Sticks and Stones

This week, following the convictions of two high profile murderers using DNA evidence, senior police officials have called for the introduction of a national DNA database in the UK. The mandatory database would include the genetic code of all residents and visitors to the UK, regardless of innocence or guilt. The Government was quick to dismiss the suggestion, and I am inclined to support their decision.

It is revealing that the Home Office raised mostly practical concerns with the proposed scheme. Aside from the huge potential cost, they seemed to have realised that the public is becoming distinctly displeased with their losing of data on a truly impressive scale. Storing the DNA information of everyone in the country (even tourists) would, needless to say, pose serious problems were the information to get into criminally-minded hands. Aside from the (not improbable) possibility of the data accidentally being mislaid, we ought to be wary of who would have apparently legitimate access to the data. In early 2007, five civil servants who operated the database were arrested on charges of trying to steal information. The prospect of information loss, then, is not wholly unimaginable.

Even if the Government have learnt from their mistakes in data security, the so-called ethical issues are worrying nonetheless. It is all too easy to cry ‘civil liberties’ as an all-purpose, throwaway remark. Nevertheless, we are not unjustified in maintaining an inexorable opposition to being forced to give our details to such a database. It would erode both our privacy and our position as free individuals in a nation which has always prided itself in peoples’ right to be free from the prying eyes of the state.

Yet there is more to fear than an instinctive dislike. With a government which already seems bent on imprisoning innocent people who somehow have a predisposition to crime, we should be very worried about potential ‘genetic profiling’, even if it is only a distant worry. That it is becoming increasingly possible to uncover the predispositions and characteristics of a person from their DNA alone could make it a devastating weapon for anyone who wanted to weed out potential villains. These would not be thought crimes; worse, they would be genetic crimes: one could be guilty merely of having a genetic propensity to be evil. Once information is collected, it seems, there is no turning back.

Finally, the alarming chance for anomalies with the technology the database would use (Low Copy Number testing) is too great to detail here, but means that it will not stand as evidence in a US court. Reliance on such an unreliable system by the police could in practice hinder the chances of successful prosecutions in important cases.

It is not often that this Government decides in favour of our civil liberties. We should be mighty thankful therefore, that on this lonely occasion, it has.

No Comments

In August 2001 I stood at the top of the World Trade Center. It was a moment I remember because it was an exhilarating experience: being so high up, gazing down at New York. The city looked so peaceful and likeable so when I came home just two weeks after returning from the USA and turned on CNN I was horrified by what I saw. Like a newly appalled America I wondered ‘Why?!’ I wanted to know why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden thought it was their duty from Allah to murder 2,974 people. Dad has always been hostile to religion; he wrote in support of Rushdie after the fatwa was issued, and Mom was a pacifist Buddhist: so the idea of peace being fundamental to religion seemed normal to me. But we all saw something very different on that Tuesday morning; and now we find that not only are individuals and groups intent on destroying the West, but whole countries. So once again we must ask: Why?

With the exception of Judaism, every religion says that scripture, revelation, and religious experiences should determine what laws we live under. Examples of this include the Ten Commandments in Christianity and the Pancasila in Buddhism. Considering God is believed to be the ultimate perfection, there should be no issue with using his commandments to govern the world because they are words of an omniscient and omnibenevolent being. We all agree that we should not murder, or steal, or commit adultery. So it appears there is no moral conflict between what we believe to be morally good and what is written in holy texts.

However, despite the fact that most of the edicts presented to us make appear morally sound and therefore corroborate our own moral sensibilities, many appear to be entirely immoral. Exodus 12:29 ‘At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt.’ If we read this as literally the action of God, the inherent immorality of it causes concern. Why should we allow a God who slays innocent boys and animals for the crime of the Pharaoh, to be involved in our self-governance? When concerned with our penal system, 1 Samuel 15:3 offers ruthless indiscriminate murder as punishment for wrongdoing; often seeing the sin of one man in a tribe as the sin of the entire tribe.

To read more of this essay, click here.

No Comments

We were delighted with the recent declaration of independence by the fledgling nation of Kosovo, and glad that the major European countries and the US lost little time in recognising it. The reactionary reaction from the Serbs was as predictable as it is contemptible (strange how all of a sudden Serbia is so interested in international law, isn’t it?), especially with recent announcements that display a certain childishness inappropriate to international discourse. The idea of a democratic pro-Western moderate Islamic European (says their declaration: “we believe our future lies with the European family”) country is a promising one to say the least.

One country, however, that has conspicuously failed to recognise Kosovo is another young state, whose declaration of independence was met with even worse threats and acts of violence: Israel. It is not hard to see why this might be from a political angle. Supporting Kosovo would alienate Russia, whom Israel has been trying to court as part of their bid to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, though I personally don’t see that bearing fruit. Nor does it want to create a precedent whereby disputed peoples declare independence unilaterally, as the Palestinians have thought of doing in the past, while in the middle of peace negotiations - indeed, the comparison has been made.

This is the wrong attitude to take, for several reasons. For one thing, the above reasons are deeply flawed: Russia has never been a friend to Israel, and certainly isn’t on their side when it comes to Iran; and Abbas knows better than to declare independence not only when major powers will not recognise it, but when he has a willing partner in negotiations, which was not the case with Serbia. Rather, Israel should display camaraderie with its true friends, which includes Kosovo.

Hashim Thaçi, Kosovar prime minister, recently revealed the following to JTA: “I love Israel. What a great country. Kosovo is a friend of Israel. I met so many great leaders when I was there—Netanyahu, Sharon — I really admire them.” If nothing else, it seems exceedingly churlish and cynical for Israel to act in the way that it has.

But even from a political standpoint, a friendly Muslim state in SE Europe can hardly be a bad thing. Israel should not only be rushing to support such an effusive admirer, but should, along with Jews all over the world, be pouring investment into Kosovo to capitalise on this unique opportunity to improve Islamo-Jewish international relations. Kosovo has not forgotten Israel’s generosity, both in terms of aid and support during the crisis at the end of the last millennium, and nor should Jerusalem.

Israel would do well, as it approaches its 60th anniversary, to think back to the days of its own newly-declared independence. If Jews needed a Jewish state back then, how much more do they need a friendly Muslim one today?

3 Comments

Porsche has decided it will fight London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s increased Congestion Charge in court if necessary. Pitting itself against ‘Red Ken’, the most profitable automaker in the world has very vocally issued criticism of the new, increased price for driving into central London. The new charge is £25 per day for higher-emissions vehicles like Porsches.

Porsche joins the U.S. Embassy, several African High Commissions, and many of the writers here at Sticks and Stones in vehement opposition to Congestion Charging. I hate it because it makes travelling ludicrously expensive, and the alternative: public transport, is in no way affordable either. James hates it because it is prejudiced against the poor who cannot afford expensive cars like the Toyota Prius. Read his riposte of the increased Charge.

I hasten to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the plan: it rewards hybrid vehicles along with frugal small cars like the Renault Twingo. Lexus have added a few cells into their expensive and luxurious vehicles so as to make them ‘green’. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that despite the hybrid power-train (sourced from the not-so-green-itself Prius) the Lexus LS600h and RX400h emit nearly as much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as the non-hybrid models.

If the Congestion Charge allows these polluting Lexus LSs and RXs into London because somewhere amongst the V8 engines is a battery pack, why should Porsche owners pay to enter central London? The Lexus LS600h sinfully manages only 11 MPG while the Porsche 911 Turbo boasts 19.8 MPG.

Andy Goss, the Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, rejects the tax as unjust. The automaker claims it is a disproportionate fee that will have a very limited effect on CO2 emissions. In the clearest terms possible: the Lexus pollutes more, consumes more petrol, and weighs more, but goes free. The Porsche pollutes less, consumes less petrol, weighs less but will cost £25 per day ($50) to drive into London.

Update: Porsche has set up a website detailing its argument, the procedure it wishes to implement for addressing the new Charge, and a page to fill out to register your support. I’ve already signed up.

No Comments

It is tempting to think of Castro’s recent announcement that he will go gently into that good night in terms of a redemptive fable, in which the passionate-revolutionary-turned-cynical-autocrat is reminded of his socialist roots; perhaps he saw a starving child on the streets, or a political prisoner evoked memories of himself as a young man. So tempting, in fact, that one is almost inclined to believe it.

Castro is the architect of one of the few true revolutionary states of the 20th Century. He can be said to have breathed life back into the socialist movement after the disaster of Stalin and the USSR; to have revived hope among socialists around the globe. Indeed, his first two significant changes, in the fields of literacy and health care, were, and remain, astounding successes. They do not, of course, justify the executions and other human rights abuses, nor the one-party state that was established, but they at least indicate that Castro was working on behalf of the people - that he was a man of socialist principle and conviction.

Personally, I am willing to give the early Castro the benefit of the doubt, though some might understandably be more cynical. For me, however, the turning point came with the Prague Spring revolution, when Castro expressed support for the invading Soviet troops even when European Communists, including Nicolae Ceauşescu, the Romanian leader, denounced it. Suddenly, he was on the opposite side of the fence: the Prague Spring, boosting hopes for true socialism, echoed his own revolution, yet this time he makes the politically motivated decision to support the Old Communism represented by the USSR.

And yet here we see him voluntarily surrendering his premiership. As I have already said, it is tempting to see it as repentance of some sort, some sort of realisation that he has lost sight of the principles with which me once inspired a nation. Alternatively, one could interpret it as nothing more than the inevitable result of having a prosthetic anus.

As far as I’m concerned, the answer lies in what happens next: the younger, beardless brother, Raúl will accede to the throne. I’m afraid that it’s hard to read any redemption into that fact, and one is forced to accept that socialism in Cuba is well and truly dead. As Trotsky said, socialism needs democracy like a human needs oxygen, and Castro’s egocentric autocracy is a prime example.

No Comments