Archive for politics
Miracles of Creation Too
“It occurs to me that we crush insects beneath our feet, miracles of creation too, beetles, worms, cockroaches, ants, in their various ways. –J.M. Coetzee, Waiting for the Barbarians
Concerned as it is with the historical and contemporary experience of formerly European colonies, postcolonial studies have shown little interest in the effects of such controlling power on non-human animals. In identifying the political, sociological, and economic impact of “Western” imperialistic pursuits upon non-European “others,” post-colonialism has concentrated almost singularly on “other” humans. The cost of European territorial conquest and the discursive operations of empire however, were not borne solely by human beings, but arguably, by non-human animals as well. Indeed, the colonial legacy of empire is undoubtedly responsible for the construction of what is essentially, a non-human animal subaltern.
From Citizen to Subject
The following is commentary on the potentially declining state of our nation as liberal rhetoric, state hegemony, and political apathy erode civil liberties and subtly displace the nation-state citizen as a totalitarian subject.
Following the events of September 11th, “terrorism” became the vogue term to define religious extremism, specifically Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of the terms somewhat recently conceived connotations however, terrorism has always found itself inextricably bound up with unlawful violence. In a post-9/11 world however, that relationship is rapidly disintegrating, perhaps to our own demise.
Freedom of Speech
In January of 2006, the 109th congress of the United States was presented with and passed H.R. 4239: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Railroaded through congress in the ripe post-9/11 context, this bill essentially classifies animal rights groups and environmentalists as “eco-terrorists”. While legal action against animal rights and environmentalist groups has been pushed by animal industry groups, corporations, and politicians before, such as the passage of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act in 1992, H.R. 4239 went further as to actually classify them as terrorists. Its important to note however, that such classification does not require any acts of violence on the part of the “terrorist(s)” but rather merely the interruption in the flow of capital: “…intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.” Significantly, “eco-terrorists” are now labeled as the number one domestic terrorist threat. This is terrorism rhetoric at its best, protecting corporate profits and subverting freedom of speech.
Some might argue that section (e) protects those who peaceably protest and dissent. This really brings to bear the nature of protest. A protest should essentially be the means where citizens can confront their government in a public and presumably “unregulated” space (albeit, perhaps unprotected). By regulating this public space (i.e. by issuing permits that grants citizens the ability to protest, where, and what for) the government effectively reinforces its own political sovereignty. This is a means of government censure, devaluing the nature of free speech and proposing a means for silencing dissent.What is the difference between a riot and a protest? Some would say violence. Others might say a permit.
Here are some interesting links on the subject:
Permitting Protest/Silencing Dissent
A permit? We protest
Permission to Protest Protest Permits?
Freedom of Religion
Following the passage of H.R. 4239, H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was introduced on April 19, 2007 and subsequently passed the House of Representatives on October 23rd. H.R. 1955 builds upon the loose rhetoric employed by H.R. 4239, essentially classifying “thought crime” and “extremist belief systems” as “homegrown terrorism”. This piece of legislation, if passed, would target the entire population, subjecting it to the proposed Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. More importantly, terrorist rhetoric is employed using deliberately vague language regarding “extremist belief systems”, subjecting the entire population to the whims of government censure, subverting freedom of religion, freedom of speech and silencing dissent.
In recent years there has been a publishing phenomenon of atheist literature, five of the most popular have combined to sell more than a million copies, many of which have spent weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. In his book God: The Failed Hypothesis, Victor J. Stenger, whose goal is apparently “ridding the world of God,” says, “[T]he world seems worse off as the result of faith.” In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, careful of course to cite the incidents of 9/11, charges all religion with the guilt of the extremist beliefs held by a single individual. Coupled with legislation such as H.R. 1955, one can easily see that the potential for a climate of religious intolerance is explosive.
Dawkins also states in his book, somewhat naively regarding the London bombings of July 2005 (also conveniently, a result of Islamic extremism), “Only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people.” This is somewhat reminiscent of Jean-Baptiste Munyankore’s statement in in Jean Hatzfeld’s Life Laid Bare, “What happened in Nyamata, in the churches, in the marshes and on the hills, were the abnormal actions of perfectly normal people” (73). In the case of Jean-Baptiste however, such crimes, arguably infinitely greater in devastation, were not the result of religious extremism. In fact, in the 20th century an estimated 56 million people have been exterminated, significantly NOT at the hands of religious extremists although religious groups were often the targets of such mass killings, and also significantly, most of whom were “legally” unarmed.
Right to Bear Arms
The case is often made that eliminating the private ownership of guns “would end all the killings.” Such statements are supported by the plethora of media propaganda flooding the televisions. The premise of such a statement neglects the very nature of crime, that it operates outside the law. Banning guns then, will only invariably restrict law abiding citizens from access to a potentially important means of self-defense.
Case Study: Australia
Studies conducted in 2005 found that crime rose in Australia after they had banned the “private ownership” of specific guns in 1996: homicides up 3.2%, assaults up 8.6%, armed robberies up 44%. Furthermore, statistics reported by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2004-05/06 show the following:
In 2004-05, there were 40 firearm homicides (15%). Sixteen of these homicides involved handguns only two of which had been registered making non-registered e.g. already illegal handguns the primary weapons in firearm criminal activity (also reported are statistics on handgun robbery.)
In 2004-05 the percentage of handguns used in homicides did decrease to 6% (10% in 2000-01) but was still up from 4% in 1992-93 prior to the ban. This decrease is reflected in overall homicides as 28% in 1992-93 to 15% in 2004-05. It is reported however, that “The weapons/methods used in the commission of homicide have remained relatively unchanged over the years” with “most common types of weapons used in homicide” being “weapons of opportunity, such as knives or sharp instruments and hands and/or feet”. It is interesting to note how this is demonstrated in proportion to gender and age, being proportionately higher with male individuals and those between 15-19.In fact, it is largely a consensus that violent crime is committed by peaking adolescents and men. Perhaps we should consider banning men? Or adolescents?
Case Study: Britain
It is a misnomer to think that the citizens of the United States are less safe because they are allowed to own guns. And that by comparison Britain is a paragon of safety and virtue (“gold standard”) because people there cannot own guns.
In fact, as reported in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy, between 1997 and 2003 in the U.K. “crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled … In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed…In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century… A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime…”
In 2002 the United Nations published a study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, that found England and Wales “at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.”
In December 2002 London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was “rocketing.” In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. Conversely, since 1994, violent crime rates in the US have declined.
“Personal security was ranked first among an individuals rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, “discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians.”
While police in the U.K., contrary to what some have thought, do carry guns, it is only a small percentage (an estimated 6,000). The Police Federation apparently wants to double that number (and the Home Office minister at least wants it to increase) feeling that officers do not have the adequate means to protect themselves and society. Lord Derek Phillips, legislative advisor for the UK’s Office of Legislative Affairs, observed “Nevertheless,‘tough’ legislative regulation, so evidently ineffective in achieving the purpose claimed for it, continues as a policy.”
Meanwhile, if banning guns were working to reduce crime in the UK, beyond the information already provided, why would tougher gun laws be needed?
As a “citizen” of Britain, one is essentially deprived of any means for self-defense, not being able to carry any “article … capable of being an offensive weapon” which of course, like the US proposed legislation against “extremist belief systems” is largely open to interpretation.
Is it terrorism when its committed by my government?
In many cases however, the defense of the individual against criminals is not the sole issue. With the 20th century as a whole presenting itself as a case study, it is a significant fact that unarmed populations can often become the victims of their own government:
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million individuals, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The Red Book
I had an interesting question posed to me today by an acquaintance in regards to the alleged exemplification of communism in the Biblical book of Acts, scriptures 4:32-5:11. More specifically, my acquaintance was curious to know why all Christians, including myself, were not communist, since according to the aforementioned biblical passage it is an advocated ideology. Included with this question was a link to the rather clever parody Accept Communism or Die. I was intrigued, to say the least.
It is certainly a curious notion to me that communism as a socio-political order would in any way be associated with Christianity. I had certainly never heard of it as such. In fact, the 19th-20th century ideology of communism is more often correlated with social liberalism , or more accurately, social democracy. Such a correlation also tends to be made between communism and atheism. The latter correlation, while largely unfounded, probably occurs for several reasons:
First, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels disassociated the communist ideology from religion in the Communist Manifesto (1848): “But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
Second, observation of communist states evidenced massive genocide and the suppression of civil liberties on surviving populations.
Third, the motto “In God We Trust”, while used on coins as early as 1864 (believed to be due largely to increased religious sentiment during the civil war but still significantly dated after the first English publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1850),was not declared the national motto of the United States until approved by the President in a joint resolution with the 84th congress on July 30, 1956 (P.L. 84-140). The addition of the phrase “under God” to the pledge of allegiance was made shortly after on June 14, 1954. Both iconic additions are speculated, with some reason (e.g. the Cold War), to have been political actions opposed to communism.
Last, such political actions as the above have in recent years been highly controversial and aggressively confronted by civil liberties groups, whose claims are largely supported by atheists.
Ergo, while atheism does not directly correlate with communism, the removal of God from political ideology seems a common goal and they are therefore indelibly linked, at least so far as Christians are concerned. Ironically however, the association of communism and Christianity is usually made by atheists or people of other religions in order to discredit Christianity, either by one’s support of violent revolutionaries or if not, by one’s inconsistent behavior with one’s beliefs. It is a trap. It should be no surprise then that my acquaintance (an atheist “Strong Agnostic Theist Compassionist Humanist”) would throw this question under my feet, anticipating my stumble.
It is important then to read the scriptures such an association is being contributed to. Those passages most often referred to as communist in nature are as follows:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common (Acts 4:32 KJV).
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors or lands or houses sold them, and brought the pieces of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was mad unto ever many according as he had need (Acts 4:34-35 KJV).
Equally important is an understanding of communism, which is defined briefly by the American Heritage Dictionary as “a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members”. There are however, significantly more “measures” required to attain a communist state:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation — all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
What then, in the biblical passages correspond to the principles of communism? One could certainly suggest that the ideas of common ownership and distribution of wealth appeal to communist ideology. And perhaps they do, but communism, as I am sure you can see, is a much more complex system of organization. This system is not at all suggested by the scriptures, as well it shouldn’t be as a 19th century development: “To assume, when these early Christians shared their possessions in common and gave of themselves to aid their less fortunate brethren, that this implies a conscious desire to institute or carry out a Marxist system of organised wealth redistribution, is an anachronism that does not hold” (Dunkin).
It is thus, stumble free, that I can say I am not a communist, and neither should I be as the scriptures are not exemplification of that organizational model.
