Political Representation

Should our political leaders mirror the society they govern? Should they be made to reflect the demographics of gender, and race, to make them a more accurate representation of who we are?

Up to ten percent of our population are left-handed, so should 10 percent of our political representatives also be left handed. This seems ridiculous, but is there something significantly different about gender or race that justifies a quota when it would be absurd for left handers?Does the gender or race of a political leader matter, or is what matters their views and competence? After all, a progressive male may be more supportive of say, childcare than a reactionary female.

Nowadays, society is too large- in terms of civilian population- to sustain a participatory democracy whereby everyone congregates to make important decisions as a single unit. This system has been replaced by political representation, where others are selected to represent us on our behalf. Forgetting accountability, it is important that these decision-makers, are an accurate reflection of society at large. But in what sense are they truly representative. We tend to think that they are representative if they roughly correspond to voting patterns for political parties. But to what extent are they representative in terms of gender and race?

Essentially it is a question of ideas and presence. Currently, the determining factors are based around whether representatives share our policy priorities, or the key features on the political agenda. However, some would say that fair representation demands equality of presence as well. They claim that quotas are needed to ensure that the playing field for those entering the sphere of politics is level. This is based on the idea that women for example have different experiences to males, and have a unique insight into society. By this logic, it is imperative that they are involved in the political process, so that this segment of society is accurately represented.

Most would not beg to differ on this topic. But when it comes to quotas- an apparatus for guaranteeing that a certain group can attain a minimum proportion of positions- they become more sceptical. They see quotas as a warped target- something inherently anti-meritocratic- which has no objective value. Yet gender inequality still exists. It does so, because often the established circles are exclusive, and can be a men's club. Women accordingly find it difficult to find a foothold on the ladder of progress, and are instead stuck languishing in the realms of underachievement. In addition, a formal prompt (in the form of a quota) can be required to offer the extra persuasion that discrimination of this sort no longer exists. Quotas are only one example of affirmative action, but their use has been met with unmitigated success. Norway have implemented a quota mandating a minimum of 40 percent women on all boards of management. This has radically changed the appearance of these previously-chauvinistic territories, leading to increased female participation and application.

Quotas are not designed to discriminate against white-middle-class males, but rather to offer a helping hand to those who would otherwise not find themselves with equality of opportunity. There is nothing stipulating that they must be a permanent fixture. On the contrast, they can be temporary, and removed as soon as they have achieved their objective.

Admittedly, there are dangers. Namely the beneficiaries of the quota system become free-riders, knowing that their very presence meets a target. Alternatively, the recipients feel degraded at having been chosen simply on the basis of their skin colour or sex. although, studies have shown these concerns have not materialised.

Quotas conform to the principle of gender balance. It argues for a fair and equal distribution that gives access to power and influence. The argument that quotas act to distort reality lacks a sense of history. If equality really matters, then it is our duty to take action so that it is more than an ideological whim.

Terrorism denied publicity

Should terrorists be permitted to promulgate their views?

Terrorism is perceived as a pernicious influence because of what it stands for; namely violence, coercion and anti-democratic practises. It exploits the impressionable within society, and abuses the platform lent by freedom of expression in preaching hatred, and inciting violence. So would it be right to have a rule depriving terrorists of this platform, therefore thwarting the spread of their message?

When the media show hostage videos, or broadcast terrorist atrocities, it provides terrorists with the 'oxygen of publicity' which they would struggle to live without. These acts are designed to inspire fear in the civilian population, and by averting the publication of this message, it would not only minimise damage to society, but ensure that the demands of terrorists are not met. Terrorists would no longer be able to bring illegitimate pressure to bear on governments, and would lose a vital battle in the war for hearts and minds. It could perhaps be claimed, with some justification, that with the advent of the internet, it is no longer possible to control what enters the public domain. But while this may be true with fringe sites, it is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the majority receive their news from mainstream sites, which are manageable in terms of regulation. They would comply or risk losing their reputation as a reliable broadcaster. Secondly, and more profoundly, it would set a precedent rejecting the acts perpetrated by these organisations, and reinforce the message of non-negotiation.

And preventing terrorists from achieving their objectives would have another benefit. It would also succeed in preventing future attacks, by neutralising their strategy, rendering their powers of intimidation useless.

Terrorism attacks are designed to play on the public's mass psychology. In broadcasting their attacks, the threat is exaggerated and blown completely out of proportion. The consequence is a climate of fear in which people wildly overestimate the danger they pose. This creates a further problem in that it licences further infringements of civil liberties, and yet more incursions into our rights by the state. The anti-terrorist legislation is a prime example of how the state has taken advantage of the public mood to enforce what is ostensibly undemocratic legislation. The climate of fear leads to the marginalisation of certain ethnic groups within society, as fear the public backlash they will be subjected to. This is a move in the exact opposite direction to harmonious dynamics, and will only contribute to less cohesion, and integration.

And by stopping the broadcast, it removes a powerful recruiting tool from the armoury of terrorists. They could no longer claim to trigger public sympathy as a basis for drawing people into the folds of murder and homicide. and equally, the incentive of martyrdom is eliminated from the agenda. All these steps would galvanise public opinion against terrorism, and make society a safer place. Free speech is only 'free' up to a point-it is a contingent right- and one that comes with certain responsibilities. If terrorists refuse to adhere to these guidelines, then they should forfeit their right to these fundamental 'rights'

Is it Really So Straightforward?

Apple or Microsoft? Mac or Windows? Style or Use?

For many people, when faced with the daunting task of selecting their next computer, they see a stark contrast; between eye candy and work. But is it really that simple?

Apple computer's pride themselves on their aesthetic beauty. Equally they claim to be virus-free, and have a more intuitive operating system than the alternatives. To the casual onlooker, it would be a simple choice between the slight, but sexy Mac, and the bulky Microsoft machine. Appearances are important to say the least, but there are other factors which affect what we buy, and our rationale behind it.

However, there are those who will say that Apple computers are worth their weight in gold because of the technical quality on offer, which is far and beyond a PC. There is undoubtedly some truth in this, as shown by what appears to be a genetic predisposition to have virus antibodies. In addition to this, added features allow more advanced text editing and manipulation in numerous formats.

That said, the recent blip of a bug being reported in Apple's new Snow Leopard version of OS X, will come as a blow to those who advocate Apple's reliability, especially when the result is so serious. There have been cases where a user has suffered the loss of an entire account of data. The glitch seems to be caused by switching between guest, and regular accounts. But irrespective of where it comes from, it is still an indictment of their dependability.

This bug is certainly a deterrent to anyone considering buying into the new operating system. However, this does not necessarily mean that Microsoft is any better. On the contrary, part of the reason that this is such big news, is that Apple is renowned for its dependability, whereas viruses, bugs and technical hitches are an every day occurrence for the likes of Microsoft.

Regardless, what matters to professionals is data, and when this key element goes amiss, there will always be an inquest. Many will feel let down by a system they have come to trust, but perhaps this act of negligence on behalf of its creators is no more than a one off. Even so, it makes me wonder whether it is worth the extra money to buy this piece of equipment in the first place.

http://www.serverwatch.com/trends/article.php/3843511/Recent-Apple-Microsoft-Foibles-Expose-Dark-Side-of--Cloud-Computing.htm?comment=18699-0

Holocaust Denial

Should it be made a crime?

It is almost universally accepted that the Holocaust was the mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. It has become a symbol of evil in our time because of its uniqueness.

It is unparalleled because it was the systematic murder by a so-called civilized and cultured European country, where it became government policy to murder the Jews, and where the entire effort of the state was channelled into obliterating an ethnicity. Yet it is one that has come under scrutiny at the hands of holocaust deniers or "revisionists" as they prefer to be called. Holocaust deniers, for various reasons, allege that the genocide of Jews did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by the current literati.

The key claims of Holocaust deniers centre on the assertion that the Nazis had no official policy or intention towards exterminating Jews. Other allegations include that Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and that the figure of 5-7million Jewish deaths is a gross exaggeration.

On the question of whether Nazis targeted Jews, there is overwhelming evidence to confirm that there was a concerted attempt at annihilating Jews. Such evidence includes the Nuremburg Laws, designed to strip Jews of citizenship and basic rights, Pogroms, the worst of which was Kristallnacht (night of broken glass), ghettoisation, use of concentration and finally extermination camps.

Today, one would think that only a person in a state of appalling ignorance or advanced dementia can deny the facts of the Holocaust. Yet if the facts are true, then why is legislation needed to make the denial a crime?

Free speech is integral to this debate, and while it may be a mainstay of democracy, it stops at the point of crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Of course, all governments restrict some speech, but free expression is so fundamental to democracy that there is usually a strong bias against restricting speech unless it poses a compelling and even imminent danger to others. The most pervasive and durable restrictions meet that test, applying to things like child pornography, false statements that result in demonstrable harm (defamation), the exposure of national security information, and commercial fraud.

In other words, free speech is conditional because it only exists until a point. But should the right to speak out be taken from those who cling to a false or perverse ideology? Freedom of Speech has some undesirable consequences, because it gives everyone a platform, even if their views are offensive and wrong. However, I feel that the best way to combat the apocryphal tales that emerge from the holocaust denial camp is to engage in rational debate. The lineage of that theme traces back to the Old Pauline, John Milton, who wrote that if Truth and Falsehood were to grapple in a free and open encounter, Truth would always win.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's dad used to say, "Don't raise your voice, improve your argument." I say; don't silence Irving, let him speak so we can prove him wrong. By bringing the issue out into the public domain, we crush the myths that surround the Holocaust, and we stand up for what is right, rather than seeking the cowardly option of crushing resistance with forceful methods. Even on major historical events men and women rarely agree upon a single truth. Was Napoleon a hero or a tyrant? Each generation must interpret history anew and discover its own truths as well as accept competing versions can coexist. There will always be those who hold views diametrically opposed to that of the status quo, and instead of hiding we should choose to examine and analyze these views before reaching a decision. All informed decisions require the makers to scrutinize all the evidence rather than selecting bits which suit their argument. Galileo was considered by many to be a heretic, although what he postulated and then proved eventually became truth. The same should apply to holocaust deniers. We should give them access to a platform rather than locking them away. Liberty needs dissenters, and equally it needs us to stand up for the rights of others. It needs us to recognize these people are wrong in a humane way so as not to aggravate the situation.

Yet there are also valid arguments for punishing Holocaust denial. The Holocaust was a methodical effort to exterminate an entire people; it plunged far deeper into the maelstrom of human depravity than anything before it.

Strictly speaking, the state has no right to forbid speech unless it will incite imminent lawless action. While Holocaust deniers do attract followers, they are largely ignored by the general public and, at least to date, have not incited or produced imminent lawless action. However, indirectly in any case, denying the holocaust has a cumulative effect. The recent Holocaust-denial conference hosted by the Iranian president is a good example. The emotive message was both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. That was in fact its whole purpose. Holocaust denial can thus be seen as a way to incite hatred against Jews and the Jewish state. And inciting hatred, whether religious, ethnic or racial, is generally deemed to be unprotected speech.

What some people fail to realize is that locking people up, such as with David Irving for branding the holocaust a “fairytale”, creates martyrs and suggests that we, as jailors have something to fear. The very fact that we have something to be alarmed about suggests there may be an element of truth in the assertions. While finding Irving’s views repulsive, I believe that he should have the right to air them. But there is a more profound reason why silencing critics is a dangerous route to go down. I firmly believe that when governments begin to legislate what is true and what is false, they embark upon what has historically been a very slippery slope, as the state develops a taste for restricting our rights. Not only this, but by suppressing the issue you create a state of ignorance. And this is the thing which must be avoided at all costs; because when people forget the holocaust ever happened, Europe and indeed the world, reopens itself to another inexcusable calamity.

The issue is where to draw the line. Jailing David Irving would be counter-productive, but ignoring him is also problematic. He may have been speaking to a bunch of crackpots in a cellar in Austria, but his malignant lies have wider distribution. People who were not in that cellar still hear the lies; they become a part of the general hum of misinformation that circles the world.

All this leaves me wondering what the law would seek to do. Would it be to silence the quacks who deny the fact or to prevent false information from influencing others?

UCAS grabbing;

Shameful, or Worth it?

Have you ever wondered why school societies thrive the way they do? Has it ever crossed your mind that 17 and 18 year olds will do the most esoteric activities- things they apparently would never normally dream of- and will go to the most remote location just to complete a seemingly trivial matter?

Well perhaps this apparent display of impromptu affection can be attributed to more than just a love of the school. Because whilst it may be true that the school cultivates a sense of belonging, and many genuinely feel as though they want to give something back, it is dubious that it would naturally amount to this. There is a missing link in the chain between the inspiration and action. This missing link takes the form of a hidden driving force; one working behind the scenes at St. Paul’s to generate the reputation of which we are so proud.

This mysterious secret takes the form of the annual saga that is UCAS. It can be seen by some as a chore, and by others as the most laborious task ever dreamt up by our education system. Either way, UCAS is the process by which you submit a form listing your achievements, essentially selling yourself to the best of your abilities to your chosen university. Ostensibly, this may seem like a harmless, even ineffectual procedure. And yet, the reality could not be further from this.

Of course, no-one would want to submit an empty form, devoid of achievements and personal successes. So instead they go fishing around for things with ‘UCAS potential.’ For most, this tends to happen at the start of the Sixth form, on the realisation that something must be done sooner rather than later in order to bolster the university application. Of course, there are always those early bloomers who will have started years before the rest, and are streaks ahead by the time the majority start. Equally, there are some who will leave it until the last possible moment, whereupon urgent action is required to stave of UCAS disaster (a form with size 18 font to exaggerate what is there) and salvage something from the ruins of years of apathy. This is the season for the discovery of new-found interests taken up with a casual zeal fuelled by UCAS

In spite of that, is it such a bad thing that people see extra-curricular participation in such personal terms? Does it really matter that people do not actually care, so long as that they are providing a quality service with a decent future? Surely it is better to do something well with bad spirit, than to do something badly in good faith. Maybe the end justifies the means. And when the means have an overall constructive impact on the school, who are we to complain?

Evidently, this article takes a cynical view of attitudes. It is not trying to contribute to the general hum of misinformation surrounding UCAS submission, but rather to explain the motives of some of those who are going through the process, and simultaneously playing an integral role in scholarly life. It accepts that there are many exceptions to the ideas suggested, but that the UCAS grabbing culture is very much alive, and that we should treat it less as a necessary evil, and more as a realistic good.

Ambition or Achievement?

Obama- a superb orator with the right ideas. But should he have said no?

And perhaps his most recent award offers an insight into the way society values the contribution of the individual. The whole question stems from his recent accolade of the Nobel peace prize, despite having been submitted as a nomination just a matter of days after taking office.

Some would argue that Obama had achieved nothing when he was nominated, and has done little since. Others disagree, and claim that he received the award based on his global ambition. Either way, the award sets a precedent which sends out a powerful message that it is not what we accomplish, but our underlying motives which are important. It is plain from this that effort trumps attainment. But is it fair if we try hard, and yet fail to succeed? More importantly, does it benefit society, if real effort is exerted to no avail? Of course not.

There is an inherent irony in preaching the merits of aspirations, while dismissing achievement altogether. We are claiming on the one hand that bankers should receive performance related pay-packets (i.e. attainment), as well as stating that intention (ambition) should be the overriding factor when awarding one of the most significant prizes around. What does it matter if the bankers ‘meant well,’ and just casually ‘forgot’ to pay closer attention to the irregularities in the financial system. Equally, the physical exertion of a dust-bin cleaner which may require more strain than an office job say, is not worth the salary of a qualified professional, who is trained to produce results. Ultimately, these are the only things we can go by. They are the only tangible and quantifiable achievement available to us, and we should see them for what they are; an indication of success.

The prize says a lot for the way we award plaudits. And perhaps it is just that we recognise those who try hardest. Even so, to award a prize to an individual who has yet to contribute seems unfair on those who strive to make a difference by their actions.