(Not) Debating the Index

Today we debated the Index of Govenance at the Green Party Conference in Chesterfield.

The Index of Governance (IoG) aims to install a measure of all governments' human rights abuses into UN protocols, with a view to bringing non violent pressure onto the worst abusers with the aim (a) of reducing the level of abuse world wide, and (b) of reducing the likelihood of the UN in future declaring wars on abusing states under the emergent doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The Index of Governance motion to the Green Party (England &Wales) Conference in Chesterfield March 2004, was given the highest priority by the membership who sent in prioritisation slips, and therefore received widespread support in the Party generally, but was referred back in the debate. In that debate I was not given the right of reply to the debate - not AFAIK through any fault in the chairing, but as a result of a badly designed procedure.

This is what I would have said if I had had a chance to reply to the debate :

The objections to the motion fall into the general and the specific categories.

General objections include accusations of being
1 a "Panacea" . Not true. It does not claim to be a cure all, merely to reduce levels of human rights abuses and the number of "humanitarian" wars.
2 a "deviation" - I leave it to the objector to explain this one.
3 "pie in the sky" - ditto
4 "It is too simple". Yes, it is fairly simple, but that is its advantage . See next objection.
5 "It is too complex" See previous objection.
6 "It will lead to ill-considered intervention". This ignores the fact that the UN is heading towards “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) interventions in any case, and that the Index is designed to create a non-violent alternative to "humanitarian" wars.

Several of the objections arose from not having read the text - nor of having listened to the exposition that I gave in Conference.
1 It was objected that wars are not motivated by preserving the human rights of people. This objection ignores the dilemmas posed by in the past by Rwanda and Kosovo, and ignores the fact that the UN is moving towards the position of fighting wars under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
2 It was objected that the sanctions in Iraq hurt the people. This ignores the fact that the text in the motion referred to Targeted Sanctions - an entirely different thing.

It was objected that "Tyrants will take no notice". This is not the case. The success of Amnesty International's work rests on the fact that dictators DO take notice of public opinion - surprisingly. Installing of the Index of Governance (IoG) in the UN will be the equivalent of many thousands of Amnesty letter writers.

A related objection was that "Wily governments will find ways around the Index". This is a recipe for doing nothing at all, ever. However, the beauty of the Index' focus on human rights is that a substantial part of the data will come from relatives of prisoners.

Bizarrely, in the workshops before the debate, one influential member objected quite emphatically that "There is no point in this as the USA will stamp on it"! This again is a recipe for doing nothing at all, ever. He might as well have objected that the Index runs counter to the aims of the WTO to have a global free market, as Smart Sanctions will interfere with that.

The same member tried to argue that Green Party aspirations should be restricted to influencing UK Government policy, and that we should be asking for unilateral UK action. This contradicts the whole internationalist current in green politics.

One very influential member, a very frequent speaker at the microphone, argued that it would lead to "all UK foreign policy being based on human rights". Would that it were. Would that it were that simple. In fact the Index proposal is far more modest, and will merely offer a steer in that direction, a finite but useful diminution of human rights abuses, and a lessened risk of R2P wars. That's all. The very fact that this was solemnly put forward, and received, as an objection, is quite mystifying.

It was objected that Amnesty International (AI) was not calling for the Index. This is true, but I will be taking a motion to their Conference, so ask me again about that on April 11th.

One objection was that there was no specific reference to women's issues in the paper - only to torture and political imprisonment. It had been explained to this objector in the workshop that women's rights are included in the AI Index that is the model for the IoG. This part of the motion will be expanded so that it is made explicit next time.

The substantial objection that I have had from another quarter is that the present draft leaves out the judicial process. This is a weakness which I intend to address in the main document ,
( http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Index%20of%20Governance.htm )
in due course.

The Index clearly attracted support from a large majority of the membership, which is why it was prioritised. The problem was that as it is a new concept, only two or three people (many thanks to those brave souls, one of whom spoke at the mike for the first time - thank you, Charlie ) had the confidence to stand up and speak in support. So, please, if you or your party support the Index, get genned up on it and be ready to defend at the microphone in the Autumn.

I publish this here in order to attract attention to the Index of Governance, and also to show how “debate” often boils down to simply not listening to what the other is saying.

La lutte continua.

Normal service will be resumed...

...next Monday, the 7th march as I will be away at the Green Party Conference in Chesterfield, presenting a motion on the Index of Governance.

Ow luckey we har (to be not tortured in this country)

Yesterday a piece on Channel 4 Dispatches
Channel 4 - Torture
"Torture: The Dirty Business Tuesday 1 March at 11.10pm Torture is a multinational industry – but its headquarters is in the USA. In this programme Andrew Gilligan examines the CIA’s practice of abducting terrorist suspects and transferring them to states such as Egypt and Syria, where torture is routine. The programme also exposes the British government’s refusal to condemn the use of torture by the government of Uzbekistan, for the sake of the ‘evidence’ it produces: 'selling our souls for dross', in the words of the former British ambassador."

In it we find - surprise, surprise - that after a long period of torture, people will say whatever their torturers want them to say. This "Intelligence" will then wend its way back to our very own excellent "Intelligence" services, who will be able to present this "evidence" to the Home Secretary who will be then be able to put people named in said "evidence" under house arrest without trial.

Ow luckey we har to live in a democracy!
Three cheers for Tony Blair, our dear leader who keeps us safe from harm!

Worried Sick about Immortal Pope

I am worried sick about the Pope. No disrespect, but the Catholic hierarchy are in danger of painting themselves into a corner with his case. He gets respiratory failure, so they give him a tracheostomy. Next thing he will be on intermittent positive pressure respiration. Then they are stuck. They can keep Karol Wotilya alive indefinitely with renal dialysis and a PEG tube - but what the hell do they do then? They have a fully alive bionic Pope, but how will he sign things? will he be able to wave? (Yes, if necessary they can stimulate the biceps and triceps muscles alternately). Will he be able to give verbal blessings? (I suppose recordings are possible, but it's not the same is it?)

But the main point is - they will be stuck with an artificially, indefinitely alive Pontiff. They won't be able to turn him off because that would be Euthanasia, and Euthanasia = Anathema. The only person who could deanathematise euthanasia would be the Pope - but if he did that, it would be Suicide, which would be even worse.

So. All I can say is, I am really really glad I am not a Catholic, because they may be heading for some real theological headaches.





(Me personally I blame the solicitors. It is the constant threat of litigation that makes doctors do mad things to stave off the Reaper.

I knew of someone who was dying of cancer, in constant pain, poor soul wanted to die, couldn't eat - so what did the doctors do? Put in a bloody PEG tube, that's what, to eke out her miserable existence for another couple of weeks.

Madness.

"Thou shalt not kill, but do not strive
Officiously to keep alive".

- Arthur Hugh Clough)

The Queen of Queen's Road

Bristol, Last Friday: The air is half filled with thinning flakes of snow wavering without conviction towards the pavement. Skate boarders do occasional little hops onto the seats round the statue of Queen Victoria, down the bottom of Park Street, but mainly they stand and hold their boards in their hands. The shoppers only seem half ready to buy, and in the shops behind the warm curtain of wasted heat, the sales assistants seem reluctant to part with the contents of their shelves.

At the top of Park Street a crowd is gathered around a few yellow jacketed police, but nobody is on the ground, no broken glass, so it is not an accident. I ask a Chinese person if it is a demonstration. "No" he says, "The Queen is coming to lay a stone".

I wait for a minute but see no Queen and nowhere to lay a stone. All the stones are already laid. There are no anarchists waving black flags , but no union flags either. I decide I can see the Queen on telly any time I want. I go into a warm cafe and write a poem, because I am after Andrew Motions's job.






Lines to Commemorate
The Royal Visit
to Bristol in February 2005


A cold wind blew with snowy sleet
as up the hill I strode
right to the top of old Park Street
the bottom of Queen’s Road.

I found a crowd of people there
with cops in shiny yellow
and as they had a focused air
I thought it was a demo.

“What is this gathering all about?”
“What kind of protest is it?”
“We’re waiting ‘til the Queen comes out,
she’s on a royal visit”

I looked about but saw no crown
I waited for a minute
then went and wrote this doggerel down,
a load of rubbish innit?





(c) Richard Lawson 27 Feb 2005

Don't Mention the Loose Gannon

Eric Boehlert writes (Salon.com News ) : "Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard."

But they are not news in 21st century America.

A free press is a prerequisite of a healthy democracy, because without a free press, the people cannot make a valid choice. So - another nail in the coffin of Bush's calim to read the world to freedom. This is one for my collection of "What the Media Don't Tell You" items.