britain did not become a prosperous liberal democracy through ignoring what was the right thing to do. Take the slaver trade for instance,  in 1807 and 1833 respectively  the slave trade and slavery were abolished. This was undoubtedly against the economy interests of the economy at the time, but was the right thing to do.

Taking this argument forward a bit; Britain's declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 made little economic sense. We were well-prepared for such an endeavour as the following 'phoney war' proved.  That said, morally it was the right thing to do. It was also the right strategic decision in the long term. Sometimes we must bite the bullet and take the mediate hardships in order to obtain some great prize.

That said, the economic arguments for or or against a British EU exit are far from a foregone conclusion. The one thing that economists do agree on is that it is impossible to predict the full repercussions of such a withdrawal. We should therefore perhaps refocus the argument, away from business and back to people's lives.

What do people gain from being in the EU and what do they loose? The average voter is not affected by the regulations regarding the city if London and has in fact more in common with a factory worker in Germany or Slovakia than they do with a stockbroker in London. Whereas the UK government is increasingly under the influence of big business it is in fact the EU'S labour laws that are the best protector of workers' rights in the UK.

The EU offers a path to integration and interdependency which acts as a deterrent for aggressive and destabilising national policies. Outside of the EU Britain would undoubtedly be forced into protectionist policies as its work and business market would be proportionately disadvantaged with regards its much large neighbour. Without the UK the EU would undoubtedly forge ahead towards deeper integration resulting in an insurmountable gap between the UK and the rest of Europe.

An independent UK standing alone against a federal Europe in say 50 years time would be in a very poor situation. By 2060 it is easy to forecast that China will have completed its ascendancy and be truly regarded as a global power, whilst the rest of the BRIC  countries will be on a similar level to that of many Western Europe  countries today. The one difference being population. Brazil,India and Russia all have population potential that far outstrips the most likely growth of any EU country. Once there economy has been developed enough then their greater population will be their true asset providing a workforce that we will be unable to match.

Whilst the USA and EU would be in a position to compete with the BRIC countries, the UK would be in  a marginalised position with perhaps only it's banking industry providing any rest-bite. However, as seen by the 2011 London Riots, the gulf between the haves and have-nots is already creating social problems and these would only be exasperated by an increasingly isolated UK.

As fuels decrease in abundancy the chances of conflict increase still further. We are already seeing the effects of a changing economy on our military.  The cuts announced by the Conservative government were met with warnings by seasoned generals on both sides of the Atlantic. A UK standing alone would have little chance of securing increasingly scarce resources or having an affect on international policy. The USA would be forced to deal with the EU over the UK as this would represent the best economic and thus strategic partner.

Returning to the opening argument, the EU grew out of the Coal and Steel Community which had a primary aim of integrating the industries of France and Germany in order to decrease the chance of war.  Although the industries of war have perhaps changed, the need for integration has not.  If you value peace and prosperity then you have but one choice: Vote no to a British exit.

From schoolyard freak to cold killer

There has been a lot in the news recently about the radicalization of young Muslims by murky groups hell bent on seizing young minds. There has also been a lot unfortunately about the inherent evil nature of Islam and how this is Islam's fault. Yet if we take a step back and look at three separate instances of mass-murder committed on three separate continents we may in fact see that some other trait is omnipresent in the lives of the perpetrators.  

Below are three quotes from descriptions of three people who killed in cold-blood. I will reveal their names later but for the moment please just take time to read them and see what your initial impression is.

Number One

He was so painfully shy that he barely spoke to anyone. Whenever he did, he had this habit of pulling his hand up to his mouth. He’d done it ever since a different girl had told him in front of loads of other kids that he had bad breath. Everyone laughed. He tried to laugh it off, but it was obvious that it had hurt him. His eyes teared-up and he wandered off on his own to a corner of the playground.Girls thought he was weird and tried to stay away from him. (...) He shuffled around with his head down and his shoulders hunched. He had no ­confidence and held himself in a really nervous way. But at the same time, he wore trendy baseball caps and trainers. It made him look even more odd. Instead of coming across as cool, he became a figure of fun who everyone took the mickey out of.

Number Two

The homes of the two boys were sealed off by police, and journalists were not able to talk to their parents. Both, however, lived in respectable neighbourhoods and did not arouse the suspicions of their neighbours, who described them as predominantly taciturn and difficult to get to know.Their solidly middle-class background reflected the community as a whole, which found the tragedy particularly shocking because it imagined its school to be free of the usual urban blights of crime and dysfunction. Volunteers flooded into the area to provide counselling, food, spiritual solace and blood donations.

Number Three

He grew up an alienated and socially awkward child who unsuccessfully tried to find an identity on the (...) streets as a teenage tagger, a graffiti artist who went by the name of “Morg”. Rejected for being uncool, he reinvented himself as a salesman, making a tidy living flogging fake diplomas, until the authorities closed him down.He also joined the (...) party, intent on becoming a politician. But as with everything he tried, his personality got in the way, and once again he was rejected. Even the (...) mail order bride he ordered didn’t work out. He thought she was a “gold-digger” and she was sent back home.

Perhaps it is an oversimplification or the view of a person not in tune with the real intelligence on the matter but what seems to link these three descriptions is their banalness. These people were, to put it bluntly, loosers. They would in fact have more in common with each other than the actual ideology they supported. Who are these people? Well they are Anders Breivik, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, and Mohammed Emwazi, who were the Oslo mass-murder, Colombine shooters and Jihadi John respectively. 

I have mixed up the order of the quotes to try and illustrated a point. If you want to know which is which then please go to the bottom of the post. My point is that if you read the description without knowing the names then they are pretty much interchangeable. Whether its goth, neo-nazi or Islamic fundamentalist, the young lives are pretty much the same. All the killers were lost souls who wanted to prove something to the world. 

Any and every religion can be taken as an excuse to kill. You can either quote exact texts that support violence or misread them to support your view. If we (i.e. the West) blame religion then we are in fact missing the point. This is just an excuse. These people latch on to this fundamentalist world view as its simplifies their life. Gone are the complexities of interacting with people. Gone is the need to understand societal intricacies. Further than this they can project their identity on to this simplified utopia. They feel strangers in their own community and transpose themselves onto another identity, another culture.  

Number One: Mohammed Emwazi (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/who-is-mohammed-emwazi-from-lovely-boy-to-islamic-state-executioner)
Number Two: Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/dylan-klebold-17-eric-harris-18-the-misfits-who-killed-for-kicks-1088734.html)
Number Three: Anders Breivik (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/08/one-of-us-review-compelling-anders-breivik)

Saudi Teaching

I am teaching at the moment in Saudi Arabia. I do not intend to give a blow by blow account of life here but I will occasionally post the odd snippet.

Running with arthritis

Ok, that is about a year since I last updated this blog. By anyone's standards  that's lame. Perhaps I will change this in the near future. I have recently finished my work for the summer and am sitting at home in the beautiful Polish countryside looking out at the July weather ... and guess what? Its raining and there is a thunder storm overhead. Undoubtedly if I went and chatted to one of my neighbours the first quip would be about the "angielska pogoda."

What have I done in the last year? Well apart from the normal, English lessons, exams and proofreading I have been running. After ten years of a self-imposed ban on running I returned to the discipline with a vengeance. My ban was due to my arthritis and my belief that my running days were over. Last May I started a gluten free diet after discovering that I was a borderline diabetic and found that it had positive results on my joints as well. I generally felt much better and decided to take up running again.

I entered myself in the Uniejów 10km run in October, giving myself six weeks to train. This of course was too much too soon and I more or less crippled myself in the first few weeks. After ten years I was in bad shape cardio wise and needed to rebuild my stamina. However, I completed the run and It gave me confidence. Since then I have done several runs (10km, 15km and a half-marathon) and my latest passion is for triathlons.

Why triathlons? Well I decide to use the cross-training method to help my joints and thought, well if I'm swimming and cycling as well I might as well train for a triathlon. So far I have done one and was happy with my finishing time and can't wait to do the next :)

I am Spartacus – The role of public acceptance of responsibility and punishment in civildisobedience

The recent case of Edward Snowden has inspired many debates on the role of ‘whistleblowers’ and state intelligence gathering facilities in a 21st century world. The debate has been multifaceted as it has not only centred around the revelations of Snowden concerning the US National Security Agencey (NSA) and its British counterpart: Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), but it has involved debate on the role of a ‘whistleblower’ and whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.

In this paper I wish to focus on the actions of Edward Snowden and his actions concerning
the method of release of the information and his flight from the hands of US justice authorities. As by way of a recap let us look at how the story initially broke. On 6th June 2013 The Guardian Newspaper reported that the NSA was collecting phone records of US citizens1 Within three days Edward Snowden was named as the source of the leaks and was reported to be in Hong Kong. Since that time more information concerning both British and US intelligence gathering methods has been publicly released and Edward Snowden has received asylum in Russia (one year licence2).

There are perhaps two things that mark this case out from previous security leaks. Firstly the ‘whistle blower’ reasonably quickly came out publicly and declared that they were the source of the information. Snowden’s actions were in stark contrast to other high-profile whistle blowers who preferred to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Secondly, Snowden fled the USA and went to two of its key rivals. In earlier years this would have been known as defecting, but in our modern mono-polar world it takes on a more complex character. Snowden did not release the information for ideological reasons as would possibly have been the case were it during the cold war, nor was he inspired by financial gains but rather he believes that governments should not hold /gather large quantities of information.

Edward Snowden therefore represents a new breed of whistle blower3. However, for now let us concentrate on Snowden’s decision to leave US jurisdiction and its implications for him as an instigator of civil disobedience. Within western culture one of the earliest examples of civil disobedience can be in the life and death of Socrates. In Plato’s book Crito4 we hear Socrates’s argument against flight from prison and the death penalty (Plato):

Soc. Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?

Socrates argues that while living in a state a citizen makes a contract with that sate and agrees to abide by the laws. If a citizen does not agree with the actions of the executive branch then they can commit civil disobedience, yet they must accept the repercussions as laid out in the laws of the sate. Failure to accept the repercussions makes a mockery of the laws and thus contradicts the contract agreed between the citizen and the state and put in force by the citizen’s continued residence in the state (up until the incident in question) (Plato5):

For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him.

Socretes’s argument develops a concept which over two thousand years later was deployed by Mohandas K Gandhi when confronting the might of the British Empire in India. Although Ghandi was in many respects fighting the British Government, he nevertheless accepted the legal implications of his action. Ghandi in fact spent a lot of time in prison6 pleading guilty to his charges. This acceptance of guilt and failure to flee is in fact what determines the true effectiveness of civil disobedience. Were, for example, Rosa Parks7 to have left the bus before the police arrived then no doubt the story of civil rights in the USA would have been very different. 

This element of public accountability is sadly what is missing in Edward Snowden’s case. Snowden’s case has been often compared to that of Bradley Manning8 with the striking difference being the arrest and conviction of Manning. While Snowden remains outside of US law his claim of fighting for democracy is at best limited.

1 See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
accessed 24.8.13
2 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23768248 accessed 24.8.13
3 See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339268/Edward-Snowden-IT-geek-Americaswanted.
html accessed 24.8.13
4 See http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html accessed 24.8.13
5 Ibid
6 See
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2024558_2024522_2024456,00.html
accessed 24.8.13
7 See http://www.ushistory.org/us/54b.asp accessed 24.8.13
8 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23784288 accessed 24.8.13

Commonwealth War Graves

Commonwealth War Graves at Poznań Old Cemetery

It was, I amid, with some surprise that I noticed a sign to Poznan Old Garrison Cemetery with the subscipt : British Commonwealth Section (1), while driving through Poznan a year or two back. Alas, as with many things in life, my initial intrigue was overtaken by other things and it was only when I noticed a similar sign on the road to Gdansk the other day that I decided to check it out on-line.

(1) Yes I know this is an outdated name and politicly incorrect, but then again most people in Poland are still strugling with the Bombay/Mumbai thing.

When you go on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission webiste you are told this about the Poznan cemetery:

Grave of Lithuanian RAF Pilot

After the First World War, the graves of Commonwealth servicemen who had died in Poland as prisoners of war were gathered together in this cemetery. There are now 174 Commonwealth servicemen of the First World War buried or commemorated in the cemetery. One of the burials is unidentified. Special memorials commemorate one casualty known to have been buried in Czersk Prisoners of War Cemetery, 29 known to have been buried at Szczypiorno Prisoners of War Cemetery and 18 known to have been buried at Pila (formerly Schneidemuhl) Prisoners of War Cemetery, all of whose graves could not be identified. The majority of the 283 Second World War burials in the cemetery are those of airmen, many of whom died in bombing operations on Stettin (now Szeczin). Also buried here are those involved in the mass escape from Stalag Luft 3, Sagan (now Zagan), in March 1944, and others who died while prisoners of war during the German occupation, at Stalag VIIIC, Sagan, Stalag XXID at Poznan, Oflag XXIB (also known as Oflag 64) and Stalag XXIB, both at Schubin (now Szubin). There are also 19 war graves of other nationalities in the cemetery, most of them Polish. The cemetery also contains the POZNAN MEMORIAL commemorating five RNAS armoured car ratings who died near Brezazany in July 1917 and whose graves were never located.

To be honest, until coming to Poland and in fact living here, I did not know much about Poland's First or Second World War history. Everyone of course knows the big stuff such as the Sept. '39 invasion and Britain and France's declaration of war etc... But beyond that most west European's knowledge of Poland's war is limited to the odd character in an otherwise overly British/American war film.

Perhaps its know different, with more east European influnce on the film indusry. But that was definetly the case for anyone who grew up watching repeats of sixties war films :)

This faliure of west Europeans to understand the wars in east Europe is of course indicative of the post-war devide. It is a cruel irony that the so called 'free' west knew actually far less about their European brethren than their eastern counterparts. Growing up in Communist Poland, often meant a thirst for all things western, while those in the west had little interest in all things eastern.

In many ways this was of course encouraged by official government policy: after the war the government wanted to make sure awkward issues of Polish occupation and betrayal were kept out of the general public's attention. It is only in recent years that this subject has been revisted, as illustrated by the resent visit of Polish Foriegn Minister, Radosław Sikorski to the RAF Museum's new exhibit on foreign fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain.

Return of the wonderer

To be truthful I didn't really go anywhere, I just hibernated in the real world over summer as is often my way. However I am now back online and ready to write ironic witticisms on the basis of what I observe around me.

Now is that quadrinal (is that a word?) affair that is the bane of most countries these days: the national election campaign. As a political scientist by profession perhaps I should be more supportive of the democratic process but I am often reminded of Winston Churchill's comment to Parliment when he described democracy as the worst form of government except all of those others that have gone before it!

Churchill's other famous remark about democracy is perhaps never quite so fitting than during an election campaign: that the best argument against democracy is to have a five minute conversation about politics with the average voter.
The crazy fever that is modern politics brings to the fore many of the manipulative streaks common to the human condition.

Take the Law and Justice party for example; they have based their campain on the percieved injustice suffured by Poland (read them) as a result of the Smolensk aircrash. Rather than dealing with any real issues affecting Polish people they divert attention.

That is not to say that Civic Platform are any better. Rather than explaining why they have failed to solve the pension problem left over from communism they focus attention on GDP growth and infrastructure projects. GDP is all very well but it often provides an inaccurate inducator of real standards of living for the majority of people. Take India or Brazil as cases in point: GDP growth has been phenominal in recent years, yet poverty persists.

On the one hand we have PIS who uses campaign strategies based on a reliance on their voters having a complete ignorance of the issues being discussed. Take their campaign message calling for the slashing of fuel tax for example (where exactly do they plan to get the money from to run the country?) while on the other hand PO are no better in some respects as they focus on non-controversial goals that they can plod on with and show that they 'are doing something'.

This in many ways is indicative of the state of Poland's political scene. A colleague of mine said to me a while back that she would not discuss politics with most people as they would become aggressive and dogmatic. Polish people have lost the ability to debate in many ways. By ability I obviously do not mean Linguistic but rather cultural. Divisions within society have been allowed to be monopolised by political forces to the extent that the normal definition of a pluralist democracy is in fact ironically misplaced as what choice lies in such diametrically opposed positions? There is no to and throw of political ideas; rather people are entrenched and fight a war of attrition.

An atypical look at Polish women

For many intelligent Polish people, there are only so many times you can hear that when asked what the best thing in Poland is, people reply "Polish women". Don't get me wrong, I am married to a beautiful Polish women and would happily describe Polish women to any foreigner as being the most beautiful women in the world. However, there are a few more things to Poland that it's women :)

But lets stay on the topic of women, for many the promotion of beuty tends to relegate brains and achievements to an unspoken of sphere. Therefore it is important to bring to light other aspects of Polish women. A recent report put Polish women as amongst the most business focused un Europe with many having their own firms, proportionatly more than in other EU countries.

Education is also an area where women excell in Poland with women obtaining on average better qualifications than their male counterparts. Further to this more women are involved in science subjects than in many other countries.

However, wages ofcourse do not reflect these facts: Polish women on average are paid between 24-35% less than men. What causes this?

In my humble opinion one of the core reasons is the deeply rooted tacit acceptance of traditional gender roles. This is undlined by institutional factors: the position of male priests withib Poland or the fact that Pokand has never had a female President or Prime Minister.

Will this change? Undoubtedly. When? Slowly and incremenedly. One thing which would be an imense positive factor would be the emergence of a truly strong and inspirational female PM or President.

Presidential Ambitions

Head in the Stars

 It is not often that I get accused of being a PiS supported, but that was my wife's whimsical reaction when I commented on current situation in Poland with regards to the EU Presidency.


On 1st July Poland took over the six month presidency of the EU. In itself this is a hugely historic moment for Poland as it is the culmination of Poland's struggle to free itself from the shadow of World War Two and its communist past. Obviously the Polish government are proud of the achievement; yet, they in them selves have had little to do with this. It was of course Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki who begun the process by voicing the feeling of the Polish government with the formal application for membership being lodged in 1994 under Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak thus Prime Minister Tusk's government have in fact done very little to further the process.

Given that that by 2011 the Polish Presendency of the EU was a given fact, it is perhaps starange that it gets so much media and governemnt attention. It wa upon remarking that it is in fact a distraction from the real 'issues' that my wife asked if I had become a PiS supporter as they had been saying exactly that. PiS (Law and Justice Party) are for those who don't know, the main opposition party in Poland. They are, to put it mildly, a bunch of lunatics led by an even more bizarre figure who invariably uses cheap tricks to gain attention. Does that mean I have become a lunatic? I hope not. However, buy instinctivley stateing the opposite of whatever the government line is, PiS have in fact hit the nail on the head.


The government have filled every available space to promote the presidency, while drawing attention away from more important matters. In doing so they have been aided by a general lack of knowledge of EU internal politics. This is, alas, not by any means a Polish condition; few EU citizens truly understand the nature of the beast that is the EU and thus they are easily swayed by scare politics or in this case overly positive politics. Why overly? Well to be truly honest the rotating presidency amounts to very little indeed.

The Presidency will come and go and little will change. That is perhaps the sad part. The presidency means an excuse for the government to put of vital reforms for another six months.

The inequities of car insurance

Car insurance, like any insurance, is always a pain no matter where you live. Having to pay for a potentiality is to put it mildly: a pain in the but. However, Poland has developed two ways of making this fact of modern life inexplicitly worse.

Firstly, there is a bizarre, but alas still active, law which states that every motor vehicle must be insured at all times. This means that even my 1984 motorbike which has not been outside the garage in over four years must be insured. Ok, fair enough, pointless, but ok!

The second and in my opinion, infinitely worse principle is the automatic roll-over of insurance policies. What? I hear you say. Well in Poland if you do not write a letter to your insurance company cancelling your policy it gets automatically renewed the following year whether you like it or not.

My car insurance run out at the end of March and after receiving a ridiculously high quote from Allianz through in the post I ignored their quote and went with Aviva which was considerably cheaper. At no point did I sign a new policy with Allianz nor agree over the phone to continue my policy.

Today I was thus a little perturbed to discover waiting for me when I got home a bill for 707zł for 3rd party insurance (OC). I instantly rang the company and was told that I must pay for this year. I of course explained that I already have car insurance and that I don't need two policies. The guy on the other end stuck to the company line and told me I must pay it and that if I send a resignation letter I won't have to pay for next year! Hurrah!!!

I confirmed that the conversation was being recorded and told him that I will send the letter but will not pay the bill and that they know where I live if they wish to take me to court.

Perhaps I am optimistic in my ignorance, as I have no legal knowledge per se. However, I feel that firstly, the automatic roll-over is against my human rights as it removes the element of conscious choice; secondly, the policy was for a specific period and was not like a satellite TV contact where the open-ended-ness means you must give notice etc.. Thirdly, insurance is a cover against a hypothetical calamity and thus no actual costs have been incurred.

I would welcome your thoughts (and legal representations pro bono would also be good).

systeMY / systemUS - A Review

As promised earlier I will attempt to give you an over-view of the exhibition opening I attended on Friday evening. Friday was for me and, more importantly the artists and curator, the culmination of a week of on-site preparation and many months of personal work.

The exhibition is at Lodz Dom Kultury (Culture House) and more specifically Galeria Imaginarium on the ground floor of the building.

I am not a professional art critic and have no real idea how to write a review and thus I will attempt to give you a virtual tour of the exhibition and allow you to draw your own conclusions as to its effect.

Entering through the glass doors you can not help but notice the striking logo of the exhibition designed by the exhibition's curator Mariusz Sołtysik (PL). The bar code logo pertains to the automated process found as a central theme of the individual exhibits of SysteMY/stystemUS.

The first thing you will notice is three large flatscreens displaying three videos of Dmitry Strakovsky (USA) entitled "The Mall; The Wheel; The Departure." Filmed in a shopping centre, mountainous area and aircraft; these films have a strikingly spooky similarity from what are essentially three very different realms.

Keyword: communities by Travis Shaffer

 Opposite these films lie the work of Travis Shaffer (USA). The work, "Keyword: communities" the artist uses Google search to map community centres in the UK, USA, Manhattan and Kentucky. Next to these large scale maps are two small books entitled "34 Parking Lots in Los Angeles" and "Real Estate Opportunities/A 2010 International Investment Guide. Both books look at the distribution of resource with the second plotting the ten most indebted countries following the 2008 financial crash.

The next piece you notice as you walk through is a collection of photographs by US artist Talena Sanders. The photos depict the rich Mayan cultural history found in ethnic Guatemalan traditional dress and fabrics. Opposite these are two vidoes and accompanying pieces by Ela Wysakowska-Walters called "Pocket Dictator" which was reviewed by me here.

On the same side of the room is a vidoe by Karolina Głusiec entitled "Perfornance 2011." The work is an animated film bringing to life the structure and sound of a pianola. The video becomes hypnotic in its simple beauty.

Wall 38 by e.w.walters

Opposite this film are two somewhat complimentary pieces. The first by Ela Wysakowska-Walters is an interactive sculpture called "Wall 38". The visitor must plug a headphone jack into one of 38 sockets and then construct their own experience based on the "indefinite references" they hear, continuing onto other sockets as and when they wish. Next to this lies a sculpture by Anna Macleod called "Polar Tension". The piece uses magnets to construct a seemingly impossible arrangement of metal sheets and strings.

Access all Areas by Anna Macleod

Macleod's work has the honour of holding the last position of the room in the form of "Access All Areas. Water Optics" which uses similar optical illusions to bring attention to the disproportionate use of water in the world.

The Erotic life of XAU by Dmitry Strakovsky

 Last but by no means least, Strakovsky's work returns in a second room shield by large black curtains. "The Erotic Life of XAU" looks at the position of aesthetics in the world through an analysis of the artificial position of gold within the world economy.

As promised this was a virtual tour of the exhibition. Intentionally i have not gone into huge detail as I do not wish to spoil the effect. I therefore simply recommend going to the exhibition in Lodz (ul. Traugutta 18) which is open until 2nd July 2011.

Legal and constitutional calamities strike again

Freedom of speech or abusive tripe?

I have, as regular readers will hopefully remember, commented several
times on this blog upon the topic of the Polish constitution; mostly unfortunately in a critical manner. Well, actions conducted by the Polish Internal Security Agency (ABW) on Wednesday morning (18.5.11) at 6 in the morning have alas risen the position of the Polish President once again into controversy.

After a warrant issued by the prosecutor's office ABW agents and police spend three hours searching the flat of 25-year-old student Robert Frycz, leaving with his laptop and various memory sticks/disks. Bizarrely enough Frycz's lawyer Bartosz Kowalski says that Frycz was not a suspect: "(What is) Very important in this case is the fact that Robert is not Frycz a suspect." Kowalski differentiated Frucz from his equipment stating that the prosecutor's order had been to seize the
equipment used to mange and update the website : AntyKomor.pl which has
President Komorowski as its target.

According to article 135 of the criminal code any act of public insult of the President is punishable by unto three years in prison. The constitutionality of this article has already been challenged in the case of the late President Lech Kaczyński sueing ex-President Lech Walesa for calling him a prat in the newspaper "Rzeczpospolita". The constitutional tribunal is due to deliver its verdict shortly and this will hopefully be a final nail in the coffin for this ill conceived law. There are alas many similar laws which journalist Grzegorz Sroczyński lists in Gazzetta Wyborcza which go against the norms of freedom of
speech.Thankfully the president's office has come out against the law with Secretary of State in the President's Office, Sławomir Nowak, stateing to the TVN24 news agency that he did "not accept and did not like the use of security agency to police the internet and that if thus case was legal then there is a problem with the law and that it should be changed."

Regardless of the ins and outs of it, whether Frycz was genuinely insultive or 'satirical' as he claims, the case highlights a major problem with the legal system and has ramifications beyond Poland's boarders. Poland is at the forefront of democratic efforts to help Belarus change its system of government and 'rejoin' Europe. In Belarus, as in any other dictatorial regime, police raids and confiscation of materials are regular tactics used to intimidate opposition members. It therefore does not bode well for Poland's credentials as a critical
observer.

Whether this is a left over from Poland's communist past is hard to say; there are many aspects of Polish day-to-day life that appear strange to myself, an outsider, yet go often unquestioned by most Poles (see posts on Ids etc). However, an unquestioning legal apparatus which protects the 'sacred' status of the political apparatus is a long way from the true idea of a liberal democracy which most Poles envisaged in 1989.

Presdiential Security

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration is currently mulling over a rather interesting idea. In order to ensure security for Poland's presidency of the EU in the second half of the year it is considering banning virtually every type of conceivable weapon.

All very well and good you may thing; yet lets have a look at this list: The Law on arms and ammunition, which is the basis to issue the regulation, includes not only regulation firearms. It is also mentioned in her air-guns, CS GAS, and tools and equipment, whose use could threaten life or health. This last category includes crossbows, stun guns and melee weapons (according to the law: Blades  hidden in objects like guns, brass knuckles and some types of clubs, including baseball bats).

In essense then the following is Public Enemy Number One:

A similar law as put in place in Warsaw during the funeral of President Kaczyński  when Warsaw was placed under such a restriction. Basically it was illegal to enter enter public placed in Warsaw with any of the proscribed instruments. The law as suggested for the presidency will cover certain cities during specific time periods. Once again, all very well and good.

It seems logical to ban guys with guns from being in the same city as visiting dignities. Yet as revealed by various news agencies it will also affect a baseball team travelling to a match.

Commentary?  Well, in my view this is all a tad over the top and a blanket solution to a specific problem. It is akin to the recent ruling in which Lech Poznan and Legia Warsaw had to play their games behind closed doors due to football hooliganism. By targeting all possible weapons the government are in fact breaking one of the cardinal rules of security: Security has to make sense.

If the security measures cause more negative effects than the conceivable negative effects that would be apparent through a lack of the measure, then the security measure defeats its self. For example, during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland shoppers were under a continuous bomb threat; yet security had to allow people to actually move around and shop else the terrorists had to all extents and purposes one.

Returning to Poland, rather than employing intelligence assets to target prospectively specific threats, the government has chosen to employ a draconian method of civil control. In affect it has curtailed the normal rights of its citizens in order to play the 'tough on security card'.

systeMY / systemUS

This is just a short pre-posting in way of a form of advertising. On Friday 20th at 18.00 in Lódź is the grand opening of the much awaited systeMY / systemUS exhibition at Lódź Culture House's 'Galeria Imaginarium' (ul. Traugutta 18).

The exhibition is curated by Mariusz Sołtysik and features four American artists, one Irish artist and one Polish artist. Importantly for me, the Polish one is me wife Ela Wysakowsk-Walters (see Pocket Dictator) hence my pre-posting.

I will of course post a full report after the opening. The exhibition will be open for a further month and so please take the time out to take a look :)

The US constitution & Liberal Fundamentalists

I recently commented on a Facebook post of an old army buddy who had posted the following video:

My first impression of the woman was that she was somewhat rabid and that perhaps I should call a vet and have her humanely dealt with. This may seem harsh but if you take a moment to view the film you will see

how she is so full of anger and venom that she basically spits at the camera. Ok, maybe this is her normal demeanour and she would be just as aggressive ordering a KFC, therefore I will try to ignore her out burst

and deal with her points.

My initial reaction was this:

That is almost comical; her islamaphobic rant displays a major lack ofunderstanding of constitutional law. Since when has freedom of speech meant freedom of incitement and offensiveness. Her claim of the Koran being a book of paper and ink... is laughable; even the stupidest schoolchild knows a religous book of any ilk has more meaning than it's paper value. Also since when has Islam been the sworn enemy of the US? Does that mean that the US bases in Saudi Arabia are now in enemy territory? I think she displayed who the real jackass is.

To which my former colleague replied with:

How is burning a book incitement? She referenced how Christians were offended by matters such as Andres Serrano 'piss Christ' but tell me how many people were killed by Christian mobs when that occurred? What she is saying is that freedom... of speech includes the right to offend, yet Muslims seek to erode this vital right by causing chaos whenever 'their' religion is subject to criticism or mockery. It's also ridiculous to suggest that Americans in AFG are endangered by a Pastor burning a Qur'an in Florida, was it safe before that?

This was alas to big an issue to reply to on Facebook and so I decided to respond here.

Firstly let us look at the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Mainly people refer to the 1st amendment as “freedom of speech” yet this is in fact only a small part of it and must be read in the context of the whole amendment. The amendment also must be understood within a historical context. The bill of rights was a hastily put together document mainly ripped for the English constitution and was aimed at curtailing the powers of the ensuing federal government. As such it was the product of the contemporary culture: a culture built to a large degree on puritan foundations (as remarked upon by Samuel Huntingdon in his book: Who are we?)

 Were Ann Barnhardt to burn a bible (a mere collection of paper and ink – using her argument) at this time she would no doubt have been lynched on the spot and given her behaviour in her video no doubt burnt as a witch to boot.

It does not take the brains of an arch-bishop (forgive the religious pun) to understand that freedom of speech concerns not restricting the topic under discussion and does not mean you can just go around insulting everyone. Were Barnhardt to be correct it would mean that you could conceivably walk into a kindergarten and yell sexual expletives or go up to a policeman and tell him where he can stick his truncheon. As

we all know this is not the case. While freedom of expression should be defended, it should not be stretched to the ridiculous.

Regarding her comparisons with attacks on Christian symbols. This is just a childish argument at best. Saying that people in the west do not respond to attacks on Christian icons actually only points out the level

of evolution of western society. I for one am glad that we no longer respond violently to attacks on our sense of self. To use the difference between east and west as justification for intentionally offensive actions just belittles her argument. If the US constitution and, by Barnhardt's association, the bedrock of western political belief has come down to defending a moron burning Korans then god help us. To burn a Koran is intentionally incitefull. It does not matter if you belief or not, the book is sacred to millions and as such is part of a joint human heritage. All such books, whether they be eastern or western should be

respected.

While she is of course right in regards to her comments concerning WW2 censorship. Her understanding of the situation in Afghanistan is astounding. Following her logic she would have it that all civilians in the country be regarded as targets. This is I think generally regarded as genocide.