Tripping to Mars

I have recently started doing some voluntary work representing people at Employment Tribunals because they are unable to afford to hire a solicitor (legal aid - what a joke). It is incredibly rewarding for a few different reasons because it is combative in a delightfully intellectual way. However, the biggest buzz is when I feel that I have managed to improve someone's situation and I have helped to put both a morally dubious employer and an ethically-challenged lawyer in their place.

The power of this feeling was spectacularly demonstrated on Tuesday when I went for lunch. I had a choice between a Mars bar and a Kitkat to accompany my sandwich and I chose the Mars because Kitkats are made by Nestle. This is worth mentioning because I have long since given up trying to change the world through my consumer behaviour. My mood allowed me to believe that I can really make a difference.

This is not good news on the job front where most of the vacancies are for solicitors to represent employers (the lack of legal aid again).
I recently saw an advert online where part of the job description was ‘attempting to find errors or technicalities in the claim that could lead to its early disposal’. Forgive me if I am not thrilled. A job like that would soon have me eating Kitkats like there is no tomorrow.

Ban the Veil to Protect Freedom

Last weekend, David Davis warned that free speech was under threat, as a result of what he called the "voluntary apartheid" of the Muslim community. On Tuesday, the Daily Express published the results of a poll in which 98% of its readers supported a ban of the veil. Somehow, the UK moved from a concern for protecting freedom of expression to advocating its complete destruction within the space of a few days.

OK, so I didn't really believe that the Daily Express was ever a genuine supporter of liberty and nor do I trust the results of its much less than scientific survey. Nevertheless, they are far from being the only ones guilty of hypocrisy. Following the cartoon row in March, Peter Tatchell was seen at a rally, claiming that free speech protects minorities. This is despite the fact that he has rightly campaigned against the homophobic lyrics of several West Indian musicians. It seems that, for Tatchell, it is more acceptable for people with Western values to express hatred against members of other cultures than vice versa.

The only truly libertarian philosopher in history has been the Marquis de Sade. Anyone who supports taxation, the minimum wage, or laws against racism and date rape, understands that there are necessary limits which must be placed upon liberty. However, what few people appreciate is that, having acknowledged this, considerable thought must be given to maintaining the right balance between the values of different cultural groups. It is not good enough to say it is justified to ban things that have always been illegal but never anything for which freedom has been tolerated in the past. These laws were devised at a time in which Britain was a monocultural society and protect the Little Englander mentality at the expense of other ways of thinking.

When I was a self-proclaimed libertarian, I argued that female genital mutilation should be legalised. I could not see how either the problem of consent or the possibility of abuse were any different from those which arise in the cases of euthanasia and strangulation sex. Now I believe that all three should remain illegal but I still find it hard to accept that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between them. It is doubtless the case that female genital mutilation is a part of religious practices of which we are very uncomfortable while strangulation sex is a glorious British tradition (doesn't it make you proud?) but this is a reason to question our priorities not to accept them unthinkingly.

British people should be proud of our historical commitment to liberty but we also need be able to define its boundaries in a sensible and objective way. Most of all, we should understand that British liberty does not only apply to activities which are stereotypically British.

Time for a Korea Break

Having already posted my photos from Dubai, I have been looking for an excuse to show the ones from Korea, the final destination of my holiday last month. I was hoping that a major story would arise in that part of the world which would provide me with such a pretext. Oops.

It just so happens that I did visit North Korea during my trip to the South. If you don't believe me, here is a picture of the border taken from the north. It is only possible to step over this line in a special building in which diplomatic negotiations are conducted between the two sides. I hope that they get people around the table pretty soon.

Over the border is the world's tallest flagpole, at 100m, the result of a Freudian contest between the two Koreas. The South Koreans gave up at 70m realising, I hope, that the whole thing was rather silly. If you look closely, there is a mushroom cloud in the distance (not really).

On an optimistic note, I was excited by Dorasan Railway Station. Everything is in place for it to become the connection point between South Korea and China, and beyond. However, in the current climate, I wouldn't expect trains to be leaving from this platform in a hurry.

But South Korea's history goes back much further than the twentieth century and, although it is rather less topical, I feel it would be unfair not to mention some other sights. Seoul has several palaces from the Joseon dynasty, which lasted for five hunded years. Nearby is the folk village of Suwon where it is possible to watch the traditional art of see-saw jumping, surely soon to become an Olympic sport. The sign says that women took part in this activity purely because they were trapped at home and it allowed them to look over the fence.

Another favourite place for me was Gyeongju, in the south east of the country. It has some amazing temples and a fabulous Buddha (which I was not allowed to photograph). I was most fascinated by these burial mounds, which were used as a final resting place for the kings of the ancient Silla civilisation. This is remarkably similar to practices that were also followed in Western Europe, despite there being such a vast distance between them. Unlike China and Japan, South Korea does not get many Western tourists, especially outside Seoul, and in Gyeongju I was mobbed by a group of schoolchildren asking for my autograph.

Gamekeeper Turns Poacher

The story of the week has to be the senior judge in England and Wales going under cover as a convicted criminal in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of community service. He gave an exclusive interview to the Observer to describe his experiences. A reality television series based on the concept (possibly featuring Boy George) is surely only a few weeks away. Or has this already been done by Channel Five?

Not unusually, however, the press coverage ended up revealing more about the media itself than about the criminal justice system. For instance, it is remarkable that what is supposedly the most left-wing newspaper in the country can describe the viewpoint that torture is always wrong as 'controversial'. More amusing but no less disturbing is the fact that his colleagues in punishment read the Sun, a newspaper that would probably refer to them as 'scum' and demand that they be locked up for a very long time. The European Court of Human Rights recently gave British prisoners the vote, hoping that it would give them a part in the democratic process, and ensure that they have a say about the way that they are treated by the state. However, there is little point in giving turkeys the vote if they are just going to vote for Christmas. Let's hope that they just read the Sun for the pictures.

Always a Frown with Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown took umbrage this week at being described by a Tory as 'autistic', and not for the first time. However, while the statement of Peter Viggers, in December last year, clearly did seem to be a slur on autistic people as well as the Chancellor, this does not apply to the comments of George Osborne, which were rather light-hearted. The word 'autistic' is not offensive in itself and it is demeaning to suggest otherwise. It is a shame, therefore, that the issue has generated so much heat and that the National Autistic Society have jumped onto the bandwagon. It would have been sensible to have at least asked a few autistic people what we think before deciding, on our behalf, that we have been offended. Perhaps our next Prime Minister is saying that it is an insult to autistic people for us to be compared with him.