Author Archives:

Rio+20 summit, rhetoric, religion and deaf ears

There are 64 sources listed on the Google News online page today relating to the environment and the imminent staging in five weeks time of the Rio+20 summit. I read the Guardian article which starts like this:

Twenty years on from the Rio Earth summit, the environment of the planet is getting worse not better, according to a report from WWF.

Swelling population, mass migration to cities, increasing energy use and soaring carbon dioxide emissions mean humanity is putting a greater squeeze on the planet’s resources than ever before. Particularly hard hit is the diversity of animals and plants, upon which many natural resources such as clean water are based.

Here are some headlines from the other 63 sources:

Global biodiversity down 30% in 40 years

Earth in Crisis as wildlife numbers plummet

Report calls for action at Rio to reverse biodiversity free fall

Another Earth needed to meet human demands for natural resources

WWF: Over-consumption threatens planet

The world is not enough: soon we’ll need three earth planet Earths

Global and regional urgency to tackle climate change

China’s hidden waterways – a canal outside Beijing

The list goes on and we have heard and read it all before. The only change is upwards and the different names of species dying. Koalas extinct in 50 years; tiger and tuna decline sounds global alarm. Urban pollution is unmanageable in many areas. Pollution of ground water is on the rise.

I note that my home country has risen by one point to become the seventh–worst polluter on Earth. What a terrible statistic and in such a fragile ancient land. Australia certainly has had the highest ecological footprint per capita for some years now – it appears to be getting worse. The population growth in Australia is only just on the wane from the past 6 years. What is going on? Economic growth isn’t the sole reason.

The sun is good though.

It is very hard not to be depressed by this as I am also contributing to over-consumption on this planet as an inhabitant living in a  developed nation. Meanwhile, as a species, we keep breeding, all the while chasing a healthy longevity. It just isn’t sustainable.  I used to think, and still do really, that education, the free supply of contraception worldwide and open, free access to family planning clinics would curtail our global population and highlight the damage we are doing to our planet. We have needed to do something for so long that now we appear to be numb to the consequences of our behaviour. This article from January 2006 is as true to day as it was 30 years ago. Then, two years later there was another article this time relating more closely to the UK.

I see now that that process will take too long. The staggering rise in global population since we have learnt to use antibiotics reducing infant mortality and increasing longevity will always outstrip the slower educative process in teaching people to understand and training them to understand the disaster we are facing. It seems to be difficult for people to step outside their own comfort zone

It seems to me that contraception on a global scale is the best option we have available at this stage. Contraception has come a long way since the condom and the even the pill. Now, subcutaneous implants with an efficacy period of up to five years are available. I saw a TV programme where women in Rwanda were tackling the problem head on. What is going on there is a small ray of hope. I fear it won’t be anywhere near enough to inspire other African countries where poverty is rampant and natural population controls diminish with medical technology. The competition for scarce resources may propel population control forward as it is doing in Rwanda but it’s no guarantee.

Rwandan kiddies. At least they are happy.

Add to that the irresponsible teachings of religion on sex and sexual ethics with the rise of HIV and the future situation worsens. I listen to the Pope pontificating about sexual abstinence and I nearly fly off the handle. The man is a fool and very dangerous. He constantly sidesteps the contraception issue and the problem of HIV. At least the Italians have enough sense to ignore him and keep their annual population growth rate to 0.42% in 2011 according to the CIA and down from 0.65% in the World Bank figures for 2009.

It isn’t that far off before we really do run out of arable land, water availability and other resources. I feel so very sad for my grandchildren and their prospects.  It is worth remembering David Suzuki’s daughter Severn addressing the summit in Brazil in 1992. That was the Rio Earth Summit minus the +20 that it is today.

I know all the experts try to keep their chin up but even the optimistic David Attenborough looks grim when he talks about population, resources and habitat loss.

And it makes me feel more grim as well.

Related articles

UK Local Elections & Voter Turnout

Voters outside a polling place, Brisbane, Quee...

Voters outside a polling place, Brisbane, Queensland, 1907 Men and women form a line outside a polling place in Brisbane, watched by officials. 1907 was the first year women voted at an election in Queensland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Well, the UK holds its elections on weekdays not Saturdays. Voting is voluntary so the turnout varies. Thursday 3rd May 2012 was the day that elections were held in 181 local government authorities throughout England, Wales and Scotland. There was a 32% turnout in England and Wales. Scotland doesn’t start counting ‘til after I publish this post. Well, now at 10:50 Ayrshire looks like about 45% voter turnout. Better. Further update puts the all up Scottish voting contingent at about 38%. Not that much better after all.

Photo of a polling station in a portable cabin...

Photo of a polling station in a portable cabin in the South of Coventry. The structure was temporary and in position on the 3 May 2007 for the local election. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have to say that all three times I have had occasion to attend a polling place in Scotland I have seen only one party leafleted by only one person. Additionally I have met a maximum of half a dozen voters while I was there. I recall local elections in Mullumbimby. Every candidate represented by up to 4 supporters handing out voting preference slips; queues of voters waiting in line at the polling station. Amicable banter all around; mind you, the weather was more conducive to casual socialising than it is here in Scotland.

And in both State and Federal elections in Australia, the candidates’ supporters are out in numbers regaling voters with preferential voting slips for their candidate as the voters walk the gauntlet to the polls. I have not seen anything like that in Scotland.

It is the engagement with the political process that is most marked. I see little, if any, evidence of it here versus the obvious and voiced engagement in Mullumbimby, which maybe has, in part, to do with the type of community in Mullumbimby. I also think that compulsory voting plays a part in the whole community engaging with itself in the election process, which is quite lively in Mullumbimby and in Australia generally. I have lived in many areas in Australia and have voted in different elections in different places – the larger the electorate the more muted the obvious engagement.

Although, the local elections in the UK employ a preferential system of voting which is a marked improvement on the antiquated first-past-the-post system that the UK uses in its Westminster elections, I can’t help but wonder if the voters actually understand the system.

 While FPTP is commonly found in countries based on the British parliamentary system, and in Westminster elections in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly use a form of PR known as the mixed member system, after New Zealand adopted it in 1993. Five Canadian provinces—British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick— are debating whether to abolish FPTP.[citation needed]

 Australia has used a preferential system of voting for some time, in the Federal elections since 1918. The good thing about preferential voting is that smaller parties and independents, first preference votes are recorded as having achieved that amount of primary votes. This is a good statistic and can be used by the candidate and/or party to build its platform for coming elections. Even though the first vote will probably not get over the line in terms of the set quota, what does happen is that the canny voter is able to register his vote so that none of his/her preferences is wasted. He/she can craft the vote in order that the preferences go down the line and extinguish where the voter wants his vote to extinguish.

There was one comment to my previous post on compulsory vs voluntary voting that again mashed the percentages in an attempt to prove an advantage which just isn’t apparent. I have noted that comparing apples with oranges just doesn’t wash unless you are colour-blind or have your paintbrush dipped in your own paint; otherwise known as having taken a partisan stance.

Of course, cherry picking rarely does work and comments that emanate from a partisan point of view are often able to be shown to have used partisan data that obscures rather than illuminates.

It may well be fair to say that more and more voters in either compulsory or voluntary electoral systems are less and less interested in politics as we all realise that politik speak is a form of bullshit fed to us by newspapers that are owned by media moguls and others who wish to direct the political debate and pepper it with salacious gossip.

At the moment, in the UK the Murdochs are receiving a drubbing that will leave them diminished. In my partisan way, I have to say that is a good job being well done by the Leveson Inquiry. I am finding the Inquiry fascinating and it informs me inter alia in psephology. A laudable pursuit in my older age.

Related articles

Voter turnout – compulsory vs voluntary

Nicolas Sarkozy? Not in this round.

The recent elections in France highlight the differences in the numbers of voters who actually vote in the electoral process in different countries and depending on whether the country embraces compulsory voting or allows voluntary engagement in the electoral process. There are some amazingly interesting questions that can be posed about voting trends based on the political and social histories of different countries.

In the BBC online magazine this morning, Tom Geoghegan posed this question:

‘The turnout in the first round of the French presidential election was more than 80%. The last time that number went to the polls in the UK was 1951. Why do so many French vote?’

In fact, with the exception of 2007, France has a fairly consistent voter turnout in the 70 to 80% range, the highest percentage being 82.69% in 1956. Maybe it has to do with France’s revolutionary past, maybe not. But it is the French Presidential elections – less voters turn out for the French Parliamentary elections. Equally interesting is the high Socialist vote in this first round, but that’s another article another time.

Francois Hollande made a surprising showing.

Tom could be a bit clearer with his comments. His figures are comparing French Presidential elections with the UK Parliamentary elections – hardly the same kettle of fish. Between Tom’s high of 81.89% in the UK in 1951 to the 65.77% in 2010, the UK percentage until this century was always in the mid to high 70% and is, on average, higher than the percentage of voter turnout enjoyed by France in its Parliamentary elections.

To compare the same electoral process in Australia where voting in the Federal elections has been compulsory since 1924, the percentage of voting public is never out of the mid to high 90% range.

The difference between these three countries can be seen in the percentage of invalid votes cast. It varies between 1.8% and 6.80% in Australia where voters can be legitimately ticked off the electoral roll and create a nonsense vote in the privacy of the voting booth should they want. Far less invalid voting papers are cast in both France and the UK where voting is voluntary and voters are motivated by reasons other than a fine for failure to vote.

In the UK the percentage of invalid votes dips markedly down to between 0.1% and 1.03% and in France (Parliamentary elections), between 1.4% and 5.3%. So possibly on average, the difference in voting responsibility less marked than I would have thought.

Interestingly, the percentage of invalid votes cast at the French Presidential elections started at 0.7% in 1965 and shot up to 5.4% in the 2002 elections before dropping back to 4.2% in 2007. It will be interesting to see the figures for this current election. The French are engaged with their Presidential elections and that is because of their history, I think.

There are pros and cons tossed around for compulsory vs voluntary voting. The different points are reproduced from a Research Brief in this article. It is worth a read. There are some pathetic reasons listed on both sides and they veer more to sentimentality and national flag waving. I am not impressed. Be that as it may, I have a preference for compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting regimes.

Of the pros on compulsory voting the compelling pro for me is that the legitimacy of the elected government is much more acceptable under the compulsory system.

The commonly voiced con argument that it is undemocratic to force people to vote doesn’t really constitute a point at all. The populace is forced to consent to the laws of the land, taxation and compulsory schooling. There is acceptance without question of any financial largesse emanating from the government coffers. To my mind there is an obligation as well as a right to have a say in the running of the society and the makeup of the government.

I still prefer compulsory voting systems. I noted in Australia that there is much more engagement with the political agenda and with political parties than I have noticed so far here in Scotland.

I would finish by agreeing with Cam Riley in saying that while electoral reform can be well and fairly motivated, beware the political parties. They are far more interested in reform (or non reform) that advantages them. As Cam says: ‘Too personal for my liking’.

I don’t trust them either. So my little study of psephology will continue and my understanding will develop. Quite fascinating really.

Ulema Council & Karzai hobble Afghan women (again)

In the middle of oppression, there is hope. I have written before above the cultures behind the wearing of the shapeless body and face concealing clothing. I have lampooned Lauren Booth adopting Islam (a capitalist westerner; loves photo shoots of herself doing ‘good works’).

Just prior to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan (1979 to 1989), in the midst of growing oppression of women in Afghanistan, there rose up a young woman known as Meena. She was, by all accounts, a remarkable woman who, with other women intellectuals, ferried women and children out from Kabul to Pakistan and an uneasy safety. She set up refugee camps and classrooms to combat female illiteracy and teach children in Pakistan. Their efforts were always fraught with raids by Islamist men. The women knew that education was the only way to break gender repression. The irony was that in the 1960s, girls and women, including Meena, were educated and intellectually productive members of life in Kabul.

Meena Keshwar Kamal

It didn’t last; it couldn’t last. Her head, once above the parapet after she addressed the Internationalist Socialist Conference in France in 1981 was in the sights of the then KGB and its Afghan agents, the Afghan Intelligence Service and the Islamist fundamentalists. She was eventually assassinated in February 1987 when she was only 30. Her activist husband had been murdered 3 months earlier. The whereabouts of their children is still unknown. Here is a link to Amazon where you can find her story written by Melody Ermachild Chavis.

The best known image of Meena

Meena was the founder of an organisation that became dedicated to equality and education for women and give a voice to the silenced women of Afghanistan. That organisation has grown stronger and more vocal over the decades.

 The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) is an extraordinary organisation that is more active today than ever before. Its struggle these days is against the ultra-fundamentalist Taliban, its repressive, anti-women and male-chauvinism orientation. It is highly scathing of the role played by the USA in Afghanistan.

Today in the BBC News online there is an article that, while worrying in its content, allows some hope to emerge notwithstanding President Hamid Karzai endorsing the further oppression. Karzai is widely perceived as a puppet of America.

 ‘After a council of Afghan clerics issued restrictive guidelines for women, later embraced by President Hamid Karzai, young Afghans streamed to social media sites to lampoon the rulings, reports BBC Afghan’s Tahir Qadiry.

“It’s outrageous,” wrote one young Afghan on his Facebook page.

“The next thing they’ll be saying is that Afghanistan needs to be divided up in two – one half for men and the other half for women.”’

What is heartening is that there are cartoons lampooning the mullahs and their edict. This would not have been possible earlier.

Lampooning and satire can work. The mullahs need to be caged!!

Here’s another article stating that:

‘Afghanistan’s top religious council has said women should not mix with men in school, work or other aspects of daily life. The Ulema Council has also said that women should not travel without a male relative.’

In a country where women can be jailed for being the victim of rape, this step by the Ulema Council is so retrograde that after 10 years of gender gains in Afghanistan, one can only hope that a modern backlash may finally have some political clout.

Same Sex Marriage in the UK

It would be really pleasant to be able to ignore the teacup storms whipped up by the religious over issues to do with modern society. These storms take on the appearance of tsunamis and distract everyone from the serious business at hand in running a country. Like repealing very, very expensive loopholes in legislation that are abused by the rich including the Queen. But that’s another story.

Keithie O'Brien in colourful drag

Looking at this photo of The Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in the dioceses of St Andrews and Edinburgh and leader of the Church in Scotland in all his gloriously coloured pomp and ceremonial robes and mitre, I hope I can be forgiven for chuckling at Tim Minchin’s naughty Pope Song and the cartoon video that accompanied it. The video and the song went viral during and after the Pope’s visit in September 2010. The clergy were unusually silent about our Tim.

http://vimeo.com/11338327

Things must be moving too fast for religious dogma that is driven by age-old and static texts. Well, if not static (who reads original languages these days) then with essential tenets unchanged for millennia.

It is terribly hard lines for the Catholics in modern western society. Not only aren’t they allowed to hide the egregious and utterly inappropriate behaviour of a fair sized percentage of their clerics and other enforcers, they are having difficulty staying focussed on anything anymore. It’s raining in on them from all sides. The brickbats, slings and arrows just keep flying.

Cardinal Keithie O’Brien has made some amazingly silly and inconsistent claims this week over the intention of the UK government to legalise marriage for our homosexual community. He can be pretty offensive too.

Apparently the Roman Catholics in the England and Wales number about 5 million (hard to know for sure because of self identification). The population of England and Wales totals about 55 million.

It isn’t only the good Cardinal who has his knickers in a knot (maybe that’s the problem) but the Archbishop of Westminster, Most Rev. Vincent Nichols is on record with the same sort of complaint. At least he looks a little more like a person rather than a caricature, at least in this photo. Mind you, he can dress up too and looks quite like all other Archbishops.

Vinnie Nichols in his dog collar

There is a very good blog called Left Foot Forward with this article as a history lesson for the good Cardinal.


I understand that it would be very odd of them and the flurry of religious leaders on this island if they welcomed gay unions with open arms. Maybe they feel they have to stand up for their anachronistic organisations; after all they are paid by their churches and job loyalty ensures tenure of position.

Edit (7Mar) There are a couple of articles that I have found here from Stephen Hough in the Telegraph and here from the National Secular Society. Both articles are worth 50 of the articles from the religious.

My proposal is this:

The Registrar of Birth, Deaths and Marriages already registers births and deaths prior to any celebratory or funereal mourning ceremonies that may or may not ensue. Enable legislation that nominates the Registry as the sole registering body for all hatches, matches and despatches. Everyone who wants to marry can apply for the registration of their union with the registry and then go off and celebrate until the cows come home or they fall over, whichever comes first. However, it does create a level playing field for the registration of marriage. Make it secular first, religious afterwards like Births and Deaths.

Someone queried the white wedding and young girls’ desire to have the purported biggest day of their lives being lost in the greyness of the Registry.

Not so I pointed out. My marriage (ahem, the second formal one) was held at the Registry in St. Andrews (a pleasanter spot you’ll never find) with flowers, a new outfit, music and a delightful woman who conducted the process. During the war, many couples were married at Registry offices. Prior to the war and many moons prior to Christianity or Judaism and definitely prior to Islam, marriage ceremonies were held in fields, buildings, homes, beaches and in woodlands. All very charming and full of good cheer and well wishes for the couple, I am sure. In Perth, Australia, my son and his wife were married in King’s Park by a celebrant from the Humanists.

At St Andrews Registry Office - the old Mayor's Room

Why do the Christians feel they have the right to try to continue to punch beyond their weight and take the government to task on this issue? It seems to have something to do with their definition of the word marriage. They want it defined as in the umpteenth version or edition or translation of their holy book. The King James Version was published in 1611 and that is probably the one they use – very modern as things stand. Only 400 years old. And you should see who created it!! What a motley crew.

So what is the etymology of the word ‘marriage’? What’s more – what is the history of marriage itself?

Dear wiki:

The modern English word “marriage” derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married.

Long before that – it was just an agreement between two people. The female was not always consulted since she was seen as property to be traded. She had no rights until very recently. Marriages were arranged or forced. Some still are. These clerics need to get with the real world and stop being religiously myopic.

This again from wiki:

 Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[40] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[41]

While it is a relatively new practice to frequently grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[42] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,[42] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[43] A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex marriage in ancient Rome[44] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[45]

Terry and Mark and their wedding and good on them.

And then what about polygamy and polyandry? What about all different religious faiths’ requirement or lack thereof?

The Catholics and Protestants on this island are so hidebound by tradition they seem to think nothing happened until their arrival. What a jolt of realism for them to have to adapt to, but adapt they will. Eventually and dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of modern realism. It will be secular.