The People’s Vote March, London, UK, October 20, 2018

At last!  A proper protest!  There hasn’t been a march like this since the Iraq war of 2003, and it’s taken Brexit to get apathetic Britain off its collective arse and onto the streets.  Police estimates are that anything up to 700,000 people took part in yesterday’s protest, and if true that’s an excellent turnout.

But this morning, true to form, Spy News was asking, does the march make a second vote on Brexit more likely?  In and of itself, no.  British governments have a long history of not giving in to protesters in a heartbeat.  But what the march does is send a very clear message to an already precarious government that Brexit is an issue that could see them fall if they are not too careful.

Tories (Conservatives) are notoriously divided on the subject of Europe and the EU.  And, as it turns out, so is the rest of the country.  But one thing public protests do is demonstrate very clearly the sitting government’s relationship with its voters.  The People’s March of 2018 vs. The Iraq War March of 2003 demonstrates this very clearly indeed.

In 2003, the sitting government was formed by the Labour Party with warmonger Tony Blair as its prime minister.  In the most recent election at that time, in 2001, Labour had won power with a majority of 167 seats, twelve down from 1997, but still healthy enough for Blair to push through anything he wanted without the need for trivial matters such as the support of the country.  Remember, our democracy is founded on this method of politics.  Certain MPs take on the role of what is known as a ‘whip’ – i.e., someone who goes to all their party colleagues and tells them to vote according to the party line, or they will be in big trouble.

So: Party Leader says we’re going this way, it becomes policy, whips force the party members to vote that way, and bang! an instant majority is formed; which is how, in 2003, the UK followed George W. Bush into Iraq to avenge Bush’s father, on the pretext of there being (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction.  In other words, the 2003 Iraq War Protest had no chance of convincing the government.

As for yesterday’s march?  This is not such a slam dunk for the Tories.  Their majority in Parliament is slim; so slim, in fact, that they have had to call in Northern Irish party DUP to shore up the numbers and get anything they want through on a vote… except the DUP, ultra-hard right-wingers that they are, disagree with the Conservatives on the one issue they really could do with their help on right now: Brexit.

The DUP want Brexit, they want it hard, and they want it to hurt.  It’s all a bit complicated, but The Guardian published an excellent article last Thursday to help us simpletons understand what’s going on:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/18/brexits-doom-loop-the-blood-red-lines-that-drive-mays-dup-allies

So, if a ‘comprehensive trade deal’ cannot be reached by December 2020, then the EU wants there to be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic to its south and west.  Effectively, that would mean Northern Ireland would stay under the single market after that date.  Oh, no, say hard Brexiters such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, backed by many Tory MPs – not to mention their partners in what is, don’t forget, a coalition government, the DUP.  Not only would that break up the UK, but it would inflame all sorts of arguments once again about the sovereignty of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the rest of it.  Prime Minister Theresa May then proposed a proposal in which the entire UK could remain under the EU single market, but call ourselves independent of the EU if anyone asks.

Pro-Brexiters, as you might expect, didn’t like that either.  It would mean, without a doubt, that after the UK becomes separate from the EU in December 2020, we would remain tied to their laws and rules beyond that date, “for the time being,” (which means forever).

DUP leader Arlene Foster is not mincing words when it comes to her views on Brexit.  Phrases such as “Blood Red Lines,” and other phrases spoken by others but clearly from her point of view: “We’re going to squeeze their balls until their ears bleed,” is an eye-watering description of their determination not to let go of the Northern Ireland they fought many decades for.

Back to the March: all of the above political shenanigans means that, while Theresa May is not going to open up the office tomorrow and, first thing, dismantle Brexit; it certainly does give a clear voice to the 48% who voted to stay in Europe, a voice that she may have to listen to in the not-too-distant future.

Anjem Choudary

Anjem Choudary is what the media likes to call a “radical Muslim preacher.”  He is an Islamist, a political way of pushing Islam down the throats of British people here in the UK.

This week, Choudary was released from prison, having served about half of a five-and-a-half year sentence banged up in Belmarsh for inviting others to support the Islamic terrorists ISIS (The Terrorists Formerly Known as al-Qaeda).

But in truth, whatever the media likes to call him, Anjem Choudary is nothing more than a psychotic blowhard, a loudmouth yob whose religion, which in his case is no more faith-based than it is cultural, has no real context in his rhetoric.  Sure, he talks about love for “Allah” (always emphasising the second syllable), but that’s because he has to, otherwise, no-one will listen to him.  He has to make it sound like a faith in God; otherwise, he will not be able to jump up and down and protest loudly about his “rights.”

Often, you hear people argue that, if Choudary and others hate Britain so much, why did he and the others come here in the first place?  I have actually heard this argument used.  In Choudary’s case, the reasoning is simple: you cannot deport Choudary because he is a British citizen through and through, British born and bred.  He did not ‘come here,’ he was already born here.  Where would you deport him to?

Choudary is a supporter, you will be surprised to learn, of the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK.  This is law based on Muslim traditions and values.  He is a vocal supporter of many Muslim anti-Western groups in the UK, and also claimed support for those who committed the terrorist atrocities in the USA on September 11, 2001; and in London on July 7, 2005.  Yes, yes, yes… he supports those acts but you notice did not take part in them.  Others did that for him.

For someone who supports radical Sharia Law, Choudary certainly led a wild life as a student, a lifestyle he now regrets.  While he may have changed his values, he still got to do so, while others who are killed by ISIS and other organisations do not have that opportunity.

It is alleged that Choudary spent time recruiting members for secret Jihadist training camps in the UK and in other parts of Europe.  He then took part in an unlawful rally in London, and here his problems with the law began.

Choudary is a follower, not a leader.  Much of his life has been under the shadow of Omar Bakri Muhammed, a militant leader who left the UK and vowed only to return as a tourist!!!  Choudary followed him to Lebanon and stayed there until they were both deported back to the UK in November 2005.

Choudary loves the attention he gets.  You can see it through the smug smile that is fixed on his face during every interview he gives.  Stupid television media give him the opportunity to spout his nonsense time and again.  He will say things he knows will wind up his interviewer and, by extension, the British public.  This is what Choudary had to say concerning his views on the UK as a potential Muslim country in 2005:

Anjem Choudary, BBC HARDtalk (8 August 2005) (Sourced off Wikipedia)

It makes one wonder what people like Choudary would do if the whole world was Muslim.  He would find something to argue about – people like that always do.

Mercury, Freddie!

This week, European and Japanese space agencies launch a rocket ship, unmanned, that is going to travel to the planet Mercury, the closest planet to our sun, at a distance of some five billion miles.  Because of the Sun’s gravity, the spacecraft is going to have to travel very carefully indeed in its path to its destination, involving some eight flybys on an elliptical journey.

Every space mission costs a lot of money, and this one is no exception: the simple act of sending something of this nature to a specific destination is costing the two space agencies somewhere around 1.5 billion pounds sterling.  I hope they’ve saved up.

And what is it going to do when it gets there?  We already know that Mercury is far too hot to entertain life; in fact, it’s even too hot to entertain the rocket that’s being sent there!  The craft will never land on Mercury, it can’t; but it will do its work – including analysis of the surface rock – from space during the six times it is going to fly past the planet, hopefully dodging the unimaginably huge gravity of the Sun.

Its journey to Mercury is by no means a done deal.  Between here and there are all sorts of asteroids, space debris, planets, other potential hazards, and, of course, the Sun.  So, it’s going to have to tread carefully as it travels at enormous speed across the universe (that’s a great idea for a song).

And where was the Transfer Module that houses two orbiters that will do the work built?  Stevenage, home of Knebworth; site of the final concert given by the band Queen, in August 1986.  That seems to be a nice, fitting coincidence.

x

To my mind, the issue is simple; you don’t kill people, and that’s it.

But many folks who think they have a handle on the issue just won’t listen, and one finds oneself almost punished to the death penalty oneself, in the sense that one can feel the sense of terminal inevitability that the Death Row prisoner must feel.

What “terminal inevitability,” I hear you ask?  The terminal inevitability that nothing is ever going to change, people can never change, and you will always end up avenging a death for a death because that’s the way human beings will always respond to something like that.

Nobody listens, everybody talks over each other, shouting, arguing, hearing but not listening.  And this comes from those on both sides of the argument.

This is part of the reason why blogs and online rants are good; firstly, you can choose to either read it or not, and secondly, if you do read it, you can then choose to agree with it or the reverse.  Finally, once your decision is made, if indeed that is what happens, you can then post/troll the person until they finally give in and go, “Whatever, dude!”

I do not believe killing another human being is right or justifiable under any circumstances, in other words, I would not or could not do it.  But I have heard tell from down the village that there are circumstances which could lead a person to kill another: self-defence, for example.  If someone feels that their life is in danger, they would kill to defend their own.  That is in our nature as animals.  That we cannot help.

Or can we?

As human beings, with sufficient intelligence to be able to suppress certain behaviours wherever possible, I believe it is possible to contain that urge to kill another and perhaps find some other way to detain your opponent and preserve your own life in the process.

Those who have killed to preserve their own life, or their own property, have often found themselves on the wrong side of the law, especially here in the United Kingdom.  I believe that the USA has somewhat less stringent views on killing in self-defence, and it can be accepted as a just cause when dealing with certain homicide cases.  Basically, in instances where this has happened, the law is saying to the prisoner, OK, somebody tried to kill you, but you killed him instead to preserve your own life.  Well, since you preserved it, you can spend the rest of it in jail.  Or (prior to 1965 in the UK) we’ll hang you.

Why is it justifiable to punish a death with a death?  To me the entire argument is ridiculous, and I don’t feel any other justification than it is wrong.  It would be like punishing a robbery with a robbery, or a rape with a rape.

There are so many moral, religious and/or practical reasons that are trotted out whenever the debate occurs.  Apparently, there are many occasions in the Old Testament where we are told that to punish someone with the death penalty is not only justifiable but indeed the only one available.  But I thought that the faith, with all its denominations, was called Christianity, which means that they follow Jesus Christ, whose message trumps that of the Old Testament.  Christ talked of peace, of love, of turning the other cheek.  Christ did not talk of killing out of revenge or punishment; he said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  That means nobody has the right to do it.  I’m not a Christian myself; I’m simply making the point that, as a Christian, you cannot justify the use of the death penalty from the Bible.  Christianity is – or should be – about peace, and I don’t see why that concept should be difficult unless one deliberately makes it so in an effort to save face in the context of the argument.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I invariably do not use much in the way of references when ranting.  It’s not the point of ranting.  Ranting is about getting something off your chest, right or wrong, and although I do not deliberately set out to say something that is incorrect, I’m not going to slow down my train of thought by Googling something.  It is my feeling on the matter that, er, matters here.  And my feeling is that one human being is not entitled to kill another human being.  When an unprovoked murder takes place, you’ve got to look at the reasons why it happened, and then administer a course of action accordingly.  This course of action may in part be a punishment, it may be something to protect the rest of society or both.

Of course, I am not suggesting that society does not require protection – especially if someone is likely to be a serial killer.  Sadly, while their mental health does need looking at, they must be put away, and probably for life.  It is a sad fact of the situation.  But kill them?  No.  I’m also not saying that I, too, have not had the instinctive cry within me that a perpetrator of a particularly heinous crime should die for their efforts.  Of course I have.  But that does not make it right, and I am glad that that instinct has been suppressed in myself and in others (where it has happened in countries without the death penalty).

The death penalty only exists, as far as I can see, to please that instinctive part of the mob mentality that has people shouting, spitting and throwing eggs at police vans carrying a killer or a child rapist to prison in a case that the crowds have no personal connection with.  When someone is sentenced to death, the execution of that sentence could be more than twenty years away, and it is said that part of the punishment exists in the prisoner’s contemplation of their inevitable end before it happens.  It makes the victims’ families, prosecuting attorneys and the public at large feel good.  It gives them a certain amount of unspoken power.

So, throw away your Bibles, your religious and/or political texts, and just listen. Listen to reason, and to your conscience.  If you are able to in a country that practices the death penalty, campaign for its end.  Listen to me, listen to those who advocate peace, listen to your heart.  That will tell you that the death penalty is a pointless exercise in group avengment and must be ended as a practice and a legal punishment in every country worldwide – whether or not it is in your religious text.

x