Category: Uncategorized

THE INSPIRATIONAL COURAGE SHOWN IN A MOSCOW COURT LAST WEEK.

December 16, 2022 /

In February 1966 Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuly Daniel were tried for ‘anti-Soviet agitation’ in a Moscow court and sentenced to seven and five years in labour camps. Their satirical writings had offended the state. Their trial was reported around the world[1] and provoked an international reaction and inspired others in USSR to take a stand against their rulers. It led to a wider dissident movement which stood against state repression in USSR. Ilya Yashin stands firmly in this tradition. On 9th December 2022 he was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for a series of posts in May about the murder and torture of Ukrainian civilians by Russian troops in Bucha[2]. This is the report from The Moscow Times of his speech from the dock[3]:-

“….Ladies and gentlemen,
You have to agree that the phrase “the defendant’s last word” sounds very sombre as if after I speak they’ll sew my mouth shut and forbid me from ever speaking again.

Everyone understands that this is precisely the point. I am being isolated from society and imprisoned because they want me to remain silent, as our parliament is no longer a place for discussion and Russia must now silently agree with any measures its government takes.

But I promise that as long as I live I’ll never make peace with that. My mission is to tell the truth. I’ve spoken it on city squares, in television studios, in parliament and I will not cease to speak it from behind bars either. As one classic author put it: “Lies are the religion of slaves and masters. Truth is the god of the free man.”

Your Honour, I have a principle that I’ve followed for many years now: do what you must, come what may. When the hostilities began, I did not doubt what I should do even for a second.

I must remain in Russia, I must speak the truth loudly, and I must stop the bloodshed at any cost. It physically pains me to think how many people have been killed in this war, how many lives have been ruined, and how many families have lost their homes. You cannot be indifferent. And I swear I do not regret anything. It’s better to spend 10 years behind bars as an honest man than quietly burn with shame over the blood spilled by your government. Of course, Your Honour, I’m not expecting a miracle here. You know I’m not guilty, but I know that you’re pressured by the system. It is obvious that you will have to issue a guilty verdict. But I hold no ill will toward you, and I wish you no ill. But try to do everything that is in your power to
avoid injustice. Remember that it’s not just my personal fate that depends on your verdict — this verdict is against the part of our society that wants to live a peaceful and civilized life. The part of society that, perhaps, you belong to, Your Honour.

I’d also like to use this platform to address Russian President Vladimir Putin. The man responsible for this bloodbath who signed the “military censorship” law, and according to whose will I am currently in prison.

Mr. Putin, when you look at the consequences of this terrible war, you probably already understand the gravity of the mistake that you made on Feb. 24. No one greeted our army with flowers. They call us invaders and occupiers. Your name is now firmly associated with the words “death” and “destruction.”

You brought about a terrible tragedy for the Ukrainian people, who will probably never forgive us for it. But you’re not just waging a war on Ukrainians — you’re at war with your own citizens, too.

You’re sending off hundreds of thousands of Russians to war. Many will return disabled or lose their minds from what they’ve seen and gone through. To you, this is just a death toll, a number in a column. But to many families, this means the unbearable pain of losing a husband, a father or a son.

Hundreds of thousands of our citizens have left their country because they don’t want to kill or be killed. People are running from you, Mr. President. Can’t you see?

You’re undermining the basis of our economic security. Your switch to a wartime economy is turning our country backward. Have you forgotten that this policy already led our country to ruin in the past?

Let this be a voice crying out in the wilderness, but I’m calling on you, Mr. Putin, to stop this madness right now. We need to recognize that our policy on Ukraine was a mistake, to withdraw our troops from its territory and to reach a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

Remember that every new day of the war brings new victims. Enough.

Finally, I want to address the people who have followed these court proceedings, who have supported me for all these months, and who are anxiously waiting for the
verdict.

My friends! No matter what verdict the court gives, no matter how tough that verdict is, this must not break you. I realize how difficult it is for you right now, I realize that you feel hopeless and powerless. But you must not give up.

Please do not give into despair and don’t forget that this is our country. It is worth fighting for. Be brave, do not retreat in the face of evil. Resist. Stand your ground on your street, in your city. And most importantly — be there for each other. There are many more of us than you think, and together we have enormous power.

Don’t worry about me. I promise to endure my tribulations without complaint and that I won’t lose my integrity. In turn, please promise me that you’ll not lose your optimism and won’t forget how to smile. Because the moment we lose our ability to find joy in life is the moment they win.

Believe me, Russia will one day be free and happy.”[4]

  1. Alexander Ginzburg, a journalist, compiled a report of the trial which circulated secretly in USSR called “The White Book” and was arrested and sentenced to 5 years in a labour camp along with 3 others whose trial was recorded in the book “The trial of the Four”. All these defendants made courageous speeches from the dock. ↑
  2. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/09/russian-opposition-figure-ilya-yashin-jailed-for-denouncing-ukraine-war accessed 16/12/22 ↑
  3. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/12/07/people-are-running-from-you-mr-president-cant-you-see-a79626 accessed 16/12/22 . The article ends “This is an edited version of a translation provided by Novaya Gazeta Europe. The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times. The unedited translation of Novoya Gazeta Europe is at https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/12/06/people-are-running-from-you-mr-president-cant-you-see-en ↑
  4. For more information about Mr Yashin see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Yashin. Thanks to the “Battleground” podcast for alerting me to Mr Yashin’s speech https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/battleground-ukraine/id1617276298 ↑

 

“Is lockdown punishing too many for the greater good?”

January 18, 2021 /

The title for this blog is a quotation from the BBC’s ‘Big Quotations’ programme in which Lord Jonathon Sumption said:

“All lives are not of equal value. The older you are, the less the value of your life because there is less of it left” ‘The Big Questions’, Series 14, Episode 1, @10 mins, 28 seconds[1]

Lord Sumption has a formidable intellect and is one of the pre-eminent law and history scholars alive today. These qualities do not amount to wisdom. Even allowing for the fact that Lord Sumption was constrained by the limitations of a TV appearance which does not permit nuanced development of arguments, at best it would have been wiser had he expressed himself differently, and at worst he appears to be inviting us to venture down a very dangerous path.

Sumption believes the government’s lockdown laws are disproportionate and unjustified. He believes the government should have taken into account that ‘all lives are not of equal value’ –in particular that the old are worth less than the young. Such arguments are horribly reminiscent of those of eugenicists and the Nazi argument that some lives are “not worthy of life”. (See also “War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” by Edwin Black). It is here that Sumption’s eminence as a lawyer does not assist him and may even count against him. Commercial lawyers are trained to develop the skill of making very fine distinctions and to hold in tension arguments which are subtly different from each other and then to tease out those differences to distinguish them from each other as if they were as separate as night and day. This is a difficult skill and one in which the best commercial lawyers excel. Sumption was one of the very best. In the rarefied atmosphere of a court this skill is priceless because it fits the forensic demands of the common law process which demands a minute examination of precedent. Outside the Courtroom the skill can become a hindrance where, for example, it blinds one to connections between arguments that one is holding separate in one’s mind. The BBC’s audience instinctively sensed that Sumption’s argument that “All lives are not of equal value” cannot be quarantined from policies which end in a very dark place.

If circumstances force us to make decisions which we know will result in the death of some and the survival of others, what criteria should we apply? That is a hard question and I have no neat answer. Of this I am sure: preferential treatment should not be given to a category of people on the basis that someone, even someone as eminent as Lord Sumption, regards them as ‘more valuable’ than others and treatment should not be withheld on the basis that some people are regarded as ‘less valuable’ than others[2].

I am a Christian and this informs my views on the issues raised in the BBC programme. To me, the crux of the matter is that all of us are of equal value to God, our creator and He places very great value on each and every one of us without distinction. I am reminded of the story Jesus told to a lawyer (Luke 10:25-37) about a half-dead person who was left naked on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho after robbers had beaten him up and stolen from him. Three people come across the body on the road but only one of them stops and looks after him. Jesus’ punchline in the story is ‘Go and do likewise’. Is it far-fetched to imagine that the one who stopped was the only one who saw that the half dead, naked victim was valuable?

  1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000rhfg/the-big-questions-series-14-episode-1 Accessed 18/01/21 ↑
  2. It is true that when medical resources exceed the demands put on them, doctors have to triage patients to ensure that the resources available are used appropriately. What is or is not ‘appropriate’ can be debated and ‘quality adjusted life years’ may have a part to play. What is being assessed in such a situation is the potential of the value of the treatment for the individual, not the value of the individual. Furthermore, that circumstance is different from the situation where a government is deciding what restrictions it should impose in order to limit the risk that the NHS might be so overwhelmed as to be unable to treat people in future. ↑

 

HOPE THAT WILL NOT FAIL

October 25, 2020 /

“Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: help us so to hear them, to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them that, through patience and the comfort of your holy word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ; who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.“

This is the appointed prayer for today, ‘Bible Sunday’. When Thomas Cranmer wrote this one sentence prayer, around four hundred years ago, he ought to have felt like a traveller who has succeeded in stuffing more into a suitcase than a suitcase is designed to carry. Success in having left nothing out is counter-balanced by the effort required to carry it.

There is so much in this one sentence that it is hard to follow. It is as if one opens an overpacked suitcase and can’t focus on any one object because everything falls out in a heap. The phrase which falls out of the sentence and catches my attention this morning is “hold fast [to]… the hope of everlasting life”.

If you had asked me why anyone should bother to read the Bible, before pondering this prayer I suspect I might have come up with such reasons as “to get to know what God is like” or, “To know Jesus Christ better”. This prayer brings into focus another reason ‘so that I may hold onto the hope of everlasting life.’ Holding onto hope whilst adjusting to the uncertainties of the Covid world in the shadow of climate change is challenging. Without hope, our zest for life quickly dulls and eventually withers altogether. Sustaining hope is essential to healthy living. What we hope for and what we place our hope in matters. Get these things wrong and disillusion and despondency follow. “Hope” is so valuable and attractive that we sometimes slip into the habit of talking about it as if it is self-standing rather than asking ourselves what/who we are hoping in and what we are hoping for.

How often, if at all, do we even think about the hope of everlasting life? When you have toothache, it is hard to think about anything other than the tooth that is aching. When all news channels are saturated by the coverage of the pandemic and our day to day life is forced into strange patterns, it requires a deliberate effort to make ourselves think past the virus and focus upon the hope of everlasting life. This is a very timely prayer. What are we hoping for? If our hope is in economic success or enduring good health then the pandemic must surely make us think twice. But what if our hope is ultimately in what comes after this life? What sort of re-orientation of our thoughts is needed to allow us to give pre-eminence to this hope?

The second thing that caught me by surprise in this prayer is the word ‘patience’. What has that got to do with the reading of scripture and holding onto the hope of everlasting life? Quite a lot, I realise, once it has been pointed out to me. Cranmer’s prayer is targeted at the way in which we read scripture […help us so to hear them…]. This is addressing not so much our method of reading scripture as our attitude towards the scriptures. I sometimes read scripture attentively, distractedly, casually, critically, carelessly, carefully etc but never would I have thought of describing myself as reading scripture ‘patiently’. Patience is required; I see that now. There is so much that is not immediately apparent. There is so much that is a mystery. There are so many truths that slowly unfold so that patience is indeed needed. One of today’s appointed readings is Psalm 119:9-16 which includes these words

“11  I have stored up your word in my heart,

that I might not sin against you…..

15  I will meditate on your precepts

and fix my eyes on your ways.

16  I will delight in your statutes;

I will not forget your word.”

This suggests that David was in the habit of bringing scripture to mind and letting it permeate his thinking. It suggests a patience with scripture; a willingness to accept that it might not be immediately clear how it is intended to be interpreted and applied by us in 2020 and that we should not be too hasty in applying the parts we think we understand or too hasty in ignoring the parts we don’t presently understand.

The third and final item to fall out of this suitcase addresses the question of who we place our hope in. This prayer includes all three members of the Trinity. It is addressed to God the Father and its grounds for hope rest upon the person of Jesus Christ and the author’s certainty that He is alive, that He reigns and that He, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is eternal—i.e. unchanging, come what may.

This prayer may be antiquated but remains potent.

 

GOVERNING LIKE THIS IS DAMAGING…. WHAT NOW?

October 24, 2019 /

British politics has become so tribal and so polarised that the following thought experiment will be very difficult for most people but please try it:-

Imagine Mr Johnson’s government asks you for a list of policies that it should pursue. You provide that list and the government immediately agrees to pursue all the policies on your list and that existing policies will be abandoned if they contradict your list. Would this government’s methods of governing be acceptable if it was pursuing your chosen policies?

My answer to that is a clear “NO”. No matter what the merits of one’s chosen policies might be, the collateral damage Mr Johnson’s method of governing is inflicting is too great.  Here are some examples;-

● The Government is using ‘Downing Street Sources’ to spread lies and smears. Read this article https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/ which gives specific examples. (This is not only an unwise way of doing business: it is also short sighted.  What happens if we get so used to hearing lies and misrepresentations from the media and politicians that even when they tell the truth we won’t believe them?)

● The Government refuses to use moderate language and is content to inflame tensions by inflammatory and aggressive language. Mr Johnson knows how to use words: journalism was his trade. The frequent use of images and language of war is not just distasteful: it is a step towards inciting violence. 

 

● If the Government perceives a short term gain is to be had, it does not shrink from adopting questionable methods to obtain that gain. Unlawfully advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament is a case in point. Treating the judiciary, parliament itself and MPs with disrespect are further examples.

The Government is acting as if the end justifies the means. It doesn’t.  If the ends justifies the means for a government why should not the same be true for others– no matter how far right, far left or extreme?

I emphasise that I am not making any point about the merits or otherwise of the Government’s aims and policies. My point is that HMG’s method of speaking and acting is objectionable and is doing harm that will take a long time to repair, if it can be repaired at all.

Nearly everyone approves of democracy and democratic institutions but this government’s way of governing assumes that democratic institutions are self-healing and everlasting. History shows that they are not. They can decay from the inside. The Government’s methods are causing such decay at a rapid pace. 

When democracy dies democratic institutions lose substance even whilst preserving the appearance of not having changed.  Thus there may still be Courts that sit with Judges who have the same robes but if judicial independence is lost or if the courts are too expensive or inaccessible (because the decisions are made by the home office and no effective review available) true justice fades.  Parliament may still meet in the iconic building of Westminster but if capable and diligent people are unwilling to serve as MPs because of the abuse that would go with the job what then?  If there is no easily available way of obtaining reliable news what chance of reasoned debate or meaningful choices without which democracy becomes impossible?

Read The Windrush Betrayal and you encounter a tyranny of the bureaucracy against defenceless innocent people. Read Refugee Tales III and you encounter similar bureaucratic tryanny against refugees.  Try telling them that they have the right to protection from the Court.

If you can stand the painful shame of it, watch the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee in December 2018 by a Windrush victim and you will catch a glimpse of how rights can become hollow once decency and civility are eroded.

Decency and civility are being replaced by a very different and brutal way of governing and its not clear how this can be stopped.  There is a common thread that runs through the Grenfell tragedy, the Windrush betrayal and the marginalisation of many needing state assistance: that thread is an uncaring, even brutal, way of governing that fails to listen to cries for help.

A general election is coming but a change of government would not necessarily repair the damage that is now being done. The government’s methods, along with other factors beyond the government’s control, are poisoning the wells.  A new ‘normal’ is being established which is far from normal. This is easiest to see by considering the same phenomenon in the USA where Trump’s behaviour now has to be shocking to a degree before it even registers as unusual. What once would have caused outrage now causes barely a comment of disapproval.

Please use the comment facility or the email link on the left to suggest:-

  • How can we encourage our politicians to work in ways that build up trust and mutual respect?
  • How can we persuade our politicians that using language that promotes goodwill and compromise is something we respect and value?
  • How do we get the message across that the end does not justify the means?

 

Verified by ExactMetrics