Why are we losing some £85bn a year in tax revenues? Why do some people escape taxes?
Read my briefing on tax avoidance
Other updates: In Defense of Intelligence
13 February 2004
11 February 2004
An Input on Policy
This entry is merely to show off. Last week, I wrote a briefing for Peter on domestic violence and my points were today taken up in Committee by Edwina Hart AM, Minister for Social Justice & Regeneration. Among the points raised, she will be looking at the introduction of referrals to Perpetrator Programmes :)
and also Kirsty/Peter's suggestion of pet fostering
and also Kirsty/Peter's suggestion of pet fostering
A take on Israel
I find the Israel/Palestine conflict is generally being tackled in a simplistic manner but then, again, I'm a pedantic sod!
1. Terrorism: it is a strategy used to terrorise people indiscriminately and it can be used by states, individual and groups although states are more likely to use 'state-sponsored' terrorism as in the case of Somoza in Nicaragua using US funded & trained freedom fighters.
2. Just War Theory: I seem to come across many who partly condone Palestinian terrorism because it is in defence or retaliation against Israel's aggressive policies. Although I categorise myself as a pacificistic (not a pacifist, it means that we should be working towards peace but that for now we cannot totally do away with war), I accept some tenets of Just War Theory. Terrorism, though, clashes with most part of it by being indiscriminate and disproportionate. Some (some among the Sinners, as in Sinn Fein) maintain that it was violence that brought about the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore it shows that violence can work. I disagree with this view, I believe it is democracy that brings about peace.
3. 'Innocent by-standers': I think in some instances omission is culpability, however it is down to individuals not the population as a whole. There are many Israelis working together with Palestinians and many who march in protest to Sharon's policies but this receives very little publicity.
4. Boycotts: nobody mentioned this so I think it might be worth making a comment. In the case of Israel, we are dealing with a democracy that is occupying a foreign territory. Israel's government is therefore legitimate and it is not applying apartheid (there's certainly discrimination, but Israeli Arabs can vote and get elected etc). I don't think a boycott is legitimate. Apart from the obvious consequences of damaging the Palestinian economy, it just doesn't make sense. When the UK invaded Kosovo (without a UN resolution and making a mess of it), Afghanistan and Iraq, did we all stop buying British? Did we leave the country? No.
5. Solution?: Sanctions would make more sense but they simply wouldn't work and they should also be applied to the Palestinian Authority. What about all the EU money given to 'educational programmes' in Palestine which go straight to indoctrination and the funding of terrorism? I believe only an international agreement could stop the violence on both sides. Unfortunately, without the US, such an agreement would be futile.
Now, you can read my briefing!
1. Terrorism: it is a strategy used to terrorise people indiscriminately and it can be used by states, individual and groups although states are more likely to use 'state-sponsored' terrorism as in the case of Somoza in Nicaragua using US funded & trained freedom fighters.
2. Just War Theory: I seem to come across many who partly condone Palestinian terrorism because it is in defence or retaliation against Israel's aggressive policies. Although I categorise myself as a pacificistic (not a pacifist, it means that we should be working towards peace but that for now we cannot totally do away with war), I accept some tenets of Just War Theory. Terrorism, though, clashes with most part of it by being indiscriminate and disproportionate. Some (some among the Sinners, as in Sinn Fein) maintain that it was violence that brought about the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore it shows that violence can work. I disagree with this view, I believe it is democracy that brings about peace.
3. 'Innocent by-standers': I think in some instances omission is culpability, however it is down to individuals not the population as a whole. There are many Israelis working together with Palestinians and many who march in protest to Sharon's policies but this receives very little publicity.
4. Boycotts: nobody mentioned this so I think it might be worth making a comment. In the case of Israel, we are dealing with a democracy that is occupying a foreign territory. Israel's government is therefore legitimate and it is not applying apartheid (there's certainly discrimination, but Israeli Arabs can vote and get elected etc). I don't think a boycott is legitimate. Apart from the obvious consequences of damaging the Palestinian economy, it just doesn't make sense. When the UK invaded Kosovo (without a UN resolution and making a mess of it), Afghanistan and Iraq, did we all stop buying British? Did we leave the country? No.
5. Solution?: Sanctions would make more sense but they simply wouldn't work and they should also be applied to the Palestinian Authority. What about all the EU money given to 'educational programmes' in Palestine which go straight to indoctrination and the funding of terrorism? I believe only an international agreement could stop the violence on both sides. Unfortunately, without the US, such an agreement would be futile.
Now, you can read my briefing!
09 February 2004
Etsi Deus Non Daretur
Last week I went to Swansea for a theology lecture given by the Right Reverend Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, entitled Inter-Religious Dialogue in Europe.
The lecture was certainly good and the 'Church of England-style' exposition made everything sound moderate, reasonably contradictory and pleasing all sides. Nonetheless he seemed to welcome anything that would bring back religion onto the public domain and condemned the latest move from France to ban the veil and other overtly religious symbols from schools. The Bishop had kind words for Pisanu (Italy's Minister for Interiors) who pushed for interfaith dialogue to be the vehicle for social cohesion.
What I feel is missing is the fact that after the Industrial and the French Revolution, the world changed dramatically. A similar change happened only with the Neolithical Revolution and at a much slower pace. This new era saw religion becoming a personal matter and people becaming citizens of the State. Although nationalism made infinite assumptions on the identity of the citizens, in effect creating nations, modern states allowed a certain equality and rights bestowed on all citizens. Yes, in practise it is quite different but rights and freedoms, to be concrete, they must be fought for.
At a time when the Nation-State is disappearing, new technologies force society and institutions to change. In a fragmented society, people will cling to their 'identity' constructing and essentialising it. People feel under threat and need to show signs of a particular identity. I'm all in favour of respect for religion and rites as long as there is integration (not assimilation!), as long as fundamental rights are respected and there's equality before the law.
In Italy, we would say Etsi Deus Non Daretur, as if God did not exist. As soon as you link rights with a particular understanding of God, an absolutist view of them takes hold. Those who say they have the monopoly of the Truth will want to impose their understanding of such truth. Last year Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said in an interview (appeared on the Guardian) that no religion has monopoly of the truth, only a path towards it. Everybody rejoiced until he got summoned to Manchester to explain his latest 'rebellion'. What I just can't get to grips with is the fact that some people decide what the majority needs to believe.
The lecture was certainly good and the 'Church of England-style' exposition made everything sound moderate, reasonably contradictory and pleasing all sides. Nonetheless he seemed to welcome anything that would bring back religion onto the public domain and condemned the latest move from France to ban the veil and other overtly religious symbols from schools. The Bishop had kind words for Pisanu (Italy's Minister for Interiors) who pushed for interfaith dialogue to be the vehicle for social cohesion.
What I feel is missing is the fact that after the Industrial and the French Revolution, the world changed dramatically. A similar change happened only with the Neolithical Revolution and at a much slower pace. This new era saw religion becoming a personal matter and people becaming citizens of the State. Although nationalism made infinite assumptions on the identity of the citizens, in effect creating nations, modern states allowed a certain equality and rights bestowed on all citizens. Yes, in practise it is quite different but rights and freedoms, to be concrete, they must be fought for.
At a time when the Nation-State is disappearing, new technologies force society and institutions to change. In a fragmented society, people will cling to their 'identity' constructing and essentialising it. People feel under threat and need to show signs of a particular identity. I'm all in favour of respect for religion and rites as long as there is integration (not assimilation!), as long as fundamental rights are respected and there's equality before the law.
In Italy, we would say Etsi Deus Non Daretur, as if God did not exist. As soon as you link rights with a particular understanding of God, an absolutist view of them takes hold. Those who say they have the monopoly of the Truth will want to impose their understanding of such truth. Last year Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said in an interview (appeared on the Guardian) that no religion has monopoly of the truth, only a path towards it. Everybody rejoiced until he got summoned to Manchester to explain his latest 'rebellion'. What I just can't get to grips with is the fact that some people decide what the majority needs to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)