Sticks and Stones

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning “My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my father’s died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!”

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi - from every mountainside.

Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring - when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children - black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics - will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

No Comments

Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based international non-governmental organization which advocates freedom of the press, has today launched a one-day protest against Internet censorship in the nine worst offending nations. While they include obvious ones like China and Cuba, RSF also shines a light on the offenses of Turkmenistan and Eritrea, both nations which cripple Internet access as a means of controlling what the public knows, thinks, and understands of their government and global events.

The protests are very easy to join; you click on a country - perhaps the one that offends you most, or as I did, the one with the fewest protesters - and fill out 4 text fields; name, surname, city, and country. Then you pick the slogan you wish to hoist above your virtual head and join in with thousands of others who right now are protesting in virtual representations of famous plazas around the world, including the infamous Tienanmen Square in Beijing.

Join in (French)
Join in (English)

The graphic above, from the Wikimedia Foundation, is the Reporters Without Borders 2006 press freedom ranking map, showing from blue to red the severity of Internet restraints across the world.

No Comments

Some Palestinian “journalists” have responded to the recent murders in Jerusalem with something less than condemnation. One article in particular, by “Khalid Amayreh in Occupied East Jerusalem”, left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. The title, which fairly sums up the piece, reads “Soldiers (not innocent students) killed at settler center”.

It seems that the writer wishes to enter a discussion as to who is a civilian. According to his logic – that all Israeli citizens are legitimate targets due to compulsory military service – a citizen of any society that has conscription is a viable military target. Such as, say, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Tunisia. We’ll bear that in mind next time we’re engaged in hostilities with those nations, Khalid.

But let us not forget that this yeshiva was (apparently) the headquarters of the Jewish settlement movement. Aha! They therefore deserved to die. That clears that one up. Except civilised people do not condone acts of violence – or, in this case, murder – in response to political beliefs. If we did then, presumably, retribution against the Palestinians who, in a 77% voter turnout, elected Hamas to 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats, would be equally justified. Or who were seen dancing in the streets, cheering and distributing bon-bons (yes, bon-bons), in celebration of cold-blooded murder.

Amaryeh, in the interests of journalism, moreover seems to deem it relevant that “Yitzhak Rabin’s killer, Yigal Amir, is reportedly to have studied at the Merkaz Ha’rav”. One wonders: is he sure he wants to go down that route? Unsurprisingly, he does not pursue this line of thought.

Of course, as was to be expected, the “Zionist-influenced or Zionist-controlled American media” did not stray from the official Zionist “propaganda”, shallowly portraying the innocent civilian victims as…well, as innocent civilians. But our mate Khalid knows better. They were, as “paramilitaries” (though not engaged in hostilities), anything but innocent. But, if that applies, then how much more was the assassination of Imad Mugniyah justified? And if we take this to its logical conclusion, then the attack, which was “probably to avenge [his] murder”, was in fact unjustified, as the original killing was justified. No?

Amaryeh also dismisses the claim that the IDF “doesn’t murder Palestinian civilians deliberately”, forgetting to note the fact that while the Israeli Army, in the interests of clarity, wears full military uniform when engaged in hostility (I hardly need mention that neither the victims of the shooting, nor the shooter himself, was wearing any such thing) – militants, if they are in an obliging mood, may deign to wear towels on their heads. But let us not forget that the murderer was a civilian himself until he decided to pick up a rifle and kill other civilians. This episode, if anything, perfectly demonstrates the dilemma facing Israel in terms of knowing who the enemy is.

After the horrific Baruch Goldstein massacre of almost exactly 14 years ago, Rabin described it as a “loathsome, criminal act of murder”, and the Israeli media unanimously condemned it in similar terms. Hamas have taken a slightly different approach, being so proud of the attack that they even claimed responsibility for it. In my view, that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

1 Comment

“Just as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This is my idea of democracy.”

This idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln is a simple but fundamental one to the workings of a democracy. In order for it to function properly, it must include everyone capable of voting, and take them as equals.

So, do 16 and 17 year olds fall into this category? Do they deserve representation, and are they mature enough to use it responsibly?

Why should anyone have an interest in being represented? People should care because representation ensures your opinions are voiced on areas which affect you and that government listens. These are applicable to 16 year olds just as they are to 18 or 45 year olds. But what is more important, still, is that this demographic needs a voice on issues which are specific to them. The availability of youth facilities, the quality of schools, of children’s hospitals, policies towards combating youth crime and drug abuse: these are all aspects of society and politics on which many young people have a strong view, and a view which is relevant in informing policy. Few adults, it seems, can boast such an insight into these areas, and how best to solve them.

Representation is also desirable simply for the purpose of a more thorough democratic count. Since 16 year-olds do have to pay taxes, they are contributory members of society. Should they not have a say into how their money is spent, or how highly it is taxed in the future?

But we must strike a balance. It is clear that one should possess a certain level maturity before being allowed to vote. Have sixteen year-olds developed a sufficiently rational mind to be making such an integral decision?

Scientific research shows that, whilst there is evidence to suggest the development of the frontal lobes past sixteen, there is no discernible difference in the ability to weigh up different options and reach a reasoned judgement between sixteen and eighteen year-olds.

Young people do not go uneducated in political matters either. Many take Economics, Law, History or Politics at Advanced Level and it is compulsory to receive grounding in ‘Citizenship’ until the age of sixteen.

Yet the strongest argument, by far, for giving young people the vote is to look at what they can already do. I, at sixteen, am able to leave school, join the army, get married, have children, and, if that were not bad enough, hand over a good proportion of that directly to the Tax man. A discrepancy on this scale is simply unacceptable. Why is it that I am able to die for my country but have absolutely no means of influencing whether I go to war in the first place?

Admittedly, even if many sixteen and seventeen year-olds are politically astute and interested, perhaps far more are totally uninformed and irrational. Is it wise to extend suffrage to such a demographic? No less wise than to allow adults of all ages to vote despite the same level of knowledge and interest. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” If this is true, it is sadly true for the entire electorate, and not merely pubescent teenagers.

Those who truly have no interest in deciding their future will more likely not bother to vote than vote irrationally. Thankfully, it seems too much bother for such people to register to vote and go to their local polling station. Those who are disenfranchised with their party are increasingly likely to not vote at all, out of protest, than they are to vote for a rival party.

This is a trend that needs reversing. In Hamburg, when this scheme was introduced, not only did 16-17 year-olds turn out in greater numbers than their 18-21 year-old counterparts, as they grew older they retained these good habits of voting, and turnout on the whole went up.

Young people need to learn how to be part of our democratic system whilst still young; whilst still enthused about issues which affect them. ‘Citizenship’ is only a ‘Mickey Mouse subject’ so long as it won’t affect you for another few years. But when it becomes important, now, young people start to sit up and listen. And this is what they need to do, if they have any desire in shaping the world in which they are to grow up.

No Comments

Today, Venezuela ramped up the size of the military force on the Colombian border in an effort to show President Uribe of Colombia that President Chavez is tough, and means business. What Chavez didn’t realize is that the world now thinks of him as a posturing, menacing bully who is throwing a tantrum over an issue that is irrelevant to his country.

Chavez claims he acted in the interest of defending Venezuela from potential Colombian incursions, even though the entire episode was conducted in a jungle along the Colombian and Ecuadorian border, a jungle which does not have a line cutting through it and is totally lacking in border security, much to the chagrin of Colombia because Ecuador harbours FARC terrorists who move freely across the Amazon into Colombia. The real reason for this audacious force deployment is sheer braggadocio. And it comes at a time when the famously socialist politics of South America lacks a clear, distinct leader.

CIA’s World Factbook reveals that Colombia’s armed forced are technologically and numerically superior to Venezuela’s military, which makes Chavez’s posturing breathtakingly stupid. Not only is he endangering the lives of his soldiers, he is ruffling up South American politics needlessly. At a time when the continent needs to build on its successes and work out several current issues, including deforestation in Brazil, Argentina’s energy problems, and growing political tensions, Chavez’s foolhardy actions distract the the leaders of South America from addressing the real issues they face.

With Fidel Castro gone as the figurehead of South American politics, Hugo Chavez is attempting to step up into the now vacated position. To do this he needs a scapegoat, preferably one easily denounced for differing from the socialist norm popular across the continent. He needs a scapegoat that is successful despite choosing not to act in accordance with Fidel Castro. He needs a scapegoat with friendly relations with his enemies.

He needs Colombia, a nation struggling to combat vicious and illegal terrorism from FARC, a nation expertly steered by an internationally lauded Harvard-educated President towards successful democracy and capitalism. He needs to vilify Colombia, to threaten it with unfeasible military action, so as to cement his role as the figurehead of socialist South America. To do so, he will trample all over Colombia, he will denounce it as an American ally (which in South America appears to be a bad thing, as it is for Israel in the eyes of nearly all of the Middle East), and he will work to undermine its successes.

Reyes was a vicious terrorist whose actions within FARC threatened the safety of Colombians. It seems entirely irrelevant to Chavez that the assassination of Reyes was a very good thing. But for Chavez, who illegally supported FARC in its efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of Colombia, the assassination of Reyes was not a good thing, because the operation led to the discovery of a laptop linking Chavez directly to FARC.

As Fidel Castro exits, a new demon enters: Hugo Chavez. Venezuela’s rejection of his constitutional alterations is one hopeful sign. All of us at Sticks and Stones want to see more hopeful signs from democratic Venezuela, before Chavez eradicates democracy itself.

2 Comments