US President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his calls to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and working to achieve world peace.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't that seem a little premature? This is a man who currently, as commander-in-chief, is engaged in 2 wars and has control over the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. In addition, his stance on Israel and the occupied territories is not the most progressive or brave.
There is no question that he is working to address the negative relationship that the US has with the rest of the world and his calls for nuclear disarmament are very welcome, but awards should be given for results, not intentions. President Obama may well be able to realise "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" but until then, he deserves admiration, not accolades.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Ireland Needs a New Debt Policy
Poor countries still pay $100 million dollars every day in debt repayments to the richest countries in the world. This is despite the fact that a huge proportion of these debts are historical and were accumulated by dictators such as President Mobutu of Zaire, who left the people of the DRC to repay illegitimate loans of over $12 billion. To make matters worse, impoverished countries are currently facing yet another devastating debt emergency due to the impacts of climate change, the global financial crisis and the ever increasing problem of food security.
In response, Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) are campaigning to ensure that Ireland’s new debt policy, currently being formulated by the Department of Finance, supports;
1) Greatly expanded debt cancellation, free from conditions for all Southern countries that need it.
(2) Recognition by Ireland, the EU, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund of the responsibility of lenders in the creation of unjust debts.
(3) The establishment of debt audits in the global South.
(4) The establishment of an international taskforce on tackling historic, illegitimate debts.
(5) Recognition of the climate debt owed to countries of the Global South and the need for grant based support (not loans) to Southern countries to cope with climate change.
You can support the campaign by contacting your local TDs and demanding that they raise a question about the need for a new, just debt policy in the Dáil. Furthermore, encourage them to request that Minister Lenihan and Minister Power add their support to the above concerns.
In response, Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) are campaigning to ensure that Ireland’s new debt policy, currently being formulated by the Department of Finance, supports;
1) Greatly expanded debt cancellation, free from conditions for all Southern countries that need it.
(2) Recognition by Ireland, the EU, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund of the responsibility of lenders in the creation of unjust debts.
(3) The establishment of debt audits in the global South.
(4) The establishment of an international taskforce on tackling historic, illegitimate debts.
(5) Recognition of the climate debt owed to countries of the Global South and the need for grant based support (not loans) to Southern countries to cope with climate change.
You can support the campaign by contacting your local TDs and demanding that they raise a question about the need for a new, just debt policy in the Dáil. Furthermore, encourage them to request that Minister Lenihan and Minister Power add their support to the above concerns.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Time to Vote...AGAIN
Today, the Lisbon Treaty will once and for all be decided from an Irish point of view. Regardless of the importance of this vote or indeed the potential consequences whatever the outcome may be, the important issues have once again been overshadowed by the haemorrhaging of inaccurate opinions and political sales-pitches.
We were denied a proper discourse based on the facts. Both sides were guilty of misrepresentation and scare-mongering and have attempted to influence the Irish public with nothing more than veiled threats. The debate, if it can even be called that, deteriorated into a personalised tit-for-tat series of attacks.
The entire referendum, due to this state of affairs, has been an insult to any Irish person who was willing to engage in the process and base their decision on issues of substance. Regardless of outcome, the only positive I can see is that today marks the end…or does it?
We were denied a proper discourse based on the facts. Both sides were guilty of misrepresentation and scare-mongering and have attempted to influence the Irish public with nothing more than veiled threats. The debate, if it can even be called that, deteriorated into a personalised tit-for-tat series of attacks.
The entire referendum, due to this state of affairs, has been an insult to any Irish person who was willing to engage in the process and base their decision on issues of substance. Regardless of outcome, the only positive I can see is that today marks the end…or does it?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
NAMA Advocate Shows his True Colours
Former Bank of Ireland Chief Executive Michael Soden appeared on last night's Vincent Brown in an attempt to defend both the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) and the purchase by Brian Lenihan of €54bn worth of toxic loans.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Naturally, it was always going to be a tough night for Mr Soden as the general public are far from impressed at not only being asked to bail out this country's banks but also to pay €7bn over the odds at the current market value.
However, it was not the inns and outs of the deal that caught my attention in the end but rather Mr Soden's comment, in response to anti-NAMA protestor Rita Fagan, that society should not be carrying the burden of single mothers.
Hear hear Mr Soden! Sure wasn't it the single mothers of Ireland who became consumed with greed and engaged in reckless lending practices in order to generate massive profits for a privileged minority? And those same single mothers are naturally responsible for bankrupting future generations, plunging Ireland into an unprecedented recession, and then asking for a hand-out from the same taxpayers that they previously showed utter contempt towards.
No Mr Soden, it was the bankers! So I think it is the presence of greedy, negligent and downright corrupt individuals within the banking system that are the burden Irish society should not have to bear.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Climate Change - Wait and See
I recently had a very polarised discussion with a climate change sceptic. The individual in question has a scientific background, stays up to date with developments in the field and believes that each and every individual should aim to live a more sustainable life.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
So far so good!
The problem is that climate change has yet to become a proven fact in his eyes. To him, it is still just a scientific theory, albeit a popular one, and he thinks it foolish to agree treaties, enforce targets and enact laws that reduce global carbon emissions. He is not against assisting developing countries to avoid the dirty growth that characterised the advancement of developed countries during the industrial revolution but thinks the theory of climate change has to first be proven.
So in essence, he is advocating a policy of wait and see.
I explained to him that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent information (of all types) relevant to the understanding of climate change. Its work is guided by thousands of scientists from all over the world and the vast majority of theses scientists believe that climate change is real and could lead to millions upon millions of people suffering the devastating effects.
It is a scientific and not a political body and is telling us that we need to act now and that is what I am advocating.
Whichever side is right in this debate will result in disproportionately different outcomes however. If we wait and see, and the most cautious of IPCC predictions are realised, then hundreds of millions of people will be affected by climate change and the world may pass a point of no return and have to contend with irreversible climate change. If on the other hand, the world takes heed of the IPCC and negotiates a fair and safe climate deal in Copenhagen this December, then regardless of the contested reality of climate change, developing countries will be assisted in achieving sustainable growth and the developed world will be forced to move away from fossil fuels which are depleting fast anyway.
Waying up the outcomes, I cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk, especially when the vast majority of scientific opinion rests on one side. Waiting for retrospective proof is dangerous, impractical and dismissive of the concerns of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
Friday, August 7, 2009
March for Marriage
Join Amnesty in their support of LGBT Noise, who are organising a March for Marriage on Sunday 9th August at 1:30PM.
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Let Lubna Ahmad Hussein Have Her Day in Court
Sudanese journalist Lubna Ahmad Hussein and 12 other women were arrested in Khartoum on July 3rd 2009 for wearing trousers. They were arrested by the Sudanese authorities for allegedly breaching Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Act (1991) which states that;
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
