Tag Archives: politics

Covid-19 Therapy Blog 3: Mask Mandates II #COVID19 #COVID19THERAPYBLOG #LIBERTARIANISM

This series of posts might serve as a bit of therapy for me and help me work stuff out.

Me, December 2021

Introduction to this series of posts
Link to all posts in this series

Introduction

In my first post on this Covid-19 Therapy Blog, I talked about my Libertarian instincts and why I think mask-wearing should be a personal choice, not something mandated by the State. Here I explore this a bit more (in this short* post).

For your own good?

We let people engage in all sorts of risky behaviour, even behaviour that can harm others. For example, we don’t enforce mask-wearing for those who have a cold or other sicknesses, nor in my opinion should we.

But okay, let’s say for argument’s sake that this virus is sufficiently lethal that we needed to be told to mask up at threat of criminal sanction, the question remains: for how long, and at what cost?

My daughter is three. She has never known a normal world. We used to laugh at the East Asian fetish for the mask. Let’s get sick, let’s build our immune system! That’s what we used to say. But yes, let’s look after our vulnerable so they are not at undue risk (by keeping them at home, for example). This is the way it always was: humane, free, but responsible.

We also used to scorn the niqab and other garments which veil a person’s face and take away their humanity. Yet now those who don’t mask up are seen as scum. Worse, they will be fined or arrested.

My daughter

What effect will it have on my daughter not growing up seeing people’s faces? This thing has gone on for two years. Two years is nothing. But for my daughter, two years is her whole world. I’m thirty-seven. It’s no exaggeration to say that her last two years are equal to my last thirty-six; it’s all she’s ever known. I fear for my beautiful girl and what this normalising of not seeing people’s faces, what this fetishisation for a lack of germs, is doing to her.

*My personal definition of “short” is less than 300 words, maximum; more than that, and a blog posts starts to feel like an essay.

**The Wikipedia page on Libertarianism which I linked you to says this: Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

© 2021-2022 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image taken from https://www.fsb.org.uk/static/351a084c-3d5f-4d75-8dfabfa5f0c5d993/COVID19-Header-Image.jpg

Covid-19 Therapy Blog 2: What Is “Libertarianism”? #Covid19 #Covid19TherapyBlog #Libertarianism

Introduction to this series of posts
Link to all posts in this series

In the first article in this Covid-19 Therapy Blog, I talked briefly about why wearing face masks can be good and why it can be bad. I also mentioned my instincts coming at things from a “libertarian” approach.

Yes, I am a “libertarian”, but what does that even mean? It’s becoming a much-maligned term, especially slandered by those on the left as uncaring fat cat capitalism, but also sometimes by those on the right as “libertinism”.

Given that my libertarian instincts inform most of my thoughts on this current Covid-19 situation, I thought it might be a good idea to attempt a brief definition of what Libertarianism actually is for my readers.

The Wikipedia article which I linked you to in the previous posts starts by summing it up pretty well:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

We believe that respecting individual rights in this way is the only moral way to live. Sadly, when there is a public panic, people often lose their minds, and many unfair and illiberal things become law… Surely, “my body, my choice” still holds, does it not?

© 2021 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image taken from https://www.fsb.org.uk/static/351a084c-3d5f-4d75-8dfabfa5f0c5d993/COVID19-Header-Image.jpg

Covid-19 Therapy Blog 1: Mask Mandates #Covid19 #MaskMandate

This series of posts might serve as a bit of therapy for me and help me work stuff out.

Introduction

I’m trying not to do too many political posts on this blog anymore, but I feel I want to record some of my thoughts here on a current issue which is vexing me greatly. This series of posts might serve as a bit of therapy for me and help me work stuff out. If it’s a good read for you, too, then all the better.

I will try to keep this series of posts short* and non-polemical. Let’s see if I can resist the urge to rant(!)

Mask Mandates

We can all understand the logic of wearing masks. It more-or-less stops a virus spreading in much the same way that wearing a rubber johnny stops one getting pregnant or getting an STD; it’s not perfect, and it depends on how well you use it, but it is essentially effective.

On the downside, we don’t get exposure to sicknesses which we need to in order to build and maintain a strong immune system. This is an especially big deal for young kids, and being the father of a young child, this is something I am constantly aware of.

Conclusion

As a libertarian**, my feeling is that the wearing of masks should be entirely up to the individual in public spaces and up to businesses / landlords in privately-owned spaces such as shops. A virus that has a low percentage of killing you — and I absolutely do not belittle the many millions of awful deaths that we have suffered, but the fact remains that the percentage is fairly low*** compared to, say, the Black Death**** — I feel should leave the mask-wearing up to us.

My daughter is three. She has never known a world where she can see people’s faces. God knows what psychological effect that will have on her in the long run.

Notes:

*My personal definition of “short” is less than 300 words, maximum; more than that, and a blog posts starts to feel like an essay.

**The Wikipedia page on Libertarianism which I linked you to says this: Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

***About 2%; see here.

****30-75%; see here.

© 2021 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image taken from https://www.fsb.org.uk/static/351a084c-3d5f-4d75-8dfabfa5f0c5d993/COVID19-Header-Image.jpg

Europe is to EU as European is to ?Europan?

I always make the point that the EU and Europe are not same thing, and how I love Europe, but hate the EU. You can disagree with me on whether the EU is something hateworthy or something praiseworthy, but you cannot disagree with me on this pedantic linguistic point, that the European Union, a political project consisting of many European nations, is not the same thing as Europe, a geographical and cultural area. 

Okay, fine, we can distinguish between “the EU” and “Europe”. But what of the adjective? For both it is “European”. This is clearly a defect of the language. And I think this lies at the root of some of the misunderstandings around Brexit as we confusingly mix the terms for these two concepts. Think of the term “Eurosceptic”; this doesn’t mean sceptical of Europe (or even of the euro), but of the EU.

I think we need to distinguish an adjective referring to the EU versus the usual one, “European”, which refers to the cultural-geographic area (namely, the continent itself). Why? Or else we could end up with an “American”-type situation again where English lacks a word like “United Statesian”, which many languages have (e.g. Spanish “estadounidense”).

I suggest “European” (of Europe, for the cultural-geographic area, that is, the continent itself) and “Europan” or “Europian” (of the EU). These words derived from “Europa”. They should be stressed on the second syllable. I sometimes use “E.U.pean” to make the distinction I am making clearer, but I don’t think that that is a good, long-term, non-derisory word.

I prefer “Europan” as it has a more distinct pronunciation to “European” than does “Europian”.

After thought

Incidentally, I’ve long since thought that one day, we will have EU citizens who are not citizens of their own country + the EU (which is what happens now), but citizens only of the EU if they so choose. Look how many British people wished to keep their “European”, i.e., Europan, citizenship after Brexit; it’s not possible as the EU citizenship hinges on your national citizenship. But I don’t see this situation continuing. This makes my Europan/Europian word all the more needed.

© 2020 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/1200px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png

 

Brexit Voters Are ****ing Stupid! #Brexit

This post is inspired by a Tweet I saw and the countless times I’ve been slagged off by people who voted Remain in the EU Membership Referendum.

I have a Bachelor of Arts with Honours with an award of First Class, two Master of Arts, not to mention my professional qualifications, all from world leading institutions. IQ tests rank me as 98-99 percentile — that qualifies me for Mensa. Oh yeah, and my wife is foreign.

Yep, no doubt about it; I’m a typical stupid, ignorant, racist, thicky dum-dum Brexit voter. Cos only imbecilic racist scumbags voted Brexit, amirite?

© 2018 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://i.pinimg.com/736x/eb/8c/37/eb8c37e0ae5b5627d8ca68fda0bb92df.jpg

Neologism: Parchment Contract

So, me and some workmates were talking about older work contracts today and how people on older contracts have much better terms and conditions than people on new contracts. It’s like, it gets progressively worse over the last thirty years. Seems to be common across organisations. Anyway, I said,  ‘Of course so-and-so was entitled to such-and-such a benefit; their contract is so old it’s written on parchment’. And then I was, okay, “parchment contracts”.

So there we are, I offer my nonce word up as a useful new word:

parchment contract n. phr. an older contract with preferential terms and conditions and pay, specifically used in bitter reference to how such contracts are now ancient, long-forgotten, history, and never likely to return.

© 2018 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2012/04/06/6c5f91e8-3598-11e3-8ce8-047d7b15b92e/thumbnail/620×350/cee95ca89a1369962377c13e4c749723/contract_signing_000017511189.jpg

London Terror Attack 22/03/2017 #WeAreNotAfraid

London has always been attacked by terrorists. We know that. But this never has, nor ever will, stop us leading our lives freely. I can say hand-on-heart: WE ARE NOT AFRAID.

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

The SNP are Opportunistic Scum @theSNP @NicolaSturgeon #IndyRef2

… the SNP and Scotland are not the same thing …

I am a unionist … but I am a democrat above all else … if Scotland wanted to leave the UK, then it is undeniably right that they should leave … Yet now demonstrably is not the time for another referendum.

I’ve lost all respect for the Scottish National Party. They are acting like opportunistic, hateful scum. None-the-less, I still 100% respect the idea of Scottish Independence; let’s not conflate the SNP and Scotland, as if they were the same thing, even though Sturgeon and her motley crew keep trying to blur the distinction.

I want to be clear about something.

Yes, I am a unionist and believe that the four nations of the UK are better off together. However, I am a democrat above all else. And even though it would break my heart, if Scotland wanted to leave the UK, then it is undeniably right that they should leave, although I would bid them adieu with a tear and a friendly handshake. See my posts about the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum for more about my views.

But now demonstrably is not the time for another referendum. SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon talks about the “democratic outrage” of not being allowed to hold another independence reference by 2018-2019. But I think the only outrage is her behaviour and that of other SNP top brass.

Let’s get real.

  1. The official logic of a 2018-2019 Scottish Referendum is that Scotland will remain in the EU if it leaves the UK before the UK leaves the EU. However, this “logic” is horseshit and has been repeatedly shot down by everyone in the EU. The United Kingdom has membership of the EU, and Scotland would not inherit the UK’s membership. Therefore, Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU even if it seceded from the UK but the rest of the UK remained in!
  2. Scotland knew that there would be an EU referendum and therefore knew that if it voted to remain in the UK, there would be the very real possibility that that would mean leaving the EU. Therefore, material circumstances haven’t changed in quite the way the SNP claim.
  3. It is plainly absurd for any Scottish Independence Referendum to be held before (1) we had left the EU, and (2) before the dust had settled. The SNP said this referendum was once in a lifetime; what, the lifetime of a gerbil? Wait for the UK to leave, and for the dust to settle, and then the Westminster government should be totally open to a new referendum.
  4. I wonder, though, if the SNP would be pressing for a second referendum in 2018-2019 if Scotland had voted to leave the UK… you know, just to make sure — after all, Brexit means circumstances have changed…
  5. The UK got opt-outs, and Sweden et al joined way back when. Any new member of the EU would have to adopt the Euro. Sorry, but that’s a fact. An “independent” Scotland in the EU would also be in the Euro.
  6. I still cannot grasp the fundamental logic of the SNP position, in any case: being 8% of the population of the UK, with 9% of the seats in the Commons, and one of four member states, is worse than what would be 1% of the population of the EU, with around 1.6% of the seats, and one of 28 member states…!!? This smacks of serious anti-English bias in the SNP leadership (not amongst members, though, who are mostly just patriotic Scots, not English-haters).

In short, the Scots are a nation and not a county of England — as Alex Salmond absurdly recently claimed is the opinion of those against doing IndyRef2 in the SNP’s timeframe of 2018-2019. And thus, they have absolutely the moral right to another referendum. Luckily, the UK government is more enlightened than, say, the Spanish government, and we’re happy to give a binding referendum to Scotland. But this timeframe of 2018-2019 is absurd. It is political opportunism. Let’s wait until the next parliament. If there is wide enough support for another referendum, then let’s crack on with Indy Ref 2!

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/JMGMGAzWY2_0pSOjbb.xWA–/aD0xMTUyO3c9MjA0ODtzbT0xO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/http://media.zenfs.com/en_uk/News/skynews/472583032-1-2048×1152-20160625-011514-005.jpg

Elected House of Lords? @electoralreform #electoralreform #lordsreform #sortition

The Electoral Reform Society and others claim that we need an elected upper house in order to be fully democratic. But I say that they have confused democracy with vote-ocracy.

Today’s papers are full of a periodic favourite: how the House of Lords needs to be reformed. Reports of one peer who left a taxi waiting whilst he went inside just to sign in for his £300 daily expenses only to then nip off again in his taxi (!) have (re)surfaced. The Electoral Reform Society, who I largely agree with and support, have called for an elected House of Lords.

But I disagree.

The House of Lords is a total mess. No doubt. Packed with cronies, those with conflicts of interest (taking EU pensions whilst voting on whether we should leave the EU!), and lazy sods who turn up for their dole. The place is an anachronism. And it’s a great pity that Labour could not finish the reform job they started in 1997; if they had prepared for government a bit more, maybe they would have.

But electing members of the Lords is not the solution. In fact, it would make things worse.

Why replicate the elected Commons? Why have yet more elected careerist politicians?

The Electoral Reform Society and others claim that we need an elected upper house in order to be fully democratic. But I say that they have confused democracy with vote-ocracy.

If not an elected Lords, then what?

The Lords is supposed to be a politically neutral, disinterested, body of wise counsellors, who have no vested interests, who are not career politicians, and who act as a sober check on any possible elected dictatorship of the Commons. But how to get such a House?

Clearly, elections corrupt the system and invariably lead to politicising. Not merely my words and thoughts, those of the founding fathers of the US. The ancient Athenians and Romans knew this, too, which is why leading figures were selected by sortition (out of a hat, as it were, like jurors are nowadays) and were limited to a single one-year term.

Thus, there are intricacies involved in reform, but I put forward the following as a sound basis.

  1. There should be far fewer Lords than there are MPs in the Commons. But currently there are 805 Lords and 650 MPs. I propose to cut the number of Lords to around half the number of MPs, let’s say around 300.
  2. Lords should not be elected (barring e.g. the Bishops), and should either serve life terms, very long one-off terms, or very short terms. Perhaps all three depending.
  3. Lords must forsake any political allegiance or conflicting interests as the Speaker of the Commons does.
  4. Around half or more (two-thirds? three-quarters?) of the Lords will be chosen by sortition (like jury duty) from a pool of eligible persons who have not opted out, representing equally the leading minds in all key disciplines such as science, technology, business, the arts, philanthropy, and so on. Such individuals should serve long single-terms/lifelong terms.
  5. Most of the left-over minority of the Lords should be chosen by nomination by the political parties in proportion to the seats they have in the Commons and for a single term, perhaps the length of the next parliament, no party in the Commons having fewer than one appointee in the Lord. For example, if 100 seats were to be made available this way, the Conservatives would nominate around 51 members, Labour around 36, the SNP around 8, the LibDems, UKIP, Greens and so on 1 each, all based on their current seats in the Commons.
  6. There should be an even smaller number (around half of the nominees) who are selected by sortition from the public at large, after having met various qualifications, and who should serve single one-year terms.
  7. The 26 Lords Spiritual should keep their seats.
  8. The 90 hereditary peers should keep their seats until they all die. Their seats will not be handed on. Eventually, there will be no hereditary peers left.

This sort of thing seems like a reasonable compromise which would achieve what we want of the Lords — and most importantly, doesn’t confuse vote-ocracy with democracy.

© 2017 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/CE9F/production/_87559825_standing-lords.jpg

Jeremy Corbyn’s Views on the EU @vote_leave #TakeControl #Brexit #EUReferendum

ap_494083348255

The following article was so good and informative, I had to reproduce it all. All rights to ukbusinessinsider.com and Jeremy Wilson. It’s a couple of months old, but it’s points are so important that we need to dwell on them.

But in short: Jeremy Corbyn is the very definition of “Eurosceptic”. The man has strongly opposed the EU all of his political life. But now he is leader of the Labour party, he has done an unconvincing U-turn. People are complaining that he isn’t selling the case for Remain. But how can the guy? He has opposed it his whole career!

Sadly, Corbyn has let us all down. He has put the Labour Party above the national interest and above his life-long held views. The man has seriously tarnished himself in my estimation. It turns out this principled maverick is just like every other politician when it comes down to it; protecting his party and his position is his primary concern.

© 2016 Bryan A. J. Parry

featured image from AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-is-making-a-big-speech-saying-we-should-remain-in-the-eu-heres-all-the-times-he-said-the-eu-was-bad-2016-4

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Jeremy Corbyn wants Britain to remain in the EU — but here are all the times he said it was bad

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party, just gave his first speech urging people to vote for staying part of the European Union.

But he hasn’t always been supportive of being a member of the 28-nation bloc. In fact he even voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community —the EU’s predecessor— in 1975.

Speaking on Thursday morning in Central London, Corbyn urged British voters to accept the EU “warts and all.”

He added, “there is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union, just as there is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe.”

Polls show that the “Remain” and “Leave” campaigns are neck-and-neck and Corbyn’s opinion could sway some votes.

A YouGov poll published in The Times on Thursday shows that when it comes to the EU, Corbyn — the leader of the opposition — is the most trusted British politician. Twenty-eight percent of people trust the statements and claims made by Corbyn on the EU, while only 21% trust the statements from Prime Minister David Cameron.

Despite Corbyn pushing for Britons to vote for staying within the EU, it looks like he has changed his stance over the bloc — big time.

Here’s a list of some of the things Corbyn has done and said in the past that would appear to show that he is very skeptical of the EU.

  • He voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community in 1975.
  • He voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the EU. Here’s what he had to say about it — “It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability.”
  • He voted against the Lisbon Treaty which is the current constitutional basis for the EU.
  • Writing about the Greek crisis last year Corbyn said — “There is no future for a Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage.”
  • In an LBC interview, Corbyn implied that the EU was treating Greece “brutally.” — “If Europe becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think Europe will lose a lot of support from a lot of people.”
  • In an article on his website, Corbyn wrote that the EU was responsible for the gross abuse of human rights in  Western Sahara. However, the article was deleted.
  • In another deleted article on his website, Corbyn wrote this — “The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy.”
  • A spokesman for Corbyn said the articles were deleted because they are “converting it [the website] to reflect his work as leader and afterwards.”

And finally here’s a TV interview that was dug up by the pro-Brexit organisation Leave.EU. In it he says the European Union’s bureaucracy is unaccountable to anybody.

It appears Corbyn’s change of heart follows closely after his election as leader of the Labour party which is overwhelmingly pro-EU. Some 213  of Labour’s 231 MPs have signed up to Labour In For Britain — Labour’s Remain campaign group.

Corbyn preempted criticism over his change of mind, by admitting in his speech that he has a track record of being critical of the EU. He said he remains critical, but we need to work with it to change it. Here’s what he said, the added emphasis is ours.

Over the years I have continued to be critical of many decisions taken by the EU and I remain critical of its shortcomings, from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services.

So Europe needs to change.

But that change can only come from working with our allies in the EU. It’s perfectly possible to be critical and still be convinced we need to remain a member.