Gay Marriage is like slavery

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Britain’s senior Catholic cleric has been in the spotlight over a letter he wrote to the Sunday Telegraph criticising the Government’s plans to legalise same-sex marriage. In it he compares the prospect of gay marriage to slavery. Here’s O’Brien:

Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”. Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?

You know what, the more I think about it the more I think the analogy is entirely appropriate: in both cases an injustice was done and in both the church was on the wrong side of the issue. And what of the weasel words? The government have tried to pacify the debate by saying that no Catholic would be compelled to marry a same sex partner (duh!) but, in truth I really don’t think that’s going to be an issue: why would a gay couple ever go to a Catholic church in the first place, it’s not like they are standing with open arms bidding all who are searching to come is it!

Rant over.

Andrew Lansley: Parliamentary Pugilist

It had been billed as the main event, bigger even than the all British bout of Hayes vs Chisora. I am talking, of course, of the battle of the Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Commons last Tuesday. There was a sense of eager anticipation as the opponents stood at opposing sides of the arena, each opponent bringing with him an overly large retinue of trainers to cheer and jeer on cue.

In the red (in name only) corner was Mr Andy Burnham whilst opposing him in the blue and yellow corner was the Transforming Health into

When asked to answer a straightforward question with just a "yes" or a "no" Lansley tried to distract the questioner with a demonstration of his gurning technique.

Wealth Secretary Mr Andrew Lansley. In truth, the billing was all froth – the most eagerly awaited participant standing in the speaker’s corner was the referee Mr J Bercow. Speculation was rife on Tuesday that Bercow would unveil yet another of his long list of rule changes to the Queen’s rules of parliamentary pugilism. In hushed tones there was even whispers that Bercow’s latest move was not even reform but revolution with a call that when asked a question a Minister would, wait for it … have to answer the actual question!

Panic was spreading across the Government benches; Mr Clegg was white with rage. This correspondent can reveal that in an exclusive Westminster restaurant Clegg was not happy and was heard to complain to an aide that a requirement to actually answer a question spelt the end to parliamentary politics as we know it. ‘What next’ he is reported to have opined, ‘next Bercow will be telling us that we actually need to do what we said we’d do when those ‘job snobs’ elected us’. Revolution indeed.

And so it is that on Tuesday afternoon the bout began: Lansley vs. Burnham. It started quietly and, truth be told to this correspondent it was not clear whether Burnham was jabbing or caressing his opponent. I’m all for watching a bit of foreplay on the small screen but come on gents, there’s a time and a place and this wasn’t it. But then Round 1 burst into life a couple of assertive jabs and then, out of nowhere came a southpaw’s haymaker: were the changes to the bill ‘secured’ by the Deputy Prime Minister a “pre-agreed coalition choreography for the Deputy Prime Minister to save face”? The question in essence being had Lansley been consulted on Clegg’s letter before it was issued. In a master-class of footwork Lansley ducked and weaved and sent a volley of punches into the empty space before him – but this was no act of desperation – by the time he had finished no-one could remember what the question was but had been forced to listen to a party political broadcast for the bill. Round 1 to Lansley. It is clear to me why the Conservatives keep putting Lansley in the ring he is a master of the evasive answer to which, to this correspondent, it seems most politicians aspire.

The future face of Parliament? Possibly, if Stuart and Healey get their way.

But then any pretence that this was an orderly affair was shattered when two of Burnham’s trainers, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr John Healy sought to turn the boxing match into an all-american wrestling extravaganza has they formed a tag team to ambush the unsuspecting Lansley. Was Lansley consulted on the letter? But before the Secretary of State for Transforming Health to Wealth could compose himself he was hit with another question, or rather, the same question again – had the UK just been spun a lie? At which point proceedings descended into farce and it was mooted that the participants should ‘continue the conversation’ in a parliamentary bar but, hearing Eric Joyce was not in the house, the red corner declined the invitation.

As is so often the case we the viewing public had been promised the world but Bercow let us down. A politician being asked a question and actually answering it is the stuff democracies are made of but alas it was not to be. But I don’t want this to be a cynical column on the way the sport is not played the way it used to be – I have a suggestion: If an offender persistently obfuscates on a question then Mr Bercow should have the power to intervene and compel the offender to push one of two buttons before him:

I honestly can’t think of a disadvantage. Parliamentary sittings would be shorter, BBC Parliament would get a ratings spike, the UK public would actually be told what is happening in the corridors and power and, most importantly, politicians would actually start answering the bloody questions they were asked, not the ones they wished they were asked. So, how about it Andrew, did you sign off on Mr Clegg’s letter before it was sent? Remember now, it’s either a “yes” or “no”.

Getting an actual answer from Lansley, now that would be an achievement of which Mr Bercow could be justly proud.

Islam, Burning Korans, and Twitter

This post began life as a tweet. To be specific, this tweet:

Just an idea: rather than killing people over the burning of the Koran, how about spending your time reading and studying it?

To which I received a few comments from @thejoeturner who is a regular commenter here (and blogs here). Because twitter is not really a great forum to expand on a thought let me do it here.

There are a few points that follow from my tweet:

1. Burning the Koran was wrong and offensive, even if inadvertent.
2. Burning the Koran is not the same as burning a Bible – an (imperfect) analogy would be blaspheming Jesus.
3. But those two points do not lead to the view that murder in the name of offense is a properly Islamic response. I don’t for a moment want to ascribe these views to Joe (i m certain he doesn’t hold them) but defending the violence and the lack of response condemnation from islamic leaders can amount to suggesting Islam is an inherently violent faith.
4. Such perversions are islamophobic and wrong. This is why I said more time should be spent reading the Koran. Perhaps then mercy shall prevail. By doing so this is not excusing the offence but honouring the message of Islam.

I recognise there’s a lot more going on in Afghanistan and that this is more a spark rather than actual cause but for the reasons above I have no hesitation in criticising those who suggest that this is a legitimate or understandable response to religious offence.

The truth behind the four gospels

HT to Exploring our Matrix for this excellent reconstruction

Hauerwas and the Death of War

I have a short piece up on Stanley Hauerwas’ ‘name it and claim it’ theology of peace here. I think having read more of the book in question I am a little harsh but still think there’s an issue of the assumed impeccability of the Church there. What do you think? (it’d be good to get comments over on the original article)

Mormonism’s Faustian Pact

Article first published as Mormonism’s Faustian Pact on Blogcritics.

The Devil is a good capitalist. Well, that’s the way the story goes anyhow. Ever open to increasing his market penetration in the world the Lord of Darkness was scouting for a low-cost investment with good future earnings potential across the Highways and Byways of America. And so it is that he encountered a hitherto unknown blues guitarist, or, more precisely, a wannabe blues guitarist by the name of Robert Johnson. Johnson, it is said, gave/sold his soul in return for mastery of the guitar, an instrument at which Johnson was to very quickly become one of the world’s leading expositors. Whilst it is true that he is now recognised as a true great he was not recognised as such in his life. Instead, as with many a consumer it was the proprietors who profit with many an entertainer dreaming of fame and fortune allegedly following suit in seeking such a Faustian pact.

The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) should perhaps take it as a compliment that Rabbi Abraham Cooper thinks that LDS’s own brand of malevolence falls short of the Evil One’s trailblazing adoption of the capitalist mode of wealth creation. You see, according to Cooper when the LDS wants your soul it does not buy it, exchange it for material benefits but rather, more mundanely, simply steals it. Or, more precisely, it ‘hijacks’ one’s soul. Seriously. These are Cooper’s own words as reported by The Telegraph concerning the baptism by proxy of some Holocaust victims.

I certainly don’t want to be misunderstood – the LDS has many things to be sorry for. From the top of my head there is the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which approximately 120 individuals, including children, were murdered, there is the horrid (albeit nuanced) history female subjugation in the practice of polygamy and, its continued perpetuation amongst dissident Mormon (non LDS) groups for which LDS owe a continued responsibility, even the doctrine of celestial marriage is, in my view, a recipe for domestic spousal abuse, then there is the history of racism up until 1978 and finally there is Mitt Romney (the last one is, – mostly, – in jest).

But there is one thing that the LDS does not have to apologise for, and that is for practising their faith in a manner that does not impinge on the freedom of others – and that is all I can see as happening here. In fact, and I did think how else I could word this but nothing short of bluntness seemed appropriate, Rabbi Cooper’s words of condemnation are nothing less than pure idiocy, particularly given their provenance from a human rights organisation campaigning for tolerance. It is an idiocy all the more pronounced since this is not an errant statement but an argument that has been pushed time and again over a number of years. That is all the more tragic because it is clear that the Simon Wiesenthal Center does some very valuable work and such puerile tactics threaten their otherwise well deserved credibility. But before getting into that perhaps it’s worth setting out some of the background to the ‘debate’.

Baptism for the Dead

The LDS baptise the dead (generally, although inaccurately, LDS is viewed as a synonym for ‘Mormonism’, which is rather like using the term Assemblies of God to describe all Pentecostals but that is by the bye). In saying LDS baptise the dead that does not mean a physical rite involving a corpse. If that were the case you can be sure that I would be on the side of Rabbi Cooper! Unlike much Christianity there is in Mormonism a clear expectation that death is not the end of an individual’s decision to choose God; Joseph Smith, for example, taught that “the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead.” By performing a rite of proxy baptism (based on 1 Cor 15:29) the LDS believe that those who die outside the faith are offered a way out of Spirit-prison and to enter God’s into salvation – the practice of seeking out the names of all those deceased is, literally, an attempt to declare the universal love of God. Writing of the practice A Convert’s Guide to Mormon Life sets out this view clearly:

Church members are making every effort to identify every man, woman and child who ever lived on the face of the earth so that baptisms and other ordinances can be performed on their behalf. Until the Millennium, we are seeking out the dead, one name at a time.

This baptism is not, however, sufficient to make a person who died an atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jew or any of the hundreds of other faith and belief system a ‘true mormon’. A confession and decision on the part of the deceased is necessary for that to happen.

Cooper’s Complaint

And yet, Rabbi Cooper is adamant the LDS are performing a horrendous act of disrespect in baptising by proxy of the parents of Simon Wiesenthal who were victims of the Holocaust. Copper explains “[w]e are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon Temples. Throughout his life, Simon Wiesenthal especially revered his beloved mother who was deported and murdered at Belzec death camp in 1942,” and further that “[t]heir physical lives were taken, their communities were destroyed and now somebody is coming along, however well-intentioned, and is suggesting that they’re going to rebrand their souls … It just doesn’t compute.”

The difficulty with Cooper hyperbole is it misses two points concerning the LDS practice.

First, criticism of LDS’ rebranding of the deceased’s souls is analogous to apologists for Tony Blair or Barack Obama criticising David Icke for stealing their humanity by asserting that they are, contrary to all appearances, actually ten foot intergalactic reptilians. I assume Cooper shares my conviction that LDS are not actually empowered with the supernatural custodianship of all humanity’s souls and that baptism by proxy is when all is said and done – and with all respect – objectively speaking complete bunkum. So, what precisely is the concern? That Rabbi Cooper could be wrong and Mormonism right? I doubt it.

The LDS have a host of practices that are just plain weird to all external observers but, let’s face it, so do most other faiths. For example, the Santerians have the rite of Bembe in which they ‘mount the head’ and become possessed of animistic spirits and dance and Christians eat the very body and blood of a man who died centuries previously. Each of the practices reasonable to their participants often look strange or even objectionable to observers (apart from atheists, of course, who are in the privileged position of viewing us all with incredulity!) The call of Cooper to exclude those of Jewish faith from the LDS baptisms amounts to a call to limit the LDS’ offer of salvation to all the peoples of the earth except those of Jewish faith. That the majority of people do not believe in this LDS God and consider the baptism a waste of good water does not change the fact that such internal theology has the potential to purvey hateful practise, It is only recently that LDS have turned away from their racist theology that denied the priesthood to followers on the basis of race and they have made genuine improvements in this regard – why turn the clock back to a time when salvation is, again, limited by race and creed? We have seen that before happen before and I have no desire to see it repeated – however well-intentioned the call may be on Cooper’s part.

The case of the Catholic church is instructive here. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) felt the need to formalise what we all know instinctively, namely the fact of a LDS baptism is not personally valid if one is not a LDS member. With that blindingly obvious conclusion in place the Catholic church has refused to cooperate with the LDS sponsored genealogical research with the result that catholic records are not passed on. What the Catholic church has not done however is to accuse the LDS of denying the Catholicism of those who have been baptised after their death – which is precisely the charge levelled by Cooper.

Second, even if we are to accept that contrary to all reason The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day Saints really are the custodians of the souls of our dearly departed (in which case perhaps Cooper and I should team up for a joint act of contrition – I think we may both have some questions to answer!) this still does not amount to branding the souls of the dead as true Mormons. It remains the case, as I explained above, that even after a dead Muslim dies and is baptised by proxy she will remain a dead Muslim, as will the dead Christian, dead Jew, dead atheist ad infinitum. Only a positive act of faith by the dead (enabled by the LDS’ baptism) will make the dead change their faith. That is LDS doctrine. If, as he states it is, Rabbi Cooper’s concern is that Simon Wiesenthal‘s parents lived good lives as faithful Jews and this is compromised by LDS actions then he has nothing to fear. A faithful Jew who has no other gods but God alone before them will reject the offer of salvation premised on the post-mortem baptism and remain a Jew – it really is that simple. The same, of course, goes for those of all other faiths and for those of none, no member of the LDS faithful is there by anything but choice. In respect of the baptism of the dead I am, then, of the firm conviction that LDS have nothing to apologise for. According to the tenets of their faith they are seeking to ensure every person irrespective of race or religion is offered a route to divine bliss in the afterlife – I wouldn’t want it any other way.

The Faustian Pact

And so, if talk deals with the devil and a cadre to militant Mormon soul-catchers is wide of the mark must the Faustian reference with which I began this essay be put back into the pseudo-intellectual box from whence it came? Not quite. The spectre of Faust hovers still above this issue.

The Faustian LDS had a lot, they were a happy bunch, and even though marginalised could still muster a presidential candidate among their number. But they were still seen as outsiders, as a strange religion. Looking for a way to gain respectability they found that some among their number took the belief in the universal love of God too seriously and actually sought to provide a way for every man woman and child who had lived to have a way to ensure they could all share in the heavenly bliss that awaited them. When this altruistic desire was unearthed the Faustian LDS apologised for such wanton generosity. This LDS would prefer that the offer of eternal bliss be offered to all except some of those of a certain faith, not because they are not able to access salvation, not because of a heavenly revelation, but because they received illogical representations from a number of pressure groups and to avoid critical comment are willing to effectively deny such persons the opportunity to respond to the LDS gospel’s call. In truth, the apology called for by this story is for the LDS to apologise for the Faustian LDS’ earlier apology.

A Postscript

For the avoidance of any doubt, I hereby append this message to this article for the benefit of any succeeding generations who may be members of the LDS and are concerned for my soul’s well-being (thank you by the way) but you should note that I am (was) a Christian and believe I have received all the baptisms I need in my life or death and therefore deny that your post-mortem ritual has any salvific efficacy whatsoever. Nonetheless, if you want to conduct a post-mortem ritual on my behalf who am I to tell you how to waste your time? Please don’t be offended if my sincerely held religious beliefs suggests your equally sincerely held religious beliefs are nonsense but, if you must, I guess that’s the price for religious freedom.

PS. Did anyone remember to feed the cat after I died? If not I have a favour to ask but, be warned, it might not be pleasant …

 

Can a Christian be a Socialist?

Can a Socialist be a Christian? That is the question asked by E Belfort Bax in his 1884 essay Unscientific Socialism.

I confess I have not read a great deal of work on the subject so what you will not find here is a reasoned conclusion based on exhaustive research but is, instead, a brief reflection of Bax’s presentation.

Given the existence of such movements such as a Christian Socialist Movement in the UK the question seems a strange one, clearly there is a great deal of belief that socialism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Clearly writing as he was in the late nineteenth century the political landscape has changed much and what Bax called socialism would be viewed today as a socialism of a revolutionary, rather than parliamentary bent. But it would be improper to consign Bax to the dustbin of history as one of a number of peremptorily anti-religious thinkers. Bax really did understand something of the religious mind. He was raised within a nonconformist household but more importantly was one of the first to study Anabaptists of the sixteenth century in his The Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists.

Although not explicitly referred to in this essay this study of Anabaptism forms a backdrop for the argument Bax makes. Among a certain group of Marxist historians – both before and during the Soviet revolution – there was a vigorous desire to identify communist precursors, and the Anabaptists were prime contenders for such a plaudit. The influential Karl Kautsky’s Communism in Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation makes much of the social and financial egalitarianism of the Anabaptism of John of Leiden in the early phase of the Munsterite theocracy as a protomarxist group. Bax, although recognising the Anabaptist’s differentiation from other Christians and its political radicality presented the Anabaptist’s (by which Bax means the Munsterite’s) ‘communism’ as one caused by domestic necessity (namely necessary because the city was under siege).

This background goes some way to describing why Bax in his 1884 criticises the plethora of ostensibly socialist experiments of the early nineteenth century (Bax does not name them but one can safely assume he has groups such as the ‘religious’ Shakers and Oneida society and the non-religious Brook Farm in mind). “Most of the so-called communistic societies of the United States” wrote Bax “[were] really nothing more than religious sects, which have found it convenient to come out of the world. They have really no more right to the special appellation ‘Socialist’ than a body of monks.”

This is a remarkable statement. Bax goes on to explain why he has come to this stark judgement, it is an argument that is worth quoting at length (emphasis added):

Of course, in a sense, any monastic society may be termed communistic, inasmuch as its members practise, like the early Christians, or the Essenes, a certain primitive communism or community of goods. And in this sense of course the erratic protestant sects of the United States – the Shakers, the Perfectionists, the Separatists, &c. – who have formed themselves into similar independent communities on a somewhat larger scale, may be termed communistic or socialistic. Otherwise the term Socialist has no meaning as applied to them, least of all in the modern scientific sense of the word in which Socialism is regarded as the result of a transformation of the existent conditions of society throughout the civilised world, and to which therefore any “coming out of the world,” in the sense of establishing an independent “community of saints” is an anachronism. Socialism proper, presupposes the developed industrial system, the machinery, the population &c., of the most advanced countries of modern times as its essential antecedent condition, and whether right or wrong, true or false, takes its stand on the continuity of historic evolution. It is no Utopian scheme or theory of what a model society might be, but claims to be a deduction of what the outcome of our present capitalistic civilisation itself must be sooner or later, unless social evolution is to be arrested by dissolution.

What is clear here is that socialism is defined in what the christian would call predestinarian terms. The closing sentence says it all – capitalistic civilisation must inexorably be defeated. Socialism is, therefore, not a “utopian scheme or theory” such as, presumably, the unscientific socialism of the monklike communities.

I am prepared to say that Jesus may arguably have been and parts of the early Church were socialist but clearly not in the sense that Bax considers worthy of the name – that is, one that seeks to stand firmly in the inexorable flow of history. In fact, the contrast here seems to be less one of what Bax would call Scientific and Unscientific socialism and is, rather, based on a conflict of realised eschatologies. In other words, how do the respective socialists act in their desire to witness, respectively, the consummation of ‘historic evolution’ or the kingdom of God on earth?

Authentic Christian faith has often been against the grain of ruling modes of thought – that is why St Paul described the gospel as foolishness. If one is searching for a way to make the world a just planet then Christianity will be right at the bottom of the list of potential rescuers. A religion that calls on its followers to turn the other cheek, to pray for and welcome their enemies as friends, that prioritises weakness over strengh is not a prime candidate as a harbinger of liberty.

And yet, like Bax’s Socialist’s belief in the historic evolution, Christians believe that history will culminate in the kingdom God but that this historical progress will often be invisible to the eye. I myself waiver between cautious support and ambivalence concerning the value of the intentional communities to which Bax refers but must they be seen as a retreat from the world (although, in fairness, they often are)? Can they not, also, be seen as an attempt to witness – proleptically -  to another world that is, with God’s grace, possible. A world based on solidarity with their fellow travellers, communities and earth. Where such socialists differ from Bax is in their assessment of realising this world without the new birth that is found in Jesus Christ. And, with that faith, whilst never apolitical (contrary to Bax’s characterisation) any hope the Christian has that justice will be realised through the power of state machinations, revolution, or even popular democracy are severely tempered by the fact of sin or, to put it another way, humanity’s propensity to disregard the Golden Rule.

 If, as Bax intimates, the Socialist must adopt a militant pose to those they oppose, to impose rather than implore then he is surely right – no Socialist can be a Christian for this would be to deny the Way of Jesus Christ. Or rather, if they adopt this position there socialism and their christianity are in a tug-o-war with the other. Here, of course, the issue is not unique to what Bax has called Socialism but applies to all ‘political activity’.

Shameless self-promotion

Two ‘must read’ links. Well, maybe not must read but two links nonetheless:

• Article: The Whitney Houston I Never Knew – an article I wrote on celebrity deaths for blogcritics.
• Kindle book: Educating the Amish – an essay I’ve published on Kindle on Religion and Education. For the next couple of day this can be downloaded for FREE. Thereafter, if you want it and don’t want to pay message me and I’ll send you a copy.

On Abu Quatada

Abu Quatada has been in the news a lot recently, most recently because it looks as though he will be freed from the indefinite immigration detention that had been imposed upon him, following a successful application for bail. The relevant judgement from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is here. The Daily Mail suggests that there is no appeal to be lodged to the Grand Chamber but it certainly seems the judgement has forced the Government to speed up the process of obtaining diplomatic resolution – I suspect SIAC judges may privately be thinking why the hell has it taken this decision to force them to do this but that, of course, is pure speculation.

On a formal point as the judgement makes clear the purpose of immigration detention is to remove or deport from the UK. It is not in other words, a risk mitigation exercise apart from and separate to this solitary aim. However, the Home Secretary’s own statement “that the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell” coupled with the fact that Quatada has, unlike the overwhelming majority of immigration detainees, been kept within a category A prison rather than an Immigration Removal Centre could arguably suggest that there is at least part of the reason for his detention is punitive. In fact,  LabourList have been explicit on suggesting that this:

It is a sad reflection on British justice that we have kept this man in prison in England for a total of 8 1/2 years — the equivalent of a 17 year prison sentence — without having charged him with any offence, still less having put him on trial. Half a dozen countries around the world reckon that they have enough evidence to put him on trial, if they can get their hands on him. Apparently we are the only one that can’t … Does Mrs May want to sentence him to another eight or nine years behind bars when he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until a court of law convicts him of an offence?

If it is the case  – and I am far from convinced it is – that a motivation for continued detention of Quatada was punitive then it is both morally wrong and probably illegal for the reasons SIAC spell out at the beginning of the judgement. The previous Government – a Labour government I might add – introduced the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial under part for of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Quatada, along with many others was detained without trial in Belmarsh prison. I consider that policy to be contemptible and, quite rightly, the policy was ruled illegal by the House of Lords in 2004 with Judge Nichols commenting that “Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.” What was judged illegal then remains illegal now. There is no lawful means by which a terror suspect can be indefinitely detained absent other factors (such as, in Quatada’s case, being illegally present in the UK).

There is a lot of press comment about indefinite detention without trial from liberal and conservative viewpoints – it is I think utterly superfluous and missing the point on both sides. The only consideration before SIAC was ‘is the continued deprivation of Quatada’s liberty proportionate to the process of securing diplomatic agreement to lawfully deport him to Jordan?’ Given the very early stage of diplomatic negotiations SIAC found it was not – that is, pretty much, the entire sum of the case. And, because SIAC found it was not – it was no longer appropriate to detain Quatada in immigration detention.The court did not consider Human Rights because that decision has already been taken (e.g., in 2004) so the suggestion this is ‘human rights gone mad’ is utterly erroneous – it is not even an issue under consideration apart from the most basic of weighing proportionality grounds.

If the Government wish to detain terror suspects for the reason that they are terrorists then it needs to go back to the drawing board and write legislation that allows them to do that and will pass legal muster. Alternatively,  – and I really don’t think this is a radical idea – if Quatada is reasonably suspected of criminal activities he should be subject to a criminal trial and, if found guilty, be imprisoned under the laws of this land.

Rant over.

The Debt Delusion

Mehdi Hasan, Summer of Unrest: The Debt Delusion, Random, (2011). Kindle ebook.

The Debt Delusion is a short read, but it is a compelling one. Hasan’s aim is less to advance an economic argument than to question the perceived inevitability of the present Conservative/Lib Dem government’s deficit reduction plans that will – given the evident private sector recruitment gap – see an increase in unemployment levels, more people forced into poverty and benefits cut. That that is the case seems clear writing now, even if at the instigation of the budget it was not so clear given how the economy has fared.

Nonetheless, it still remains the case that the present government continues to push some standard lines on the economy – the three most prevalent being that the country is, or at least was, on the brink of bankruptcy (a la Greece), that it is predominately caused by Labour’s wasteful spending and that the national economy is analogous to a family personal debt and that the UK has ‘maxed out’ its credit card. These and other constitute the delusionary debt myths of the Government’s economic agenda.

Readers will not find an in-depth survey of the economy but they will find that this seemingly self-evident truth on which the debt reduction plans are based are in actuality hotly contested and in many cases the Government’s position is very much the minority opinion among expert (and often neoliberal) economists – a point George Osbourne has been at great pains to keep quiet. Hasan closes his essay with the comment that the conclusion one should reach given this dearth of support for the fiscal policies of the coalition government is that “it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the Tories used the fallout from the recession, and the record deficit, as a ready-made excuse to take an ideological axe to the public sector and, in particular, to the benefits system”. I agree. But in my view the case has not been made here by Hasan.

However, where this is recommended is as a primer to readers on how the cuts agenda has been spun for political agenda and to set aside some of the hyperbole of Osbourne et al to enable them to understand some of the wide – and all too often unnecessarily complicated – realities of national economics. In that respect Hasan does an admirable job.