Political Gnomes

Ask most people about the Swiss and they’ll have little to say. They may describe them with so many vacant words such as “neutral”, “impartial” or “dispassionate.”
The only memorable quote about the Swiss which comes to mind, only serves to confirm this point. Orson Welles (left) as Harry Lime in the film 'The Third Man', said, “In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

Perhaps the Swiss are now seeking to throw off those shackles of conformity and anonymity by making collective judgements about important social issues. Unfortunately, among their first forays into the maelstrom of simply-having-an-opinion, has shown them to be, at best, intolerant and at worst thoroughly Islamaphobic.

Swiss democracy is certainly a one-off, besides the usual cycle of elections, they hold a series of referenda on all manner of domestic subjects, as wide as voting rights and drug-injecting rooms. The latest poll across the Cantons, was an inflammatory suggestion there should be a ban on building minarets anywhere in the country. As there are currently only four, it would be hard to see the justification of surging Islamic culture threatening the Swiss orthodoxy. Rather it is demonstrative of an intolerant attitude of the right-wing establishment against the country’s sizeable 40,000 Muslim population.

Martin Baltisser, general secretary of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) said as much himself: "This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power." It is hardly surprising incidents of vandalism and violence around the country’s handful of Mosques have risen sharply.

Certainly the tension between Christian and Islamic peoples, countries and groups is the most significant source of international conflict in the world today. But this expression of small-minded, central European parochialism only feeds further alienation and intolerance. Recent SVP election posters included one where a few white sheep expelled a black sheep from their group - it is hard to imagine a more crass and naive appeal to bigotory outside of an openly racist political party.

The Swiss must have known denying any group religious freedom contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights or do the puffed up political dwarfs think their contempt for outsiders trumps these treaties? We, in the rest of Europe, drew up these inalienable rights after suffering the turmoil of two terrible wars. Then again, that redemption from conflict is something the Swiss know nothing about.

Democracy...Nul Point

The elevation of Catherine Ashton to Foreign Secretary of EU almost re-defines the phrase 'risen without trace'. Since re-placing Peter Mandelson as the UK Commissioner last summer, she has failed to make a single headline through word or deed.

I now realise anonymity and an absence of political conviction are actually positive qualifications for high office in EU where in any other Governmental body it would be a massive hindrance.

It was left to the pompous but effective Nigel Farrage of UKIP to relay le mot juste, "Baroness Ashton is ideal for the role. She has never had a proper job and never been elected to public office."

Not so, says our Cath who countered with a novel argument on her own political legitimacy, "27 elected heads of state have had a say and they all decided on me," she said. She added, with a straight face, she was, "the best person for the job."

One supposes this ludicrous compromise was some kind of sop to make up for not picking Tony Blair as EU President. But this undignified horse-trading owes more to the transparent biases of a Eurovision song contest than a 21st Century democratic institution.

She may resemble a cross between Margaret Beckett and Joyce Grenfell but that is where her noteriety ends. At least she has not said anything of note, ever. The President of the EU, Herman von Rompuy has made clear he opposes Turkey's entry into EU, such solid opinions on specific political realities are rarely expressed at such levels in the EU.

But ultimately these nobodies were chosen as their presence on the world stage could never over shadow the main players, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy. Their puffed-up egos are in tact and their positions in the EU hierarchy unassailable.

Last Lifeboat Leaving

Wednesday's Queen's Speech is the final legislative opportunity for the Labour Government to implement any kind of electoral reform. So, in effect, it is also the last chance to retrieve anything positive from the next election. With the current disproportionate voting system, Labour will certainly be forced to embrace defeat, likely to be somewhere between heavy and catastrophic.

There is plenty of tension within cabinet on reforming the electoral system; Denham, Hain, Bradshaw and Jowell are all signed up to PR. Straw and Balls are the main stick-in-the-muds.

Opinion pollsters, YouGov, carried out some private polling recently which showed if Labour merely promised holding a referendum on electoral reform next year, it could have a dramatic effect on voting patterns. Far from predicting an easy stroll for Cameron, it would put Labour on 287 seats, Cons on 288 and Lib-Dems on 74. Given 18 months of huge Tory leads, any sane PM would jump at the chance of reversing the odds.

Tessa Jowell (above) said last week, it was for Labour to be, "brave enough" to institute change which could be a "game-changer." However, all indicators points to a bravery deficit. After three terms, Governments invariably get more conservative and cautious and feel too nervous about any proposal deemed to be radical. We saw Brown announce at conference last month, a referendum on Alternative Vote next Parliament. In many ways it was a more conservative position than Labour took in 1997 and 2001 when a wider referendum was promised and an electoral victory certain.

A commitment to a more proportional system in response to the expenses scandal would be well received by the public as a political change they could really measure. But at present, no-one is really talking about this issue except at the top of the Labour Party. The campaign for electoral reform 'Vote for a Change' has been lacklustre at best, although it has some presence on-line, there has been precious little coverage in the more traditional media of TV, radio and newspapers.

One can't help feeling this last chance for constructing something of value from the wreckage of Brown's administration is slipping away. Brown is so stymied by fear of criticism, he can't even bring himself reach for an obvious lifeline. What's worse, it may be ten years before we even discuss PR again.

Answering to No-one

Those of you old enough to remember the late 70s will recall any civil disturbance in London was dealt with by the notorious SPG. The Special Patrol Group was synonymous with thuggery and oppressive violence until the Met disbanded it in 1986. They replaced it with the altogether more reasonably sounding TSG (Territorial Support Group) which still functions today. It would seem discipline in the TSG has deterioted steeply in recent years and now makes the old PSG look about as threatening as a group of Sea Scouts. In the last four years over 5,000 complaints have been lodged about TSG and yet only a pitiful nine have been upheld. That means 99.8% of complaints are dismissed.

It would seem not only are the TSG behaving like uniformed boot-boys but they are also acting effectively with impunity. Their recent behaviour during G20 demonstrations (pictured above) exposed their unneccessary brutal methods. But don't expect any officer to even face suspension. The TSG seemingly act as one to inhibit the work of the Independent Police Complaints Commission but the IPPC finds it almost impossible to discipline let alone prosecute any rogue copper. And ironically the IPPC is even less effective than the utterly discredited Police Complaints Authority which it replaced.

The Association of Chief Police Officers have an equally fundamental but more cerebral intolerance of any protest and have established a National Public Order Intelligence Unit and under it a National Domestic Extremist Team. This unit has set up databases of people, mostly without any conviction, in the expectation they may yet break the law through their, usually peaceful, protests. The ACPO lead, Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell, made a glib attempt to justify this massively disproportionate response. "Just because you have no criminal record does not mean you are not of interest to the police, " adding smugly, "everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once." Given that Stalinist logic, we should almost feel nostalgic for the days when the Plod would say, "anyone who is innocent has nothing to worry about."

As police powers have been extended and accountability almost eradicated, even regional, rural forces feel they can act without restraint. Last month, officers from Avon and Somerset police arrived at a private house to arrest Robert Symonds, 20, for breaching bail conditions for a minor public order offence. Thirty or more officers were present to carry out this arrest during a birthday Bar-b-q - even though there were several children present, the police felt justified to use CS spray on several guests. Abbie Adams, 10, was hospitalised by the effects. When Robert Symonds' case came to court, all charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

I cannot say exactly why the police wished to persecute this family but their outrageous use of force and indiscriminate use of CS spray should not go unpunished. But we know - the police know - it certainly will.

Of The Highest Calibre

Sgt. Kimberly Munley (left) is being lauded as a true American hero and her plaudits are fully deserved. Last Friday, she shot and severely injured mass-killer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ford Hood, Texas and so halted his despicable killing spree.

Hasan had already shot about 45 people, 13 fatally, when he stopped to re-load. Traffic cop, Sgt Munley, although badly injured herself, hit Hasan with four shots and no doubt prevented several further murders.

The media focus has been on Hasan's obviously wavering mental stability prior to the shootings, his Muslim faith and his imminent posting to Afghanistan. It was difficult to find any information about the weapon he used and the ease with which he purchased it. It seems Hasan bought the FN Five Seven 'Cop-Killer' pistol over the counter at a local store.

Solo killers like Hasan are invariable gun enthusiasts, who bought and held their weapons legally. They invariably use pistols. They kill themselves. This pattern was followed in Dunblane as well as other massacres in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy and Finland (twice).

In 1996-7, the British Government (first Tory, then Labour) took the nation's entire stock of pistols out of private hands and destroyed them. It cost about £90m but was one of the best actions any Government took and one which we, as a country, have struggled to locate our pride in.

Of course, gun crime has risen in the last twelve years but massacres stand at zero and will remain so. It is still technically possible for a very determined individual to plot a similar outrage against vulnerable targets in Britain today. But the amount of time needed to accumulate the necessary ammo would be very considerable, at least long enough for seething anger to dissipate somewhat.

It is the mere fact that lethal weaponry is available which fuels the anger of the disturbed individual and makes them believe ultimate retribution is in their grasp. Take away the guns and the cycle is broken.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the States so even if it were politically impossible (which it isn't) there would be huge practical difficulties in taking out several classes of weapon let alone all of them. At least in Britain we did the right thing when we had the chance.

Class Prejudice

Prof. David Nutt (left) is Britain's most eminent psychopharmacologist, which means he knows better than anyone how drugs affect the brain.

As Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, it is also his role to convey to the Government his objective assessments of drugs' relative harms. Recently, Labour has decided to reject the ACMD's advice because, they argue, only Governments take a "necessary wider view."

I gave official evidence for one of the ACMD's reviews - the second one I think, there's been so many. It was painstakingly thorough, tediously so. They took evidence from from every conceivable source of knowledge on the subject, epidimiologists, forensic scientists, police, barristers, mental health charities, even the users themselves.

But the last two Home Secretaries evidentally thinks they have a more acute level of understanding of drugs, certainly more than these mere world-renown experts. For one thing, the politicians claim to be responding to public opinion, not something they usually adhere to on matters such as the economy, criminal justice or defence.

The last ACMD study included, for the first time, figures for people's perceptions on classes and penalties for drugs. Their attitudes were harsh when asked general questions - 32% thought cannabis should be made class A alongside heroin. But when asked about their own children, most thought cannabis possession should not attract a criminal record. Confusion clearly reigns among the people so perhaps they are not the most reliable sources of advice.

Our Gordon sees things more simply, clinically so. The PM told the Evening Standard he would, in his final months, leave a legacy of an even, "tougher policy on drugs...which is what people want".

If you watch Gordon now, particularly at PMQs, he has distilled his rethoric into the most common denominator of, what is right and what is wrong. He invariably gives long lists of where the Cons were "wrong" on economy, Europe etc. He can invert this when talking drugs, "it was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people." Talk about old school, he only forgot to say what a "scourge" they are.

Alan Johnson bravely e-mailed David Nutt the sack for challenging the Government on why they would not listen to their own advisers. Wor Alan argued there was a place for science and another for politics and it was not for Professors like David Nutt to "cross the line." Utter nonsense of course, if a scientist could not express what impact his views would have societally, then he really would be just a silly old boffin.

But, surely, it would be really foolish for a poltician to leap into the scientific arguments when he has zero expertise. Not so, Johnson. Nearly all drug experts say the causal link between cannabis and psychosis is weak but Johnson declared to the House on Monday, "the causal link is increasingly clear and will, I am sure, become well established in a very short time."

That is just baloney. The Tories would have laughed him out of the chamber if they weren't even bigger headbangers on drugs matters. Only the Lib-Dems made any sense whatever.

Drugs seems to be a subject like no other, where one simple assertion from either side is wilfully distorted beyond recognition. One columnist this week said the reason was drugs was an issue of science, health, education based on generational, class, cultural and racial differences. It was one of the only truism written all week which all sides might agree on.

____________________________________________________________
The Guardian printed an article of mine on Tuesday (link below). I was most gratified they put my words up against those of Ann Widdecombe, when you're views are diametrically opposed to her then you must be getting something right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/cannabis-row-drugs-david-nutt