Author: R J Adams

Can she, or can’t she? In America now, she can; how long before she cannot, at least in half of the US states?

America is reputed to be the great champion of freedom in the world, but what is “freedom” and where does it come from?

Freedom is the right of every individual to make his or her own decisions, providing those decisions don’t have a negative effect on others, impinging on their freedoms. It comes from the heart of every individual and must, by definition relate solely to that person alone. Otherwise, decisions made on behalf of others may only be right from the decider’s viewpoint, and not from the perspective of the person on whom the decision impinges.

In other words, “freedom” is personal to each individual and cannot therefore be successfully legislated. The only rule that need apply, and as a consequence be judged, is the effect of one individual’s free decision on another’s quality of life. As a simple example, if a man uses his freedom to build a high fence around his house and in so doing blocks the light from his neighbor’s home, his neighbor has every right to invoke the law to have it removed. That is the neighbor’s right of freedom.

At this level, law generally functions quite effectively, but societies are complex organisms and invariably power-groups form within them. The more powerful these groups are allowed to become the more they will utilize their strength, attempting to move others in society to adopt their standards and beliefs, even when they are contrary to the freedom of the individuals concerned.

Most so-called “civilized” societies harbor numerous examples of such personal freedom-gagging: the right of an individual to take his own life, or use a recreational drug of choice, are two obvious examples, but there are others less apparent and more insidious. In America today are situations where being black or Arab or even non-Christian, can result in freedom-gagging: the job will go to someone else; police harassment may be more likely, or you may just stand more chance of dying because poverty makes it impossible to pay the medical insurance. Wherever there is a discrepancy between rich and poor in society, the latter suffer from freedom-gagging by comparison with the wealthy.

Our societies are generally a turmoil of power groups each vying to inflict its own brand of freedom-gagging to best effect. In the United States, the various groups that lump themselves together under the general title “Christian” are most vocal in calling for the freedom-gagging of American society. Their infiltration of the political powerbase, both states-wide and federal, has been the tool to force their views of “freedom” on others who vehemently disagree with them.

In fact, it is probably fair to say the distortion of traditional religious beliefs, both in the Christian and Islamic world, is the root of most freedom-gagging, cleverly disguised as a mix of moral and pious righteousness. The Ten Commandments, we are told, all began with the three words: “Thou shalt not” and both the Christian and Islamic sects have embroidered and embossed those words to cover a multitude of actions the “high” ones consider contrary to their delicate moral senses.

The fact that in the West the basis of our modern day legal systems are still centered around these ten ancient and somewhat dubious “Thou shalt not’s” is a measure of how successful the pious ones have been in restricting individual freedom. Not only have we been gagged by the Ten Commandments, but they have invented a whole host of other “Thou shalt not’s” to complement them. “Thou shalt not murder thyself”; “Thou shalt neither eat nor smoke nor grow cannabis sativa”, and of course, the one they are working at the hardest right now: “Thou shalt not murder thy unborn fetus”.

The right of a woman to choose whether she ends her pregnancy or bears the child, has provided a fertile (excuse the pun) plain for the “high” ones to raise their pious crop of bitterness and self-righteous wrath. Quite wrongly, they have centered their argument around the question of exactly when “life” commences, producing a plethora of scientific rhetoric backing their opinion that it begins at conception. From that standpoint they can utilize to devastating effect the old standby: “Thou shalt not kill” – well down the list of ten, well actually twelve, or maybe thirteen, according to Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Take away ancient religious scripts from the discussion and the argument falls apart. Those attempting to freedom-gag women say the prospective mother has no right to terminate her pregnancy because the unborn child cannot protect its own freedom by going to court and demanding its life back – a life terminated without its permission. They, the moralist religious, are like knights of old protecting the rights of the unborn child. On the surface, they would appear to be right.

By my own definition: “Freedom is the right of every individual to make his or her own decisions, providing those decisions don’t have a negative effect on others, impinging on their freedoms.”

The huge, gaping chasm in their argument, however, is their definition of “Life”. Scientifically, the fusing of cells that will eventually produce a live human being, begins at conception – few would argue against that. However, the first moment of consciousness – of awareness – or even self-awareness, the initial creation of individualism, occurs so much later that the child is probably well born before it happens. How many of us have any recollection of our life pre-birth? A few have suggested knowledge of a time in the womb, but it is likely no more than a memory-trick, or wishful thinking.

Pre-consciousness, our fetus is no different from that of any other unborn creature and would have no knowledge of, or suffer no pain from a termination, provided the operation was performed at a reasonably early stage in its development.

The extent to which society’s pressure groups will go to force their ill-conceived values on the rest of us, is graphically illustrated by the actions of the South Carolina legislators, who yesterday voted to make viewing an ultra-sound scan of their unborn fetus mandatory for every woman in the state wishing to undergo an abortion. The vote will almost certainly pass into law, inducing some other states to follow a similar path. Not only must women view the scan, but they have also to sign a legal affidavit stating they’ve viewed it.

The “brains” behind this legislation belong to Rep Greg Delleney of South Carolina. Greg’s a Republican, of course, and no doubt attends church religiously every Sunday. In defense of his legislation, Greg tells us it’s vital information for women facing an agonizing decision:

“It’s the most accurate, truthful and non-judgmental information that anyone could be given prior to making an informed decision as to whether an abortion is right for her.”

A frightened young girl, violently gang-raped by drunken brutes, discovers she is pregnant. Before being allowed to have the fetus removed, Greg insists she is forced to watch a video showing the consequences of her rape, “non-judgmentally” adding to the horror and anguish she will carry for the rest of her life.

But then, for Greg, life is sacred.

That’s why, in September 2006, the South Carolina Gun Rights Association declared him ” Gun Rights Champion of the Week”.

Not to be outdone, Greg, I am happy to declare you, “Freedom-Gagger of the Year, 2007”.

Can she, or can’t she? In America now, she can; how long before she cannot?

Filed under: Freedom gagging

We all adore our pets, but do we focus all our love for animals on them, or is some left over for the less fortunate dogs and cats – like those which end up in the testing laboratories of Menu Foods of Ontario, Canada, who have recently recalled millions of tins of pet food, when some pets contracted kidney failure and died as a result of eating it.

Sad, you may think, but even more appalling – at least to this writer – is that following the allegations, the company fed their product to a further fifty dogs and cats in their laboratories, then waited while seven of them died. All, apparently, with the knowledge and approval of the FDA.

This was widely reported in the media, yet no-one showed any shock or surprise at the revelation. Given the modern analytical techniques available, the only possible reason for using dogs and cats to determine the toxicity of the product, was cost. It saved the company money. Except, of course, it didn’t. Seven dead animals later, the company still hadn’t a clue what was causing the toxicity, and further analytical tests have to be implemented.

Such concern at the needless deaths of seven domestic animals may seem petty, given the human losses in Iraq and others around the world, but there is a bigger issue to be considered. It concerns ourselves. We shower love and affection on our pets, yet no pet owners have complained at the manner in which Menu Foods has conducted its “research” into the matter. Because the cats and dogs condemned to die by Menu Foods are no-one’s pets, it becomes acceptable to sacrifice them, just so long as our pets may live.

That’s a fine example of truly selfish love. It smacks of George Bush’s ideal of inflicting pain, suffering and death on another nation so America does not have to fight the “terrorists” on its own turf.

The deaths of other, nameless creatures – whether animals or Iraqis – are less important than the lives of American citizens, or in this instance, their pets.

The whole incident highlights how grotesque our industries have become. Menu Foods (owned by Menu Foods Income Fund, would you believe?) manufactures 53 separate brands of dog food and 42 separate brands of cat food for the retail industry, and also supplies contract pet food to other multi-national companies like Nestle. Yet it only employs 958 staff.

Next time you dither in front of Wal-Mart’s pet-food array wondering which of the many delectables little Tibbles or Rover would fancy for his dinner, just remember that most of them will have been manufactured by Menu Foods, and while the labeling and pricing may vary substantially, the odds are that the contents of them all will be fundamentally the same.

Filed under: Animal sacrifice

I guess we all feel a severe onset of head pain from time to time, the result of perpetually bashing our literary brows against the rock solid insanity of political arrogance and moral ineptitude. While it’s probably unnecessary to seek professional help at these times, the equivalent of a dose of Tylenol is prescribed in the form of a break, away from the seemingly endless cycle of violence and bloodshed heaped upon us by those egocentric politicians with their petty wars and constantly regurgitating international squabbles.

Hence the absence of Sparrow Chat articles over the last week. It’s been a time of relaxation, physical exercise, enjoyment of the more positive virtues, and the planning of ten days away across the ocean among the hills and mountains of my beloved Wales; a trip not destined to occur until June, and marred only by the fact my lovely wife will not be accompanying me on this occasion. Spending a week of that time hill walking with a lifelong friend will be some measure of compensation.

Since my last posting on March 16th, the news has varied little from the routine that has dominated our lives these past four years. Iraq, four years on, is the centerpiece of a week long series on BBC World, so far illustrating the utter worthlessness of the joint US/UK invasion as a means of freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny and providing them with the joys of a democratic capitalist society. The vast majority of those Iraqis still remaining in their country, with the exception of the Kurds in the north, are utterly pessimistic of any improvement over the next twelve months. Even the Vice President, Tareq al-Hashemi, has hinted that talks to bring all sides around a negotiating table are unlikely to succeed while the American occupation continues. For Iraqis trying to get out of the country – over two million are already thought to have fled – trying to get hold of a valid passport is both highly dangerous and next to impossible.

Summing up Iraq four years on, John Simpson, the BBC’s World Affairs Editor and Iraq expert, says:

“The most common sight, apart from police and army roadblocks, are the black banners on walls and fences announcing people’s deaths. And the most common feeling you come across is a kind of slow-burning, gloomy anger. These things represent a major failure of the hopes and expectations which many Iraqis entertained four years ago…….”

The rest of his article, from Monday 19th March, can be read HERE.

Probably the most pessimistic news out of the Middle East this week has been the refusal of both the US and the EU to recognize the new unity government of Palestine. It was no mean achievement to reconcile the various factions, and Palestinian leaders should be given some measure of reward for their efforts. As should the Palestinian people, who have been forced into even more suffering and hardship for daring to exercise their democratic right and elect a government of their choosing. They desperately need the finances so harshly withdrawn when Hamas came to power. Israel is, of course, refusing to acknowledge the unity government and still holds millions of dollars in taxes – the property of Palestinians – until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

Condoleeza Rice’s refusal to release funding and work with the Palestinian government comes as no surprise whatever. The US continues to link arms with Israel in demanding the Palestinians dance to their tune. The European Union’s acquiescence to American demands is sickening in the extreme and leaves one wondering how long this body will continue pandering to the whims of US arrogance and aggression.

Two days ago the Norwegian deputy foreign minister, Raymond Johansen, pledged his country’s support for the new government in a meeting with the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya. Mister Johansen said afterwards:

“We hope that all the European countries, and even other countries, will support this unity government………We hope that this unity government will work hard in order to fulfill the expectations from the international community.”

Mister Johansen was immediately snubbed by Israel, who refuse to have anything to do with the new Palestinian government. Norway is not, of course, a member of the European Community.

On a final note, I am not flying American Airways to the UK in June. I have chosen my usual carrier, British Midland. The case of James Yates from Ohio makes me glad I did. Yates was one of three pilots on an American Airways flight from Manchester, England to Chicago in February 2006, when he was stopped at the security gate for being drunk after a night “on the town”. This week a British jury found Yates “not guilty” of “carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while over the drink limit” after they were told he only went to the airport to tell his captain he was unfit for work and would not be joining the crew. It may have been easier to use a telephone, but the jury obviously accepted his explanation, and so might I – had I not read THIS BBC ARTICLE from June 2006 stating that in an earlier court hearing Yates denied being “unfit for duty”.

British justice, it seems, has a very short memory.

Filed under: More bad news