Author: R J Adams

The battle for the Republican nomination in America grows ever more heated with the unscripted announcement from front runner, Donald Trump, that abortion should be illegal and women who break the law punished severely.^[1]

It’s just the sort of remark that sends establishment Republicans into a spin, and manages to upset even the Pro-Life brigade of anti-abortionists that exist throughout the nation.

The idea of heavily-pregnant, or recently pregnant women, marched off to jail in their hundreds isn’t appealing to the Pro-Life brigade. They prefer the sanitized version: locking up the doctors. Maybe, if they were forced to confront the reality of the whole, unsavoury, situation they might be forced to think again. After all, abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland and women can still end up in prison for life under a law enacted back in 1861.^[2]

The truth, of course, as Britain has discovered, is that while abortion is an emotional issue – often more so for the potential mothers, than the tiresome religious minority who incessantly shout about it – it’s way more humane to keep it within a legal framework with guidelines for doctors, rather than revert to the horrifying, illegal, backstreet abortion system that prevailed into the 1950’s.

The anti-abortion brigade in America might do well to check out history elsewhere than their own country, before next taking to the streets with their placards.

Meanwhile, across the pond from Donald Trump’s America, a war is waging on that tiny, overcrowded, island known as Britain. It’s a war of words that could, according to both sides in the argument, have disastrous consequences if the ‘other side’ wins.

The one word that signifies this volatile division is “Brexit”.

This single, emotive, bastardization of the language is an abbreviation of “Britain’s exit”, coined by the gutter press and now acceptable to all, including the BBC and numerous politicians. It resulted from an election pledge by the now UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, to the effect that if he were elected he’d hold a referendum and let the Great British Public decide whether to remain in the European Community, or leave it.

Like most political pledges, this one was made without thought of the long-term consequences. It’s motive at the time was the procurement of additional votes to win a general election. Rash statements made during political campaigns can usually be expected to evaporate into the mists of time, but this one has refused to do so and is now firmly nipping at Mister Cameron’s bottom.

Cameron, himself, is a staunch ‘stay in the Union’ man. Unfortunately for him many of his political colleagues are not. He has more support from the opposing parties than from his own Tory cabinet, which is not really surprising, given that an “out” vote would certainly mean the demise of Mister Cameron and his replacement as Prime Minister by one of his fellow Tories.

The realization of this has seen an almost wholesale shift of power-hungry wannabes from the “IN” to the “OUT” brigade, notably those with the best chance of winning a party election to the leadership, or a plum seat in the Parliamentary Cabinet should their chum make it to the top spot.

Sympathy for David Cameron is hard to conjure. Not only did he fail to foresee the possible dire consequences to his own position of such rash promises, but he made the unforgivable error of placing the future of the country in the hands of its people.

Democracy is a wonderful thing when it comes to choosing a leader, but the Great British Public have repeatedly displayed a distinct lack of expertise even in matters of somewhat less importance: choosing the right song to win the Eurovision Song Contest, or voting the right person out of the Big Brother house – about which they are reputed to know a great deal. On the finer points of Britain’s future within Europe, or indeed outside it, the GBP are decidedly lacking. Sadly, as in all matters of major importance (football, the quality of beer in the local, etc.) they are convinced they do. One has only to stand at the bar of any pub in the UK, after nine o’clock, for this observation to be confirmed.

David Cameron’s action in handing the reins of Britain’s future over to the masses is akin to Elizabeth I demanding a peasant vote on whether England should attack the Spanish Armada, or Henry V seeking sanction from the ignorant and unwashed before engaging the French at Agincourt.

The future of Britain will be decided in June. To leave the European Union would prove disastrous, both for the UK and the rest of Europe. The world is becoming more dis-united. The most powerful nation, America, is in the throes of a political civil war; North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are proceeding apace; the Middle East has suffered total fragmentation, and the UK hasn’t won the Eurovision Song Contest since 1997.

Do they really believe they’ll ever win it again if they vote to leave?

^{[1] “Donald Trump’s abortion remarks have caused the biggest crisis of his campaign” The Guardian, March 31st 2016}

^{[2] “Abortion law madness: What’s really going on Northern Ireland?” The Telegraph, February 15th 2016}

Yesterday was a beautiful day. Indications abounded of spring finally upon us. Early morning sunshine warmed the backs of contented cattle in the field across the lane; mist drifted benignly from the valley floor far below. The call of rooks in distant trees, the chatter of thrushes, blackbirds, and fieldfares busily collecting debris for nest building, all indicative of the peace and beauty pervading our natural world, and all too easily ignored by human animals distracted by insane beliefs of elevated status, lust for power, insatiable needs to force their viewpoint on their fellow beings whatever the cost in life and suffering.

Yet again we woke to that other world of shame, degradation, and horror. It’s a world of our making. It belies our ability to live in harmony with our fellows. It’s a world constructed from a self-centred, power-hungry, cold-blooded need to dominate that has been our downfall since the beginning of time. It brooks no debate. It takes no prisoners. It holds only ugliness and barbarism. It is within us all.

The week’s bombing atrocities in Belgium are only one physical manifestation of this ugliness residing in each and everyone of us. We hide it well. We’re shocked when others display it so blatantly by taking the lives of innocents who will never have the joy of feeling spring sunshine, or the song of birds, again. But then, even while outwardly mourning the dead, en masse we applaud and smile and hold hands, ostensibly displaying our defiance of the perpetrators in a garish display of ‘oneness’. In truth the oneness is illusory. It really means “…I’m a survivor, you may have got them but you didn’t get me.”

I will be accused of cynicism. Look back, though, at our history. It’s a long and nightmarish tale of bloodlust, power-grabbing, torture and killing. We kid ourselves we are “evolving”. Surely, those events are history? Only terrorists do that sort of thing today, don’t they?

We are all prodded to remember the crimes of the Nazi party and how the ‘good guys’ beat them into submission and made them pay, but let’s forget the heinous war crimes committed by the British in Kenya during the early 1950s, crimes equally, if not more heinous, than those of the Nazis, less than a decade before, in WW2.

…a man, now aged 79, who describes how he was placed above a metal drum of burning charcoal, known as the “hat of death”, and beaten until he defecated over himself, before then being beaten unconscious with a hammer.

Another man, now 83, who suffered regular torture including a punishment which involved being made to dig a hole with his index finger by constantly turning his crouched body in a circle, causing dizziness punished by further beatings….

Account of torture at the Gechia Post detention camp in 1953.

“A Mau Mau fighter was arrested and brought to the post. They brought in a new torture method where they lit a charcoal fire inside the cell and burned big metallic springs until they were red hot. They would then strip naked a detainee and place the springs on their skin.

“We were lined up and the Mau Mau detainee was stripped and laid down. He was burnt several times and finally the spring was placed on his lower back and left to burn in his internal organs till he died….

Account of a paramilitary raid in 1952 when claimant was aged 14.

“A white officer stabbed me with a bayonet in my knee. He did it to try to force me into the hut. My father was collared into the house and I followed.

“My father and I were forced to remove all our clothes … My father was forced to sleep with me. The ordeal did not work because he had his inhibitions and I had my inhibitions. It took about 30 minutes. The two white men were inside the house, watching.

“Then my mother and brother were brought … I heard orders to open legs. I did not see them being forced to have sex but I think that is what happened. I was being beaten outside when this was happening….^[1]

There are many documented accounts of even worse British torture methods against the Mau-Mau in Kenya, including the raping of men by the use of broken bottles. But, we were the ‘good guys’.

Let’s also conveniently forget the crimes of America in Iraq, just a few years ago – at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, the CIA’s “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. Such a cute phrase to describe medieval barbarity. But, after all, these too were the ‘good guys’.

We’re no more evolved than were the Visigoths who sacked Rome way back in 410, though our inventive ability has increased in leaps and bounds. We call it ‘technology’, but our technology isn’t just capable of killing and maiming more of our kind more efficiently than the Visigoths killed Romans, it’s also capable of exterminating every living thing on the planet, either acutely by nuclear force, or the more chronic, though equally terminal condition, of global warming.

“Ah,” I hear you cry, “but I’m optimistic. I believe we’ll find a way to move forward and overcome our differences.”

Our belief systems haven’t evolved one jot since we came down from the trees, either.

Today is another beautiful, peaceful day in northern France. Sadly, many people are missing it altogether. If they’re not at work, they’re indoors by their television screen, soaking up the horror-riddled news broadcasts from Belgium that’ll continue for days to come, resembling some gruesome form of dramatic entertainment.

Perhaps, if the Romans had invented television, highlights from the previous day’s blood-letting arena games may have proved equally popular.

I think I’d rather stick with the cattle and the birds and the sunshine.

^{[1] “Mau Mau uprising: Kenyans still waiting for justice join class action over Britain’s role in the emergency” Independent, November 23rd 2014}

Living in France isolates one from much that is happening in the world. It’s not that the news is less bleak, though it’s true that very little of it appertains to the country itself, but it seems more impersonal, less involving, than in America or even Britain. Despite the appallingly tragic terrorist crimes in Paris last November, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre before that, people in France don’t appear overly concerned by the threat of terrorism. This is probably because there’s strength in unity, and the French people are united – across the nation, and across party lines.

There’s a piece by Vanessa Barford today in the BBC Magazine, entitled, “Why are Americans so angry?” Having lived there for thirteen years, I find that question easy to answer. Americans no longer have any trust in anything, least of all, themselves as a nation. Sadly, they don’t even trust each other. One constantly hears talk of, “…the good guys and the bad guys…” yet no-one is quite sure just who fits into either category. The ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ seem to maintain a shadowy co-existence, even within law enforcement.

Americans have lost all sense of security, in themselves and in each other. It’s partly the inevitable result of a Superpower writhing in its death throes and slowly spiraling downwards from the pinnacle of power it once possessed. According to Barford’s report, well under a third of Americans still believe the US, ‘stands above all other countries in the world’, and who do they blame the most? Their government, of course.

Which is not without good reason. The British parliamentary system has its problems, including ever-increasing corruption, but they’re infants at the game compared to their compatriots across the pond. Lining the pocket, stuffing the billfold, the revolving door of politico-corporate career advancement, are all well-practiced arts to US politicians, not just in Washington, but throughout the nation.

The effect has been to polarize the supporters of political parties to a point reminiscent of medieval Britain, where Protestant and Catholics were at each others throats and the idea of inter-marriage was unthinkable.

Barford:

Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarised than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.
The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled, and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.”^[1] [my bold]

None of this bodes well for America, or the world. It’s superiority is slipping away, and in an effort to bolster the nation’s ego its politicians are happy to warmonger against Russia, dragging much of the world with it into another Cold War, which could eventually turn hot. As the present incumbent of the White House reaches the twilight of his Presidency, matters look set to take a turn for the worse.

With four likely hopefuls for the title, only one is capable of turning America around and giving it hope for the future, and he is the one least likely to succeed. Of the others, Clinton is Washington establishment, meaning more of the same, and both Cruz and Trump are merely egos with a cause. Unfortunately, neither’s ’cause’ is likely to prove good for America, or the rest of the world.

Sadly, none of the four are likely to re-unite Americans. The schisms are too deep. Americans are hopelessly divided.

A lion used to prowl about a field in which four oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in the separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.
United we stand, divided we fall.” ~ Aesop

And that’s the difference between France and America. France is a united country. It’s government is still “of the people, by the people, for the people”, and the French would soon bring its government to its knees if it tried to be any different.

The American people have allowed their government to become corrupt. “Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.” As a result they feel unrepresented and isolated. Which, of course, is true.

Yet, its my bet they’ll still vote Cruz, or Trump, or Clinton, into the White House come November.

^{[1] “Why are Americans so angry” BBC, February 4th 2015}