Friday, February 13, 2009
Whose idea of equality is that?
The funniest news this week is that Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, is to be sent on an “equality course”.
Have they really thought this through? This is a young man who stands to inherit a position of political power over millions of us, just because of whose son he happens to be. Not to mention wealth beyond the dreams of a Russian oligarch. All for simply outliving his dad and older brother. And you thought bankers got money for nothing.
This latest gesture follows the revelation by well-spoken comedian Stephen K. Amos that the ginger Prince made an ill-advised attempt at humour and told him "You don't sound like a black chap". But it's the army who'll be teaching Harry about equality. "Remember, Lieutenant Wales, we respect people of all cultures and nationalities. It's okay to shoot them, but don't call them names."
Of course, it’s a sign of the royal family’s weakness that he's going on an equality course. If their ancestors had been so squeamish about the unfairness of life, the Restoration of Charles II would never have happened, and we’d still be living in a republic. Instead, we have a system where the head of state is chosen according to gender (girls only get the throne when there’s no boy to hand) religion (no Catholics) and family connections (er… they have to be royal. And British).
In theory, that’s all for the tourists and we live in a democracy. But we are still “subjects” and not “citizens”. And that’s one use of words that I do find quite offensive.
Have they really thought this through? This is a young man who stands to inherit a position of political power over millions of us, just because of whose son he happens to be. Not to mention wealth beyond the dreams of a Russian oligarch. All for simply outliving his dad and older brother. And you thought bankers got money for nothing.
This latest gesture follows the revelation by well-spoken comedian Stephen K. Amos that the ginger Prince made an ill-advised attempt at humour and told him "You don't sound like a black chap". But it's the army who'll be teaching Harry about equality. "Remember, Lieutenant Wales, we respect people of all cultures and nationalities. It's okay to shoot them, but don't call them names."
Of course, it’s a sign of the royal family’s weakness that he's going on an equality course. If their ancestors had been so squeamish about the unfairness of life, the Restoration of Charles II would never have happened, and we’d still be living in a republic. Instead, we have a system where the head of state is chosen according to gender (girls only get the throne when there’s no boy to hand) religion (no Catholics) and family connections (er… they have to be royal. And British).
In theory, that’s all for the tourists and we live in a democracy. But we are still “subjects” and not “citizens”. And that’s one use of words that I do find quite offensive.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Sammy says No
Hats off to Sammy Wilson for standing up to the political consensus. He’s the Northern Ireland Environment Minister, but he’s startled many (including some inside his own department) by refusing to disseminate the UK Government’s message on carbon emissions.
Which, in case you’d missed it, is that we are all to blame for the imminent demise of the polar bear, floods in Bangladesh, and the fast-approaching apocalypse of climate change. And it’s therefore our duty as right-thinking citizens to do less, use less, consume less and travel less.
And if we’re not prepared to actually accept a further fall in living standards - on top of what the recession is already giving us - we must at least symbolically accept our guilt and do our bit by travelling slower, walking across the room to turn things off at the wall, and insulating our lofts.
But Sammy Wilson refuses to give people “the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water.” He’s right, obviously. The amount of energy we can save in our own homes is trivial compared to the emissions of industry and construction. But in the current climate (political, not meteorological) Wilson’s stance is brave, if not political suicide.
Two years ago, if you’d asked me what I thought about Global Warming (before it was rebranded to avoid confusion at times of freak snowfall, cooler summers, etc.) I would have said I didn’t disagree with the diagnosis, but I wanted a second opinion on the treatment.
That is, I saw no reason to question the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide, and other gases produced by human activity since the industrial revolution, have changed the composition of the atmosphere and enhanced the “greenhouse effect” that stops us all freezing to death.
I did, however – and still do – reject the moral and political conclusions usually drawn from that analysis – that humans are wicked, greedy and selfish (unlike the rest of Nature? I mean, have you seen what Moorhens do to their own chicks?) and that the only way to stave off the final judgement of God – er, sorry, Mother Nature – is to repent with self-denial and abstinence.
No, when it comes to a rational response to the presented problem, I’m broadly with Bjorn Lomborg, self-styled Sceptical Environmentalist. He suggests that we should take a human-centred approach to the problem, checking that the social and financial costs of any action we take don’t outweigh the benefits.
But over the last couple of years I have changed my mind. The world of science is now so committed to climate change as a moral message that I no longer think it has any claim to objectivity. I don’t trust the scientists any more to give me a true picture and let me make up my own mind. The same people that present me with graphs and figures are the ones telling me that “the debate is over”.
Well, not for me it isn’t, and not for Sammy Wilson.
Which, in case you’d missed it, is that we are all to blame for the imminent demise of the polar bear, floods in Bangladesh, and the fast-approaching apocalypse of climate change. And it’s therefore our duty as right-thinking citizens to do less, use less, consume less and travel less.
And if we’re not prepared to actually accept a further fall in living standards - on top of what the recession is already giving us - we must at least symbolically accept our guilt and do our bit by travelling slower, walking across the room to turn things off at the wall, and insulating our lofts.
But Sammy Wilson refuses to give people “the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water.” He’s right, obviously. The amount of energy we can save in our own homes is trivial compared to the emissions of industry and construction. But in the current climate (political, not meteorological) Wilson’s stance is brave, if not political suicide.
Two years ago, if you’d asked me what I thought about Global Warming (before it was rebranded to avoid confusion at times of freak snowfall, cooler summers, etc.) I would have said I didn’t disagree with the diagnosis, but I wanted a second opinion on the treatment.
That is, I saw no reason to question the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide, and other gases produced by human activity since the industrial revolution, have changed the composition of the atmosphere and enhanced the “greenhouse effect” that stops us all freezing to death.
I did, however – and still do – reject the moral and political conclusions usually drawn from that analysis – that humans are wicked, greedy and selfish (unlike the rest of Nature? I mean, have you seen what Moorhens do to their own chicks?) and that the only way to stave off the final judgement of God – er, sorry, Mother Nature – is to repent with self-denial and abstinence.
No, when it comes to a rational response to the presented problem, I’m broadly with Bjorn Lomborg, self-styled Sceptical Environmentalist. He suggests that we should take a human-centred approach to the problem, checking that the social and financial costs of any action we take don’t outweigh the benefits.
But over the last couple of years I have changed my mind. The world of science is now so committed to climate change as a moral message that I no longer think it has any claim to objectivity. I don’t trust the scientists any more to give me a true picture and let me make up my own mind. The same people that present me with graphs and figures are the ones telling me that “the debate is over”.
Well, not for me it isn’t, and not for Sammy Wilson.
