Today in New Zealand a 16 year old youth was jailed for ten years. He is eligible for parole after 5 of them.
His offence was to brutally assault and rape a 5 year old girl at a camp site. A truly sickening crime.
In passing sentence the judge originally levied a sentence of 18 years, and then proceeded to reduce this bit by bit when taking into account a number of "mitigating factors". His repentance got him a year less. His disturbed family background sliced off another 2 years. And so on. Down to ten, parole in five, Bob married your father's sister. Had he worn a suit and tie, he'd probably have got a community service award for his trouble.
Quite naturally, white middle class New Zealand has reacted with outrage. They want something More old testament. Those from his own ethnic background have been somewhat less critical, citing his relatively blameless track record (a few minor convictions aside), his good character and loving qualities etc etc.
The more pragmatic have questioned the value of the sentence on practical grounds. When he leaves prison he will be a hardened criminal. He will be bitter. he will have cost taxpayers at least $500,000 for the duration of his clink. He will likely reoffend immediately and in due course slide into recidivism. 5 years of being reasonably well fed and watered, with a cosy heated cell, sky tv on demand etc are hardly punitive circumstances for one from his domain.
And these are actually quite compelling arguments. Will 5, or ten years for that matter achieve anything positive for anyone? probably not.
The polar, and polarising options suggested are either to simply attempt to rehabilitate him - it after all being society's fault anyway, or to lock him up and throw away the key - or even simply give him a fatal jab?
And there lies the problem. Because society must take it share of the blame - what sort of world are we living in where a sixteen year old boy spends all day drinking and taking drugs, then in a blind haze commits such an atrocity? We have created such monsters through laxity and laziness. Because he is not alone. All over the world, thousand of teens gorge themselves similarly on forbidden fruit. Granted they do not all go on and rape 5 year old girls, but thye are filling up with the same fuel. They do this because, on so many different levels, we encourage them to, and we let them.
And by the same token, it would be quite appropriate if the family of the victim demanded they be given half an hour in a quiet room somehwere with him, he being handcuffed and they being armed with baseball bats. No sane person could begrudge them the opportunity to vent their feelings on this monster.
The answer, and of course like all real answers it will be dramatically unpopular with those who seek to explain rather than to solve, is twofold.
First we must enforce our laws rigourously. There must be no more soft and hard laws. If cannabis is illegal, then illegal it must be. No more class A's, Class Bs etc. Illegal drugs are illegal, and possession, use etc, in whatever quantities must receive equal punishement. And make it rigorous. In other words enforce the law to it's letter, without exception. And if there are few hard done by individuals along the way, well, they can console themselves that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of the majority.
Second, we must acknowledge that the are some within our society who are without redemption, and should be removed permanently. There people who are plain evil. Others have no fear of consequence. And no amount of bleeding heart liberal understanding will change them. These people need to be taken out of the equation for good, and for the good of those of us who do not rape 5 year old girls.
Maybe that means putting them on a little island somewere surrounded by gunboats. Maybe it means until death incarceration, without comforts or benefits of any kind - the sort that costs no more than 10k a year. Maybe it means the death penalty. Perhaps offenders could choose which option they would like?
The great advantage of the death penalty is that it creates less opportunity for vampirical lawyers to earn millions conducting endless and pointless campaigns trying to have convictions overturned on irrelevant technicalities.
These are hard issues, which pose hard questions. That is why we have leaders - to take the hard decisions.
But we cannot carry on - we have reached, if not already passed the tipping point of societal tolerance of liberalism and its consequences. We must accept that we have mafe mistakes in trying to expunge blame and punishment, and personal responsibility from our lexicon.
We are very close to the moment of social justice, a form of anarchy in which citizens effect punishments on those who transgress, no longer trusting the authorities to mete out what they consider appropriate. Lynch mobs on the streets, and they are a tad more scary than rioters.
Sometimes, on a journey from A to B, you go astray. The smart driver will retrace their steps, work out where they went wrong, and take the right turning to get back on the correct route. The fool will keep going along the wrong one, getting further and further away from their intended destination. And that is liberalism.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
It is probably fair to say that, in these interesting times in which we live, every element of society is currently feeling a profound sense of dissatisfaction.
The elderly despise youth for their laxity and erosion of standards, whilst the youth deride the more mature for their resistance to change.
The rich, smug in their castles loathe the poor for their envy and anger, whilst those without the trappings of 21st century success strive for a perceived fairness which would see a more equitable redistribution of assets.
Big business chases bonuses and profits with unquenchable fervour, whilst the environmental lobby urges that corporate social responsibility override fiscal concerns at all times.
Nothing new there - these polar opposites have an always will oppose. They are a product of humanity, a most flawed model.
But one senses that perhaps this dissatisfaction is reaching a hitherto unseen level. It is global rather than localised. And it may be approaching a tipping point. Something's got to give, because we are currently hurtling down a highway to hell with no brakes or steering wheels.
The root cause of the problem's persistence, and wherein it's solution lies, can be clearly seen in our leaders.
They are a sorry lot the world over, bickering and squabbling like a group of headless chickens fighting over the scant remaining grain. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to garner votes and lie.
Reelection is all they care about, and in their desperate rush to please all of the people all of the time, in fact they please very few beyond themselves. Those who do show strong leadership, who follow policy throughout, are denounced as dictators, castigated as corrupt and then overthrown as the covert CIA insurgents weave their dark magic.
Lord Acton said that power corrupts,in fact, it corrodes. Morality, conviction, accountability and honour melt like ice on a warm day.
What compounds this parlous state of affairs is that the spavined idiots currently masquerading as world leaders genuinely think that at least a percentage of their respective electorate views them with something other than utter disdain.
And it is time to pierce this crust of self belief and send a very clear and very strong message that it simply won't do. It is time to take a stand.
We must follow the lesson of the great Monty Brewster, centrepiece of the classic Richard Prior movie Brewsters Millions, and vote for None of the Above!
Because none of the above can't be any worse than any of the self serving, pompous yet clueless current selection. It's not as if we would be losing any leadership or direction.
It's quite simple really - just adding a None of the Above option to all ballot papers.
Can you imagine the look on Dave's face as the returning officer for Jollytoffshire West stood and declared that the winner is None of the Above? It would rock his world to it's very foundation, and the people would have spoken. Loudly and clearly. Even he might hear.
Such are the faults with the way we live now that adaptation is unlikely to cure them. We need change on a wholesale level, fundamental change. It is not to hard to extrapolate the current levels of dissatisfaction to social unrest of a kind not seen for hundreds of years in the West. Voting None of the Above might just be a palatable alternative to that. It's certainly worth a try.
It carries none of the cowardice or disinterest of abstaining. It is a vote, albeit a negative one, but it is at least a statement - we vote for none of you - a voicing of no confidence on a massive scale. And it has the joy of uniting all of the people. It is a bloodless revolution.
It might be fun; and what have we got to lose?
The elderly despise youth for their laxity and erosion of standards, whilst the youth deride the more mature for their resistance to change.
The rich, smug in their castles loathe the poor for their envy and anger, whilst those without the trappings of 21st century success strive for a perceived fairness which would see a more equitable redistribution of assets.
Big business chases bonuses and profits with unquenchable fervour, whilst the environmental lobby urges that corporate social responsibility override fiscal concerns at all times.
Nothing new there - these polar opposites have an always will oppose. They are a product of humanity, a most flawed model.
But one senses that perhaps this dissatisfaction is reaching a hitherto unseen level. It is global rather than localised. And it may be approaching a tipping point. Something's got to give, because we are currently hurtling down a highway to hell with no brakes or steering wheels.
The root cause of the problem's persistence, and wherein it's solution lies, can be clearly seen in our leaders.
They are a sorry lot the world over, bickering and squabbling like a group of headless chickens fighting over the scant remaining grain. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to garner votes and lie.
Reelection is all they care about, and in their desperate rush to please all of the people all of the time, in fact they please very few beyond themselves. Those who do show strong leadership, who follow policy throughout, are denounced as dictators, castigated as corrupt and then overthrown as the covert CIA insurgents weave their dark magic.
Lord Acton said that power corrupts,in fact, it corrodes. Morality, conviction, accountability and honour melt like ice on a warm day.
What compounds this parlous state of affairs is that the spavined idiots currently masquerading as world leaders genuinely think that at least a percentage of their respective electorate views them with something other than utter disdain.
And it is time to pierce this crust of self belief and send a very clear and very strong message that it simply won't do. It is time to take a stand.
We must follow the lesson of the great Monty Brewster, centrepiece of the classic Richard Prior movie Brewsters Millions, and vote for None of the Above!
Because none of the above can't be any worse than any of the self serving, pompous yet clueless current selection. It's not as if we would be losing any leadership or direction.
It's quite simple really - just adding a None of the Above option to all ballot papers.
Can you imagine the look on Dave's face as the returning officer for Jollytoffshire West stood and declared that the winner is None of the Above? It would rock his world to it's very foundation, and the people would have spoken. Loudly and clearly. Even he might hear.
Such are the faults with the way we live now that adaptation is unlikely to cure them. We need change on a wholesale level, fundamental change. It is not to hard to extrapolate the current levels of dissatisfaction to social unrest of a kind not seen for hundreds of years in the West. Voting None of the Above might just be a palatable alternative to that. It's certainly worth a try.
It carries none of the cowardice or disinterest of abstaining. It is a vote, albeit a negative one, but it is at least a statement - we vote for none of you - a voicing of no confidence on a massive scale. And it has the joy of uniting all of the people. It is a bloodless revolution.
It might be fun; and what have we got to lose?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The politics of Elect Me
David Cameron's extraordinary announcement this week that he intends to foist hordes of women onto the boards of private companies, based entirely on gender and with no respect to merit, is an indictment of the worst kind of modern political standards.
Back in the day, politicians had policies. They were elected on the basis of those policies and, whilst in power, did their best to enact them. This worked quite well; if those policies proved unworkable or became unpopular to a greater extent, then next time around someone else got elected. Parties were defined broadly by their political and social convictions, and you knew roughly what you were getting. A bit like the difference between buying your chosen brand, If it worked for you, you kept on buying it. If not, you shopped around and chose another.
Tony Blair changed all that. It is easy to lay the blame on him and his cronies and cohorts, but it is also probably fair. Suddenly politics was all about electability. Policy? Give them what they want, and if they don't like it, change to what they do like. Ironically, of course, this demand led policymaking is based on the free market economy model, something Labour have traditionally eschewed and even vilified. Historical policymaking was supply led, a socialist concept.
So Blair and Co invented the politics of elect me, and it worked. Of course it did: we poor hopeless fools who have such trust in the men of Westminster, we believed them. And Blair looked good. Not a trace of Scargillian shabbiness. He banished the ghosts of Foot and Wilson forever. And dash it all, it's not as if the chap is a rank lefty, after all, he went to a decent school, didn't he, we all comforted ourselves.
It is doubtful that even in his more perceptive moments, such as they are, that Blair will realise the appalling damage he wrought, first on our political environment, and second, upon our society.
But enough of Blair - he was merely the instigator.
We now have Cameron, who's ability to espouse causes in the hope of engaging a new segment of the electorate is second to none. He is the master.
He is probably the worst PM Britain has ever had. Wholly devoid of conviction, he flits from advisor to advisor like a butterfly flying from flower to flower, a piece of pollen here, a piece of pollen there, all votes count, DC.
If you suggested to Dave that he stand of the basis of policy, and live or die by it, he would, for a moment, look puzzled, before a slow grin spread across his charming Patrician face, and he would slyly dig you in the ribs, muttering sotto voce "you old dog!"
His are the politics of reaction. He is the master of sound bite, the supreme being of deflection, but at the end of the day he is a balloon, a hollow gathering of nothing.
Margaret Thatcher, or rather the disturbingly grotesque caricature of her, in the recent movie The Iron lady, opined that popularity must be forsaken by politicians, when taking the hard decisions for the long term public good. Dave, one would presume, if he has seen the film, would wake up screaming in a cold sweat should he revisit the scene in his dreams.
He has no fibre. He allows Vince Cable to walk all over him, he lost a virtually unlosable election in allowing the Libs to share the seat of power, he poodles to Merkel and Sarkozy in a way that must have Winston turning in his grave and, worst of all, he lies. Referendum on Europe anybody?
British politics has seen many great men and women, people of true conviction. It is impossible to agree with all of them, but they undeniably stood for what they believed in. David Lloyd George. Winston Churchill; Margaret Thatcher, even Anthony Wedgewood Benn, to name a few. And so we could trust them; trust them to stay upon their stated path.
But Cameron is a mockery of these icons. His is the path of reelectability, and his are the policies of whatever will get him there, as and when they are needed.
And if his people tell him that means forcing private enterprise to promote women to their boards, then that's what is going to happen. Today at least, it may be unpopular tomorrow.
Back in the day, politicians had policies. They were elected on the basis of those policies and, whilst in power, did their best to enact them. This worked quite well; if those policies proved unworkable or became unpopular to a greater extent, then next time around someone else got elected. Parties were defined broadly by their political and social convictions, and you knew roughly what you were getting. A bit like the difference between buying your chosen brand, If it worked for you, you kept on buying it. If not, you shopped around and chose another.
Tony Blair changed all that. It is easy to lay the blame on him and his cronies and cohorts, but it is also probably fair. Suddenly politics was all about electability. Policy? Give them what they want, and if they don't like it, change to what they do like. Ironically, of course, this demand led policymaking is based on the free market economy model, something Labour have traditionally eschewed and even vilified. Historical policymaking was supply led, a socialist concept.
So Blair and Co invented the politics of elect me, and it worked. Of course it did: we poor hopeless fools who have such trust in the men of Westminster, we believed them. And Blair looked good. Not a trace of Scargillian shabbiness. He banished the ghosts of Foot and Wilson forever. And dash it all, it's not as if the chap is a rank lefty, after all, he went to a decent school, didn't he, we all comforted ourselves.
It is doubtful that even in his more perceptive moments, such as they are, that Blair will realise the appalling damage he wrought, first on our political environment, and second, upon our society.
But enough of Blair - he was merely the instigator.
We now have Cameron, who's ability to espouse causes in the hope of engaging a new segment of the electorate is second to none. He is the master.
He is probably the worst PM Britain has ever had. Wholly devoid of conviction, he flits from advisor to advisor like a butterfly flying from flower to flower, a piece of pollen here, a piece of pollen there, all votes count, DC.
If you suggested to Dave that he stand of the basis of policy, and live or die by it, he would, for a moment, look puzzled, before a slow grin spread across his charming Patrician face, and he would slyly dig you in the ribs, muttering sotto voce "you old dog!"
His are the politics of reaction. He is the master of sound bite, the supreme being of deflection, but at the end of the day he is a balloon, a hollow gathering of nothing.
Margaret Thatcher, or rather the disturbingly grotesque caricature of her, in the recent movie The Iron lady, opined that popularity must be forsaken by politicians, when taking the hard decisions for the long term public good. Dave, one would presume, if he has seen the film, would wake up screaming in a cold sweat should he revisit the scene in his dreams.
He has no fibre. He allows Vince Cable to walk all over him, he lost a virtually unlosable election in allowing the Libs to share the seat of power, he poodles to Merkel and Sarkozy in a way that must have Winston turning in his grave and, worst of all, he lies. Referendum on Europe anybody?
British politics has seen many great men and women, people of true conviction. It is impossible to agree with all of them, but they undeniably stood for what they believed in. David Lloyd George. Winston Churchill; Margaret Thatcher, even Anthony Wedgewood Benn, to name a few. And so we could trust them; trust them to stay upon their stated path.
But Cameron is a mockery of these icons. His is the path of reelectability, and his are the policies of whatever will get him there, as and when they are needed.
And if his people tell him that means forcing private enterprise to promote women to their boards, then that's what is going to happen. Today at least, it may be unpopular tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
