Conversation with the Natives

In their constant struggle to improve the quality of education in this country, the relevant authorities forever miss the very point of it, create obstacles when they mean to smooth progress, ignore the people who actually know what needs to be done and how to do it, pay scrupulous attention to the interests of everyone but the children, for whose benefit the system is supposed to exist, and generally create more and more regulation and paperwork to less and less effect.

So it’s quite unusual for someone in government to say something intelligent on the subject. The surprising news in this case is that President Rajoy has suggested that there should be conversation classes with native speakers in schools, to improve the level of English. This is a good idea. If anything comes of it, it will be done badly, ineffectively and at unnecessary expense, but the idea is sound.

First, some background. The focus in Spanish schools is on grammar and vocabulary, because those who decide these things lack imagination and experience, it’s much easier to justify the marks you give if they come from written exams, and it’s difficult to do useful oral activities with groups of 30 or so pupils. Some would see these as problems to be solved. In fact, they tend to be seen as excuses not to try to do things better.

The aim of the recent Education Law is that pupils who leave High School at 18 should have a B1 level of English. For those of you who understand these things, that is Cambridge Pet level, and you will recognize the problem. It is not an independent user level. It is half a language, which is no good. You can’t actually do anything with it that a company, a University, or you yourself, can use. A B1 level does not allow you to answer the interview question ‘Do you speak English?’ with a ‘Yes.’

Also, needless to say, the aspirations of government when they wave their hands about and create these documents are not always fulfilled. Most children don’t even reach the low level that is set as the target. The result is that the great majority of Spanish youngsters leave school with a very limited knowledge of English, a bit of useless baggage that has cost them thousands of hours of wasted time, and doubtless many arguments and punishments along the way. This is not the way to do things.

The idea, though, that the purpose of language is communication, is not really recognized by the system in use. Anything that changes that perception is good. It really is like riding a bike. You are more likely to reach your destination if you actually have somewhere you want to go.

To Dub or not to Dub…

It was suggested recently by the President of Spain that TV should stop dubbing films and series into Spanish, as this would help improve the level of English of young Spaniards.

Even though this is almost certainly true, and the experience over many decades in countries like Sweden, Norway, Holland and Germany is that exposure to English in TV programmes from a very early age is one of the reasons for the extremely high depth and breadth of competence in English, the government is obviously not “mulling” a ban on dubbing, nor would it be right to do so.

I doubt it has any authority to do it, for a start, but there are other reasons it’s a bad idea.

There is a very good dubbing industry in Spain, and many of the voice actors are better than the Hollywood people they replace. (For some reason Hollywood doesn’t require its stars to be able to communicate like normal human beings, let alone like performers). I often prefer to watch in Spanish because they do it better, and they turn down the background noise, too. “Let’s annoy the luvvies by stopping them working” is not usually seen as good politics, especially when they are actually doing a good job.

Also, although it might benefit, undoubtedly would benefit, suitably motivated youngsters, older people would probably be a little miffed at suddenly not being able to watch the TV because the government has said so.

Another point is that the key is motivation. If you don’t find a way to motivate the young to want to learn, playing around with what’s on the telly is only going to annoy people, and achieve nothing. That motivation is one of the major failings of government in regard to Education.

And another important point is that they are far too late. With digital television and polychannel platforms it has been possible for at least 13 years to watch hundreds of different series on dozens of different channels, in the original version- which almost invariably means English- if you so choose. Some choose to, some don’t. I encourage them to do so if they find they can still enjoy the programme that way, and explain why. Government meddling would cause a lot of harm and would, in practice, change nothing.

The fact that they are thinking about such things, however, and understand something about how the desired results might be achieved, is a step in the right direction.

In Practice

If it is the case that it is never society as a whole which acts in these matters  to protect itself- that is, its members- but a small group of people who have acquired the power to tell society what to do (whether or not they claim to act on behalf of and for the good of that society), then the only a priori legitimacy they can claim for restricting the freedom of others (if indeed they feel the need to justify themselves at all) is the net good that the constraints bring about.

The more I think about this, the more I realise that my point of view owes at least as much to practical considerations derived from empirical observations of the effects of legislation as to the first principles of moral philosophy (perhaps if I knew what the first principles of moral philosophy were I might try to apply them).

It becomes necessary, therefore, to look at the practical effects of such constraints and prohibitions. Not that politicians are much interested in this kind of thing; after all, one dead child in the Daily Mail carries more weight at Westminster than all the freedom in the world. But it gives us a chance to anchor all the theory in reality.

It is common knowledge that the prohibition of alcohol in the United States was largely ineffective in terms of its own stated aims, and socially calamitous in terms of the crime and economic damage it inflicted on the country. It is generally accepted that the long term, international prohibition on many narcotics has resulted in vast human misery and organized violence on a massive scale, while only having a small effect on the consumption of these substances. Widening the scope, prohibitions on gambling led not to an absence of gambling but to colourful characters in pubs and down alleys. Attempts to eradicate homosexuality in Iran have led only to numbers of young men swinging from cranes. Attempt to prohibit fun in Afghanistan have led to more wedding parties being gunned down by terrorists who feel they have right on their side. The urge to control at all costs can do far more damage to society than freedom ever has.

Unfortunately, common knowledge it may be, but it isn’t easy to pin down the facts. There are many reports and analyses of Prohibition, and some conclude that it did reduce the problems caused by alcohol, and that the crime associated with the period was not a direct result of the law.

In practice, it’s all terribly complicated. But in theory, I’m right.

Thinking Out Loud

I do not object in principle to the death penalty for murder.
(Perhaps also for cowardice in the face of the enemy, or otherwise deserting people you have promised to protect. Raping children, that sort of thing).
I should like to believe that a free society should be able to deal in this way with its murderers, and I still believe that to forbid a society from doing so, as the EU has done, is an act of tyranny, but it is clear that the decision to eliminate those who represent too great a danger is never truly in the hands of 'society'. It will always be controlled by those who rule, and the rulers are never part of the societies they rule. They consider themselves above the rest, a breed apart. They care little for the ordinary people, and, in any case, they will certainly make mistakes, mistakes which can never be rectified.
In practice, therefore, theory doesn't matter here.

On Marriage and what it is, is not, or might be

Mainly because I haven’t bothered to do any research, I’m not very clear on what it is that is being discussed/argued about.

There is nothing to stop a homosexual couple from getting their friends together and having a party, registering themselves as a civil partnership, and thinking of themselves- and describing themselves- as married. For what it's worth, I would think of such a couple in the same way they think of and describe themselves, even without a registration or ceremony, as I do with other couples. (I don't know any gay couples who described themselves as married, but if I did I would follow their lead. This might be moral laziness, but I am certain I would think of them as married first, and only then begin to won

der whether it was really true.)

I thought of myself as married, and was often referred to, and referred to myself, in those terms, long before I underwent an expensive and (to me) meaningless ceremony. You are as married as you think you are.

Presumably there is some difference in the legal relationship between the parties. In which case there are better ways of dealing with the problem. The law could do something so profoundly at odds with its normal instincts as buggering off and allowing people to do what they want, but that isn’t likely to happen. But given that marriage means many different things to different people, it would be a lot simpler to let people decide when they are married and register the fact (for tax/inheritance/child guardianship reasons it is useful to have clarity as to who is married and who isn’t).

Society/the state has no busy saying what marriage is, it is a hangover from the old days when other people thought they had to give you permission to do things (not a lot has changed).

There are different ways of being married. There are many people who could not imagine marriage to have meaning unless it was performed, or at least confirmed, according to the rites of their religion of choice. There are some who think of marriage as something permanent, and considered themselves as married even after their other half has had a judge say that they arenoy any more, or even after he/she has married someone else. The fact that two people can consider themselves married to the same person suggests that there is no single understanding of what marriage means, and no obvious reason why any one authority should have possession of the term.

There are people who do not consider others married unless they have inspected the circumstances and found them in accordance with their own views and principles. Claiming that your understanding of marriage is the only one that counts is quite impractical, since most other people won't care and will just ignore you.

So coming back to the original point, I don't understand why some gay couples are so keen to submit voluntarily to more than they have to. But since some undoubtedly do so wish, is it simply that they demand that other people treat their unions with the same seriousness which they treat their own, which seems doomed to failure, or is there in fact some important legal distinction between marriage and civil union, meaning that they are missing out on something?

Freedom of Speech isn't Meant to be Pretty

John Terry will be subjected to a criminal trial for mouthing some words in the direction of Anton Ferdinand*. The more I think about this, the more disturbing I find it. It is possible to commit a crime with words, when they are explicitly threatening in tone and content, when they are an effective substitute for physical violence, when they are intended, and may readily have the effect of bringing about violence, theft or other recognisably criminal activity, when they cause, and are intended to cause, loss of honour or income, and doubtless in some other cases, too. What Terry did was none of these things. The words, if indeed he said what he is alleged to have said, were spat out after some sort of disagreement on the field of play, much as we swear at a motorist who doesn’t stop at a zebra crossing, and were not heard by anyone, and certainly not by the presumed referent of the words.

The important question is not, in fact, why the ****ity *****ing ****** is a man being brought to court for mouthing the word ‘black’, because that’s what it comes down to. No, the important question is, do you- yes, I mean you, and you, and you, yes, even you at the back there who’s not paying attention- do you want every word that leaves your mouth, or every movement made by your lips, to be analysed by a court which will determine aposteriori (and arbitrarily, I suspect) whether you were ‘allowed’ to say it? Before you answer, think- do you never lose control of your tongue, do you never speak without thinking, are you absolutely certain of how everything you say will be interpreted? You never say racist things, you say; well, neither do I, and unlike some of our prominent anti-racists, I don’t think them either, so I don’t have to worry about what I might say in an unguarded moment. But is there no one, no group, no type of person that you sometimes think of in stereotypically, contemptuously, despectively, generally rather than individually? Hmmm, remember, you may not be a racist, but it’s not you making the rules here, is it? Do you still want someone to apply the whimsical judgement of the day to every word you say, or appear to say, with all those CCTV cameras about? I thought not.

Is John Terry a racist? Probably not. Is he a thug? Probably. Is he a criminal? No, not as far as I know. Is he fit to captain England? Yawn!

Luis Suárez today refused to shake the hand of Patrice Evra at the start of a Man Utd- Liverpool game today. This story goes back to the start of the season when Suárez was banned for eight games for using racist language to Evra. He should ahve just kicked him in the nuts. It would have only cost him two games. At the time I recall some confusion about what language he had said it in and what it might have been intended to mean. I don’t know if it was ever clarified. I hope the FA did, at least. The press, of course, would not even understand what there was to clarify.

Today, Evra went to shake Suárez’s hand. Not seeking him out, just treating him like any other opponent as they moved along the line before the match. A gentlemanly gesture, putting it all behind him. But as far as Suárez was concerned, this was the man whose complaint had cost him an eight-match ban, which he was not prepared to put behind him. He refused the hand that Evra offered. A pity, on the face of it, but there you are. Alex Ferguson, never a man to waste an opportunity, said that Suárez’s behaviour could have caused a riot and seemed to suggest the police should have got involved. Is it normal in England now to go screaming to the law about every little thing that might not be in the true spirit of gentlemanship and brotherly love?

*It’s alleged that he called him a ‘fucking black cunt’. I can understand Ferdinand wasn’t too happy about that, and when they meet again I can imagine his tackling of Terry will be robust and full of vim. But he, and most players in the game, have heard and said worse during a match, and forgotten it afterwards. Nobody gets locked up for it.

In fact, the position of Ferdinand is probably complicated. I don't imagine he wants to make such a fuss, and I'm certain he didn't want the ridiculous spectacle of a trial, and a possible sentence, and a criminal record. On the other hand, he is probably wary of shrugging it off,  in case the fact of not taking it seriously should lead to other, more serious, incidents. I dare say there is no shortage of new 'friends' helping him to reach a decision, either. Not a  happy position to be in.

Abortion in Ireland

The European Court of Human Rights has declared something to the effect that Ireland’s almost total prohibition of abortion is not acceptable to it and must be changed in some way. The full judgement is here and is worth reading, as these things usually are, not least because it is being represented by frothing EU* sceptics (and I am usually an unqualified supporter of the frothing fraternity) as the EU imperiously ignoring democracy and the will of the people and decreeing law in an arbitrary fashion for its own ends. Much as I dislike the idea and the practices of the ECHR, it does not act imperiously or arbitrarily, and its decisions are based on the facts, the representations and the relevant law**, all carefully documented in the judgement.

The problems begin when quite a lot of that law was not made by the people it is being applied to, and when a lot of it only exists as a result of previous interpretations, by courts and commissions, of laws, regulations and codes which were likewise not directly passed by the people or their elected representatives. There comes a point where the judgements and decisions, however well considered and carefully and precisely anchored in law, are based on laws which should not exist, and are illegitimate for that reason.

Just to clarify my own position on this, although it’s not relevant to the points I’m making, I instinctively feel abortion to be a barbaric act unworthy of any society that claims to be civilized.

This is not a question of the tyranny of the majority, of ‘we can’t have that sort of thing’. The whole argument hinges on whether an unborn child is or is not a human being***, or at what point the transition occurs. If the foetus is human it must be entitled to protection equal to that of its mother (which would not necessarily preclude abortion in some circumstances). If it is not human there is very little to discuss. The argument is seldom set out in these terms (which might suggest that I am wrong to strip it to its bones, but I think not).

The Irish people stated clearly, with their own voice****, their desire to recognise the humanity of the unborn child, with everything that entails. It is because the majority hold the foetus to be human that the majority may impose its will on the minority in order to protect another group. So the question becomes again, ‘are the unborn human?’

Medical science can only attempt to answer the question of whether an unborn child satisfies certain criteria for being human; it cannot, except very broadly, define what those criteria should be. This is not a scientific matter, but a moral one. Ultimately it is a matter of opinion. The defence of human life is taken very seriously by people of all political persuasions, and where they can, they ensure that the actions of their rulers reflect the importance that attach to the matter. The fact that not everyone agrees on the details only means that it is more important to discuss them. There is general acceptance that murderers are human, but considerable division on the question of whether their right to life remains absolute after the act of murder is proven.

It is unlikely that slavery would have been abolished in the Empire, or in the US, if some people had not defended the unfashionable idea that slaves, or those considered as potential slaves, were equal in humanity to the people enslaving them, regardless of economic or any other arguments. Bartolomé de las Casas prevented the enslavement of Indians in Spanish territory by arguing precisely that before King Felipe II (and by winning the argument he inadvertently started the Atlantic slave trade, but that’s the way it goes).*****

The point I'm trying to make here it is that is not a matter for the ECHR, but for the people of Ireland and their representatives, as is abortion law in Britain similarly a matter for us and for Parliament. The fact that different peoples and societies reach different conclusions of the humanity of the foetus shows that there is no obvious overaching truth in which to base a principle of law that is outside democratic control. Meanwhile, babies in Britain will continue to be killed and women in Ireland will continue to have their lives turned upside down and in some cases ruined, and those whose opinions have caused these things to happen will continue to search for an authority which can take the responsibility out of their hands. But there probably is no such authority, and it isn't the ECHR.

*Yes, I do know the ECHR is not an organistion of the EU.

**Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, of which much has been made in the judgement, is here. It is hard to see how it has been breached by Irish law, because Irish law itself has not been breached but that's judges for you.

***A referendum was held in 1983, resulting in the adoption of a provision which became Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution, the Eighth Amendment (53.67% of the electorate voted with 841,233 votes in favour and 416,136 against). Article 40.3.3 reads as follows:

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

****We all like to dehumanise the people who we fear or despise, or who remind us of our inferiority, or inconvenience us greatly. History is full of examples, as is the modern day, and it is as common in modern Europe as in the more lawless parts of Africa over the last 30 years, in Nazi Germany or during the bloody persecutions of Elizabeth I, although perhaps less institutionalised and, thankfully, with less extreme results, at least at the moment. But it is only human to value ourselves more than others, and to attempt to rationalise any decision we take or opinion we hold, whatever the original reasons behind our choice.

*****In fact, being a clever chap, he presented a legalistic argument, rather than a strictly ontological one. He persuaded the King that the Indians, as residents in his lands, were his citizens and entitled to his protection. The conversation, which took place over many days and involved large numbers of lawyers and courtesans, each with their own interests, among which the discovery of moral truth is unlikely to have figured highly, must have been particularly fascinating.

Under Martial Law

Rabbit tracks in the snow

Note: this was written on Sunday evening and is unamended (in other words I haven't done any research, or even read the papers).

Anyone who came here looking for enlightened and enlightening comment on the Spanish air traffic controllers' strike will, I fear, be disappointed.  I have beenb deep in the country these last few days and have no internet access, and little interest in the real world. I only found out about it by chance as I took a radio to listen to the football.

Don't believe anything you read in the British press, by the way; I guarantee they will know even less than I do about it.

The facts appear to be as follows: the air traffic controllers' union called, for Saturday, an illegal and abusive strike, deliberately causing utter chaos at the start of what is for many people a five-day holiday here. The (socialist) government responded by declaring a state of alarm, as set out in the Constitution, for the first time in democracy. It's a rung or two below a state of emergency, and in this case involved pacing Spanish airspace under martial law, and the controllers under military discipline and at the orders of the military high command. By refusing to work they would be liable to court-martial. They quickly scuttled back to work, but the state of martial law will last for two weeks, and they may ask permission of parliament to extend it over Christmas and New Year, in case the union gets ideas again.

Those who didn't work on Saturday, the majority, will be investigated and may be disciplined or charged and they could be held personally liable for the losses they have caused to the airports, airlines and passengers.

The opposition, centre-right, Popular Party has expressed its support for the decisions the government has taken, although it reserves the right to slag them off about it later when it's all over.

So much for the facts. The rest of this post is speculation, unless I can be bothered to do some research.

I don't know what the controllers were complaining about, but since they earn a lot of money and are almost impossible to sack they don't have much to complain about, and they don't have the sympathy of the public, 90% of whom would kill to have their problems. I couldn't say whether the threat to law and order or to the economic activity of the country was really great enouh to justify placing civilians, even greedy, irresponsible civilians, under martial law, but it seems an extreme reaction.

The opposition was quite right to support the government now, but they will make great political capital out of it later. Among other things because a home office minister said that it was the dutry of an opposition to stand by the government, forgetting that when Spain went to war in Iraq, and was later attacked by Islamic terrorists, his party and himself, then in opposition, did not support the gover4nment but played a nasty game of politics with national security.

The current opposition is genuinely centre-right, not remotely extreme, but it has inherited a little DNA from the Falange, which it is not allowed to forget. The governing socialist party has democratic roots, but it has some Marxist DNA, including recent intromission, and still has extreme factions within it. Even so the Popular Party, had it taken this decision to impose martial law, would have been called fascists and tyrants, and would have faced calls for civil unrest from the very people who have, in fact, taken that decision themselves. This will be pointed out at length later on by the opposition leader when it can no longer be construed as frivolity or disloyalty.

Btw, the prime minister, Zapatero, has disappeared. He hasn't been seen from start to, well, to whatever point we are now at. The party leaders, the real leaders, have clearly told him to stay indoors and to keep his mouth shut. It could not be clearer. He's barely competent at reading scripts, shaking hands and wearing suits for the cameras; when the time comes for real government they lock him in with his toys and tell him to leave it to the grown-ups.

Of Prisoners and the ECHR

CLARIFICATION: This post is about a decision by the ECHR and its very poor coverage in the press. In preparing it I watched a couple of interviews with John Hirst in which he came across as a thoroughly unpleasant type, otherwise he would not even have got a mention here. Having a love of the truth, and not being entirely stupid, I checked the facts carefully; he was indeed convicted of manslaughter, not murder, as I made perfectly clear in the post. His complaint is, therefore, groundless. I also linked to his own blog, and to another article in which he talks about his crime, so that his own views, and not just mine, are available to those who may read the post. I regularly do this with people I criticise. The links are still there below, and I now add another, which, while not in his own voice, seems to provide background to his mental state.

However, I simply do not have the time to go to England and argue the toss about the meaning in common use of a term that has a powerful legal connotation with a judge who is unlikely to be sympathetic to such an argument. Also, while I haven't the least concern for the sensitivities of John Hirst, he is not important to the matter I was discussing. I have therefore removed the subtitle of the post, changed one word in the second paragraph of the first question, and edited question 4 very slightly.

I did not, and do not, accuse John Hirst of murder. I stated quite clearly that he was convicted of manslaughter. I then make a point about the meaning of the word murderer in general use, a point irrelevant to the subject of the post, but nevertheless a true one. Below is the original post, with the changes described above:

Media Studies 101- Mid-term exam

Qu.1

Compare and contrast:

Up next- Dull but worthy human rights lawyer explains why section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, Articles 10 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, are relevant to (Application no. 74025/01) CASE OF HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2) or...

Up next- Unrepentant axe-killer bangs on arrogantly and  inarticulately about how he’s got more rights than you and we all get to jump up and down frothing at the mouth.

Qu.2

Discuss:

Journalist with iffy syrup follows the finest of journalistic traditions and chooses the second option above. As a result he gets good viewing figures but we learn nothing about the case.

Qu.3

Should the government-

a)      arbitrarily ignore a decision based on a process to which it has been legally committed for 60 years, because said decision is unpopular or morally wrong

b)      question through the procedures of that court the grounds for the decision, which may well confuse human rights with civil rights, or for some other motive

c)      withdraw the UK from its commitment to the legal process and the treaties which set it up, so it is no longer bound by such decisions

d)     obey the order of the court, in accordance with the rule of law?

Qu.4

John Hirst  beat an old woman to death with an axe because she got on his nerves. This appears to have been an impulse but he remained in the house watching her die rather than help her (this was clearly established at the trial). Legally speaking, he was convicted of manslaughter. But murder is not just a legal term. As a term in common use it is frequently used to describe other situations in which one person kills, or is responsible for the death of, another, as well as in relatively trivial matters such as the eating of meat, the holding of bullfights or the practice of abortion. Murder as a word and a concept is ours to use and define, it does not belong exclusively to the courts.

Comments- The decision does not give prisoners the right to vote (something which doesn’t bother me very much, anyway). It enjoins the government to clarify how the removal of the franchise is applied in each case. Parliament can decide to deny the vote to prisoners serving a sentence longer than some lower bound, it could set out crimes which carry the loss of the franchise as an integral part of the punishment, it could instruct judges to pronounce on the retention or loss of the vote when sentencing a particular individual. There are many possibilities, some indistinguishable from the present state. I think we can be sure that, however Parliament clarifies the situation, Hirst will be in a group that is excluded. He can’t vote at the moment, by the way, because he hasn’t actually served his sentence, he is only out on licence.

The decision, btw, was made by the ECHR, which forms part of the network of the Council of Europe. It's nothing to do with the EU, and is in some ways not entirely useless. If it were the EU looking at the matter, the commission would simply have decreed that prisoners be allowed to vote. They don't go in for democracy, sovreignty, representation, the rule of law or legal process. (Discuss)