Both sides in the assisted dying debate are completely missing the point

As my regular reader will know, I tend to avoid sensitive subjects, so you won't find anything on religion or politics in my blog. Oh, wait..

The Assisted Dying bill was up before the Lords last week - had it been the Commons the irony would have been more acute in my view. God knows some of our current elected politicians could do with some assistance in that department.

As usual this event saw the arguments being aired on all sides - those who want to protect the sanctity of human life at any cost and those who believe that the individual, whose life it is after all, should have some say in the matter.

The bill is essentially about whether qualified individuals (doctors) should be allowed to help people to die peacfully and with dignity when there is no chance of recovery or the achievement of any real quality of life and where death would be preferable (to the individual) compared to continued struggle and exhausting, futile pain; or whether other people should decide on the matter.

At least that's what it should be about; a principled argument about who has the right to decide whether someone lives or dies, the person themselves or others who don't know the individual circumstances but believe in principle that people should never be helped to die or 'take their own life'.

Instead, because of the many voiciferous campaigns of those on the negative side of the argument in the past, the bill has been reduced to 'helping someone who has less than six months to live, to die at their own convenience and in line with their own wishes'.

Six months. Tops. That means they will be pretty far gone given the technology we currently have at our disposal in order to keep people alive. Whether they want to be kept alive or not.

We would not let a dog suffer like we allow our parents and grandparents to suffer in the name of these fucking do-gooders.

Yes of course there are issues around people being 'killed off' by other family members for nefarious reasons or older people being bullied into believing they're a burden on the family and therefore they should take their own lives, but how widespread is that?

And should a few despicable people take the whole 'control of one's own life' thing out of the hands of the individual whose life it is?

Have you read the book 'Me Before You'? If you haven't you should. It's great, a novel not philosophy, but it brings up many of the issues here at hand.

What about the formerly active, sporting, life-living person who has an accident, becomes paralysed and can no longer enjoy any kind of quality of life? Yet we have the technology to keep that person alive for decades, in pain, depressed but having no control over his or her own destiny, over whether they are allowed to live or die.

The guy, last year, with 'locked in' syndrome who was prevented from dying by 'do-gooders'. Do these people really think they're helping anyone? Or are they exerting their influence and control over people without really giving a shit about what that person really wants?

It might help in your consideration of this issue, if you were to put yourself in the position of the person who wants to die. Who has nothing left to live for. Who is kept alive by medical science and technology, but who, really, just wants to be able to die with some kind of dignity and control over their own destiny instead of being 'forced' to go on living, in pain, desperation and futility. It's like putting someone in a prison from which you are also denying them their only chance of escape. In that respect it is more akin to torture.

If that were me, my conclusion would be to state the following to these 'we will keep you alive at all costs and we'll prosecute anyone who helps you to achieve what you actually want: : 'How fucking dare you decide whether I can live or die?'

'What gives you the right to make that decision for me?'

'What gives you the right to prolong my suffering?'

These people actually think they are doing a good thing. They so are not.

Time for Mr Farage to call Dave?

So not quite an earthquake, but nor has UKIP's rise been a flash in the pan. It has succeeded in getting the crucial issue of our membership of the EU much higher on the agenda than it was before. Yes they have used some pretty hard-hitting issues such as immigration in a way which made me wince sometimes, but politics is a raw meat game so I can understand it, as I have blogged before.

And UKIP certainly did create some serious concern amongst politicians of all political persuasions during the run up to the May elections - a good thing too. They gave voice to many disaffected voters for whom the status quo is anathema.

But, with no national electoral set pieces available between now and the General Election, UKIP is in danger of sinking back into obscurity, and that would be a great shame in my opinion, from the point of view of UK politics as a whole. There are certainly a great many people who support UKIP and its vision for the UK in the world and in particular in our retaining our status as a nation state rather than being subsumed into the federal EU where, frankly, it will not make much difference which UK party one votes for in the future since most laws, financial agreements, foreign policies, trade deals etc., will be decided in Brussels and not Whitehall.

I think it's time that Dave and Nige picked up the phone....

'David..'

'Nigel..'

'We share some common political ground and, in particular, some common voters whose right-leaning views we represent, one way or another, do you agree?'

'I do.'

'And the danger is that we could split the others' vote in the General Election - obviously more damaging to you than to us, but potentially damaging nonetheless?'

'I agree.'

'I think there may be a way in which we could work together in order to avoid this scenario in a way which would be beneficial to both of us; are you prepared to consider this? No tricks, no strings, no binding coalition, just a gentleman's agreement, subject to your agreeing with my proposal?

'I'm listening.'

'OK, thank you. Our overriding objective is to secure a UK exit from the EU in a way which would, we believe, be in the interests of this country. I understand that you do not currently share this view, but you do want to see a reform of the EU in such a way that would bring back a great many powers and elements of self-governance and sovereignty to our own Parliament, as opposed to this creeping federalisation of Europe with ever more powers being taken away from national governments?'

'Yes that is true.'

'And you think you can achieve those reforms. We may differ in that view, but frankly if the powers you have talked about were to be brought back to the UK (we can discuss exactly what they might be later), we may well be persuaded to support that process. We are not anti-Europe, just anti the EU and against some of the powers that they have taken away from sovereign governments. In any case we are very much in favour of an in-out referendum and would be delighted to support your achieving that, which means your getting elected in 2015. Even if we might be on different sides of the in-out vote, the vote itself is very important to everyone in the UK - people want it.

'We have some common ground as you say.'

'The other thing that seems to have emerged from the elections in May is that our support is not limited to traditional Tory seats: We seem to have struck a chord with voters in traditional Labour heartlands who are increasingly realising that Labour is no longer the party of the working man, has as many 'Toffs' on its benches as you do and has, through it's open door immigration policies (actively encouraging incomers not just opening the doors), been extremely detrimental to workers in those parts of the country...'

'I agree.'

'I would argue that UKIP has a better chance of doing real damage to Labour in these areas at the General Election than the Tories - tribalism is still alive and well in many places in the north of course.'

'Indeed it is.'

'We'd have much more chance in Labour's heartlands if we were unopposed by a Tory candidate..'

'You would.'

'And you'd have much more chance of winning in your core areas and in some marginal seats if UKIP wasn't campaigning against you. A sort of 'unite the right' ticket..'

'That's true too, what's your suggestion Nige?'

'OK so here's my initial 'heads of agreement' suggestion: With the exception of a specific seat in Kent, we would be prepared to engage in a 'gentleman's agreement' wherein we would not stand against Tories in your heartlands and we would, subject to sorting out a joint stance of EU reforms (which would - and you'd need to think quite carefully about this - mean you'd have to make clear what your 'red lines' for regaining powers were), be prepared to not stand against you and indeed to endorse the Tory candidate in those areas.

'And in return?'

'We'd want a clear run at our target seats in Labour areas - we'd probably (no offence) not want Tory endorsement as part of this agreement, but to be allowed to roll out our campaigns unopposed by a Tory candidate and to have some form of tacit agreement that we are on the same side: the side of working people. Let's face it we couldn't do worse than you would do in some of these places and we would be able to put forward a clear and fresh message.'

'That would seem, on the face of it, to make sense, obviously some details would need to be worked out. What about the Lib Dems?'

'Let's not change the subject Dave, they're irrelevant and I think we both know it.'

'God I hope you're right - and I think you are. So would this be a formal pre-election coalition? That could be difficult..'

'No, not formal, but obviously it could not be clandestine. We would have to come up with a rationale for public consumption. You would have to have a form of words that you would be comfortable with - the bigger picture, long-term vision, national sovereignty and all that. We would, frankly have to tone down some of our stuff and weed out some more of the nutters and become more professional, but we're doing that anyway and want (and need) to continue that process. But, in principle, if it made your election with a majority more likely, we would both welcome that, and if it made UKIP a more credible party with some credible representation in Parliament, that would be great for us. We could then look at EU reforms positively in the best interests of the UK and if we could work out what we really want and need in terms of reforms beforehand, we could join forces in a positive way. Is it worth exploring?'

'Let's meet, no strings, no PR bullshit, who knows, but it's certainly of interest.'

'Thanks, I'll be in touch.'

The Pyramids, Stone Henge. Church henge. What's the difference? Not much

The patronisingly condescending way historians talk about ancient civilisations such as the Egyptians worshipping the sun God Ra or the druids worship[ping at Stonehenge, and yet there is no such condescention about modern people essentially doing exactly the same thing, with exactly the same amount of scientific justification, worshipping at a modern church henge.

There's very little difference when you look at this closely and really think about it.

Bliar!

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

This is Tony Blair's piece tonight telling us what we should now be doing to address the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. The man who is our 'Middle East Envoy'. Who did more than almost anyone to create the massive problem that we now face. Whose actions, decisions and policies have clearly delivered the world to where it is now. And where it is now is utter chaos.

The man who said we would sort out the Middle East once and for all: who said we would not 'walk away' from ordinary people, who said we would create a better life for ordinary Iraqis; establish democracy, law and order. Would remove a dictator and allow the people to flourish. Would give them freedom.

In that goal he first agreed to go to war in partnership with his 'mate' George W Bush without consulting Parliament and without listening to the people of this country who rightly saw this endeavour as madness and who marched in their millions against the misguided and illegal conflict in Iraq.

He then 'fitted' the facts to endorse his false promise to Mr Bush; he had his minions like Alastair Campbell create the dodgy dossier, the 45 minute claim, the since disproved WMD claims. His government machinery hounded an ordinary man to taking his own life (if that is really what happened) in the cause of our fighting a war that has cost us hundreds of British lives and £billions of pounds and has resulted in the creation of a much bigger and more threatening mess than existed before we went to war.

And now he is telling us what we should do to solve the problem?

I'm sorry, I try my hardest not to swear in the writing of my blogs, but sometimes there is no alternative.

Tony Blair is an utter cunt. A war criminal. He needs to be jailed. His piece tonight (linked above) is the work of a man who is running scared of his just deserts. We should never ever listen to what he has to say again. We should take away his vast wealth generated on the back of our fallen soldiers and their devastated families, and we should lock the fucker away for good.

And forever. And we should never, ever allow anything he says to be made public.

He's a monster.

Thanks for reading.



 

You know when you go to live in a different country...

This is a blog about the Islamification of UK schools - it's not a simple issue but I think there are some clear principles at stake here. I am not trying to offend anyone, just to consider the issues in a calm way. Warning, may contain some swear words.

As I understand it, ex-pats have 'British' schools to teach their kids when they're overseas in many parts of the world - in places where significant numbers of Brits are working or serving at embassies etc. The difference with these arrangements though, is that the work is temporary and the parents remain British nationals and essentially British residents, as opposed to going to these places to live permanently.

My sister lives in France and her daughter goes to a French school - they 'live' there and even were it possible in rural Normandie, for a 'Brit school' they would chose for her to attend a local French school. They are (and want to be) part of the community in which they live - it's why they went to France to live.

I also realised just recently - it was not something that I had previously really thought about (which is telling) - that I am a first generation immigrant to the UK - my dad is Irish, a Mayo man, from Westport and Ballina, via Galway to the UK.

That doesn't necessarily mean I know the square root of fuck all about the 'small print' of immigration but I'm just establishing my credentials.

The reason why I haven't realised my status as a first generation immigrant before now is that it's simply never been an issue for me. I was born here and whilst I am half Irish and proud of my Irish ancestry, I am essentially English or British, have been schooled here and have taken on the values of my host nation. I am also proud to be British and English - my only dilemma comes when England plays Ireland at Rugby Union, but that's not a major problem, it gives me two shots at the Grand Slam!

I'm rambling (you may have noticed?) because this is a difficult issue and not everyone will agree. But if I just tell you what you want to hear all the damn time, then I'm wasting it, yours and mine. So here goes.

I do genuinely understand that when a community (as is under the spotlight currently in Birmingham) is predominantly populated by people of the Muslim faith; when almost all of the kids who attend a particular school are from that background, that the likelihood is that the local school will reflect that demographic.

It's inevitable. And if enough people in a community want that to be the case then it is very difficult to argue against it and remain true to the principles of democracy.

But here's the rub. If you choose to up sticks and go and live in another country because it affords you a better chance in life, provides better opportunities for your kids, better healthcare, more freedoms than you might have enjoyed in your country of birth, surely part of the deal is that you will adopt the laws and values of that country?

That doesn't mean you have to give up your religion - that's largely a private matter between you and your God - but it does, in my opinion, mean that you accept the language, lifestyle and history of your new 'home' country instead of trying to import laws, politics and history from the country on which you are turning your back.

Why, fundamentally, would you want to create the same environment in you new, freer, more prosperous, more caring and more opportunity-providing host nation, as exists in the country from which you're trying to escape?

It seems to me that this is a two-way street. Controlled immigration is a good thing. It enhances our nation; it has been going on forever and has made us what we are today - tolerant, forward-looking, generous, diverse.

But when we offer a welcome to incomers, I think we do so on the basis that they have come here to integrate with us, to enjoy what this country has to offer and to contribute to it; to respect our laws, values and history. When you come and expect to establish your own closed communities, your own laws, your own, sometimes extreme, religious beliefs and doctrines, you are simply not keeping your side of the bargain.

Norman Tebbit made the now infamous comment about which cricket team you support if you live in England. It was a good point but I really don't have a problem with it as an issue. Sport is above politics, but the underlying message was a strong one. 

If you are trying to change your new 'host' country in a way in which the majority of its residents don't want, then you're reneging on the fundamental deal. It seems to me that this is what is happening in Birmingham schools and probably in many other parts of the UK as well.

We Brits are very tolerant, very slow to rile, but we also have a very strong sense of what's right and what isn't. We really loathe being taken for mugs, having our own generosity thrown back in our faces, having our generosity used to do us harm.

It's time, in my opinion, for the 'vast majority' (we're told) of Muslims who share our British values to stand up and be heard. This is now getting to be really important. You don't stop bullies by backing off. Remember that.

Thanks for reading.

While remembering and thanking our brave D-Day heroes, we might also remember what they were fighting for

It should be enough just to recognise, remember and thank those brave men and women who fought, were wounded, died or survived the events which took place in northern France 70 years ago tomorrow. And for most of us it is enough. We owe a massive debt of gratitude to those brave people who were fighting not on the basis of some jumped-up excuse to justify our military intervention to protect our energy interests, but for the very survival of our - and their - way of life and our freedoms against the threat of National Socialism.

It is right, therefore, that we should salute these people 70 years on.

What is not right though, is that we should, at the same time as we remember and pay tribute to their achievements, be effectively giving away the freedoms for which they fought and died, to an unelected, left wing ('international socialist'?) government in the shape of the EU.

What is also not right is that we are standing idly by while this is happening and almost no-one from our modern government, establishment or media is prepared to say a word about it.

The EU's publicly stated vision to establish a 'Federal' Europe, is effectively a take-over of Europe, by Germany, just using the EU & Brussels as the flimsiest of disguises. And far from rising up again to fight for our freedoms against this socialist threat (for it - the EU - is most certainly a controlling, intervening, anti-free-speech, propaganda-led, shadowy and sinister socialist organisation), we're not even prepared to raise our voices in opposition. Indeed to do so is to be dismissed as being a racist little Englander.

 Do you not ever think (or 'realise' might be a better term) that we fought for the freedoms of all Europe's people? That the freedoms of people across the whole of Western Europe were effectively defended and delivered by the Allies after the last unpleasantness? We were fighting not just for 'Blighty' but for our friends the ordinary, lovely people who live all over Europe, against suppression and domination by the National Socialist thought-and-deed police.

These same 'thought-and-deed' police seem to be back with a vengeance right now in the 21st Century - a situation which is already causing the rise of extremism, conflict and protest across Europe as 'ordinary hard-working' people (if only) suffer as a direct result of centrist EU policies, rules and disastrous economic incompetence. 

We are in grave danger of being 'farmed', as people: We will have no freedoms before long: We'll just be automatons, trapped by debt and effectively forced into working for as much of our life-spans as possible before we 'cool'.

And at that future, but not-very-far-off date, when all this turns into reality across this continent of ours, it will give me no pleasure whatsoever to be proved right in this assessment. Because by then it will be way too fucking late for all of us and the seeds of the next global conflict will have been irrevocably sown by the process that is now being played out before our closed eyes.

As Albert Einstein said: I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Thanks for reading.

Helmer's hat made in Sweden scandal

Emily is the Saw-away-Sun's Whitehall Correspondent. She seems to think that being anti-EU means being anti Europe.

Being anti-EU is actually to be pro-Europe - or at least pro nation states having the ability to govern themselves and to be what their citizens want them to be, rather than some homogenous Germanic state. The diversity of the countries in Europe in terms of culture, music, history and food, is what makes it such a great place. This is under real and imminent threat from the harmonising, controlling, standard-setting and law-making EU.

Young people in Spain, Italy, Greece and many other countries have very little hope of employment or prosperity as a direct result of EU policies.

More than 50% of young Spanish people are unemployed with little prospect of improving themselves because Spain is tied to the Euro and cannot re-balance its economy (devalue its currency) in order to be more competitive on the world stage.

And whilst the EU imposes open borders so that known criminal gangs can cross the continent unhindered to where there are richer pickings and we can do nothing about it; EU trade tariffs are preventing African farmers from trading with Europe, effectively perpetuating the continued rape of Africa by the West. So remind me, whose policies are racist again?

And Mr Helmer wearing a hat which was made in Sweden makes him, by inference, a hypocrite?

Oh do fuck off.

Thanks for reading.