And the NRA's antidote to guns is...more guns!

We may share a common tongue and a fondness for fried potato products, but watching the press conference from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association, the United States of America has never seemed more foreign, and less united.

Ominously silent since the Sandy Hook massacre, this was a first response to the events that crow-barred Newtown, Conneticut, into our collective consciousness, and whipped up the wave of anti-second amendment rhetoric now breaking daily on the doorstep of the NRA.

Mr LaPierre initially welcomed assembled members of the press to what he termed ‘the beginning of our discussion of the topic’, before announcing that no questions would be taken. From that point it became apparent the ‘discussion’ would be a tad one-sided and although an opportunity for questions was promised on another occasion, this was distinctly more polemic than press conference.

After confirming the NRA shared in the collective revulsion, Mr LaPierre asked why, in the aftermath of the abhorrent actions of Adam Lanza, was nobody tackling what he sees as the central issue; how to keep children safe, right now, in “a way that we know will work.” Mr LaPierre pointed out that Americans are perfectly happy to see presidents, airports, offices, court houses and even sports stadiums protected by armed guards, and yet when it comes to children, he said, they are left “utterly defenceless”. It was by now abundantly clear what was coming.

The solution, as the NRA sees it, is a National School Shield Emergency Response Program, that’s gun-totting guards in schools to you and me. After all, as Mr LaPierre put it; “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Well, the National Rifle Association must have a lot of guns, and, surprise surprise, LaPierre announced that the NRA is “willing and uniquely qualified to help.” But, not only help, they’ll bankroll it with both barrels, to the tune of “whatever scope the task requires.” Now, in a time of tight budgets and fiscal shortfalls, it’s deeply gratifying to think of an army of heavily-armed altruists riding to the rescue. Or is it?

Mr LaPierre had pilloried those he professed were trying to exploit the tragedy “for political gain”, and rightly so. Yet, it is hard to envisage from this “multi-faceted program”, incorporating armed security, building design, IT, access control, and featuring the “most knowledgeable and credentialed experts”, that somebody wouldn’t quietly come out of it with a big stash of cash.

Setting aside such cynical assertions, LaPierre did make some salient points. Movie studios and video games manufacturers were duly called to account for portraying life “as a joke” and murder “as a way of life”. After stating that society was “populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters”, he also chastised the media for giving said monsters their much craved global platform.

Although from this side of the pond, LaPierre’s proposal may smack of opportunist economics, or a cynical justification of the NRA’s own existence, saying; ‘oops, we were wrong, could everyone give their guns back?’ is unlikely to have the desired effect either.

However morally bankrupt it might seem to suggest sending armed security into American schools, perhaps the time for a more educational approach elapsed when Pandora’s gunpowder pouch was opened, and its access enshrined in US law. Sandy Hook evokes a collective pain, pointing to a collective problem, and a society consistently producing such cancerous killings, needs to take a long hard look inside itself for the cure.

 

Green light for gay weddings?

‘C of E gay marriage to be illegal’ is perhaps not the headline David Cameron had hoped his consultation might herald. Of course, from the Culture Secretary’s comments on non-straight nuptials in the Commons, the BBC News website could just as easily have concocted; ‘nothing changes in Church of England’. Although arguably true of any time this side of the Reformation, I concede it's a little less eye-catching.

 

Maria Miller’s announcement that under proposed legislation it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples, was in direct response to strong opposition from both organisations. This caveat forms part of the “quadruple lock”, roughly translated as four ideas, intended to safeguard religious freedom. Also included is the guarantee that religious groups won’t be strong armed into holding gay weddings. Such ceremonies will also be unlawful unless the governing body of a religious movement has officially ‘opted in’. Crucially, the proposal includes an amendment to the 2010 Equality Act protecting ministers from discrimination claims if they refuse to perform a same-sex ceremony, a key concern for clergy, given the ominous shadow of European law.

 

Bearing in mind the plethora of passionately held opinions on the proposal, any conclusions would have always had compromise crayoned all over them, which explains some of the resultant mumbling, both measured and more manifest. However, despite the disappointment of many, and the predictable backlash from the jam and Jerusalem brigade on the Tory backbenches, this is a diplomatic decision against a backdrop of contrasting concerns.

 

Gay couples keen to marry, or graduate from civil partnerships, could do so in registry offices, and selected churches outside the C of E umbrella. Clergy opposed to same-sex services will not be obliged to conduct them, contrary to their convictions, and the state will not be seen to be reaching beyond its remit, by prescribing church policy.

 

Few democratic solutions are without winners and losers. Those on the sharp end of this legislation remain same-sex Christian couples unable to celebrate their wedding amid church communities in which they worship every week. They would, at least, be able to walk down the aisle, if not always the nearest available.  

 

I wonder if it may even be more frustrating for some ministers to have to deny same-sex Christian couples their vows before God, than marrying the manifestly agnostic who just want a photo in a charming churchyard. If the Coalition are still consulting, why not consider allowing any Christian couple a cheap church wedding, charge a four figure fee for the religiously indifferent, irrespective of sexual orientation, and make churches splash the cash on underfloor heating? After all, God loves everyone, no matter their choice of bedfellow, and it’s hard to commune with your maker if you can’t feel your feet. Just a thought.

Should Britain be a 'Friend of Israel'?

Surely one of the more loaded terms amongst international idioms is the self-certification of being “a friend of Israel”. It is clearly more than just exchanging Christmas cards and the odd Facebook update, and you can’t get your boots under the best desk in the White House without at least claiming to be one, even if you have your fingers crossed.

The phrase can denote an often unspecific standing, found somewhere on the sliding scale from casual Semitic sympathiser to fully-paid up Zionist. Barack Obama has claimed to be a ‘friend of Israel’, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most definitely hasn’t, and I dare say William Hague would like to avoid the question. Especially now the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans to build 3000 new settlement homes in the 'E1' area, to the northeast of Jerusalem. Indeed, some of Israel’s friends may sense the mild misgivings akin to taking a mate to a family wedding, who then, despite bearing all the outward vestiges of sophistication, gets smashed on the free bubbly, makes a pass at the bride’s mother and throws up on the cake.

The timing of Israel’s announcement suggests a knee-jerk reaction to the United Nations General Assembly recognising Palestine as a ‘non-member observer state’ this week. One might think that after all this time a refusal to recognise anybody would have been considered rude, yet still the US opposed the motion and the UK took a traditionally assertive stance, and abstained.

Palestinian commentators note that the ‘state’ now recognised is itself fairly unrecognisable compared to that agreed by the United Nations in 1967. However, if the newly proposed settlements were to proceed, then the West Bank would be effectively cut off from East Jerusalem, and the territory would become so divided as to render the ‘two state solution’ virtually unviable. It is perhaps this, rather than the settlements themselves, that induced an unusually robust response from notable European powers. The British, French and Swedish Foreign Ministries summoned respective Israeli ambassadors to express concern over further building deemed illegal under international law, with similar statements issued by both Germany and Russia.

The UK government, whilst rowing back from the early rumours of recalling the ambassador to Israel, is keeping all diplomatic options on the table. Such measures could potentially stretch to suspending trade deals in protest, however, David Cameron confirmed the Coalition are "not proposing to do anything further at this stage".

Whilst it would be inappropriate to attempt to solve or even summarise such a complex geo-political conundrum in one trite paragraph, if a neighbour keeps planting trees on your lawn you’ll eventually need a chainsaw. The preferred outcome of course, would involve a direct but diplomatic neighbourhood watch, which is where the rest of us come in.     

Banning bargain booze.

If “work is the curse of the drinking classes,” as Oscar Wilde would have us believe, then we may soon have to work a bit harder for our drinks. The government is embarking on a ten week consultation on the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol of 45p per unit, alongside a ban on multi-buy discount offers and the buy-one-get-one-free promotion, in an attempt to avert Britain’s binge drinking culture.

Research at the University of Sheffield, and apparently not just students getting hammered and nicking traffic cones, revealed that a minimum price of 50p per unit would reduce alcohol consumption by 6.7%, saving about 20,000 hospital admissions a year. Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Alcohol Alliance UK, who had been pushing for the 50p minimum, said that; "evidence shows us that heavy drinkers and young drinkers are more affected by higher alcohol prices than moderate drinkers.”

Evidence may well show that, but so does common sense. When something is made more expensive, it becomes more difficult to afford for those who buy more of it, or have less cash to splash to start with. I hope a lot of money was not spent on that research, because we are going to need plenty to offset the £200 million in lost duty revenue, according to a Home Office impact assessment, if these mooted measures are eventually introduced.

On the other shaky hand of course, we do have a problem. Alcohol abuse accounted for 1,168,300 hospital admissions in the UK in 2010/11, double the numbers from 2002/3. According to government figures, some 167,764 prescriptions were issued for the treatment of alcohol dependency in 2011, costing the NHS £2.49 million. If you also care to calibrate the accumulated cost of heart disease, liver cirrhosis, and the other assorted ailments attributed to extended exposure to alcohol, and add that to Britain’s burgeoning bar bill, it is clear that we actually have a problem of Oliver Reed proportions.

However, is increasing the cost of booze really going to curb excessive consumption? Politicians and medical practitioners seem keen to give it a try, and why wouldn’t they be? MPs earn £65,738 and the average GP pockets £104,100, easily enough to insulate oneself against any pesky state-enforced sobriety through prescriptive price hikes. I find it frighteningly naïve to believe the more socially disadvantaged drinker will eschew his evening tipple in favour of a hot mug of herbal tea just because its price tag doubles. I fear instead that he will end up just as drunk, but his family twice as poor.   

The Church's Stained Glass Ceiling.

 

That the Church of England announced arguably the most progressive Archbishop appointment to date, and failed to give their blessing to women bishops in almost the same breath, perfectly illustrates the challenges that the institution, and its incoming caretaker Justin Welby, must face.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury told the General Synod that the church had lost “a measure of credibility” with the vote against women bishops, and may appear “wilfully blind” to the priorities of the society it serves. Visibly deflated, and all too aware of how the result would be perceived in a secular society in which the absence of equal opportunity is duly regarded as discrimination, Rowan Williams concluded the Church of England now has “a lot of explaining to do.”

The disenchantment, bordering disbelief, on the faces of the “yes” campaign perhaps requires a little less explanation however than the feelings and philosophy underpinning the apparent aversion to women becoming bishops.

Pete Myers, from the campaign group Together 4ward, penned an article on the Channel 4 News website, in which he outlined his support for the decision. Whilst regretful of “the pain” the outcome had caused, and conceding that women bishops were essentially inevitable, he believes the bible advises otherwise. Like many of a similar opinion, Mr Myers points the finger at the apostle Paul, who wrote in 1 Timothy 2:12; “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.”

That section of scripture certainly does seem to support Mr Myer’s position, however he does not quote the complete sentence. After asserting that a woman should not have authority over a male counterpart in church, Paul goes further, concluding; “she must be quiet.” Now, why, I wonder, did Mr Myer not include that bit? If you want to ignore 2000 years of historical and socio-political context, then why stop at just an ecclesiastical glass ceiling? Paul actually advises that ladies should not only leave the altar duties to the gents, but also keep mum till they’re back in the car park.

In addition, if we are going to play things strictly by the book, then Leviticus 21:5 says; “Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.” That rules out tattoos and skinheads, and any vicar without the full Father Christmas chin warmer! If you can’t have women bishops, then the same goes for clean-shaven clergy, unless of course, you just plucked the scripture to justify a bit of good old fashioned sexism.

Certainly, the vote has been an embarrassment to many in the church, since it was passed by the priesthood, only falling foul of the laity. This army of able assistants occupies an array of non-professional positions in the Church of England, is predominantly female, and yet a fairly modest number of its membership were able to avert the advancement of women up to bishop status, thanks to an alarmingly laughable electoral system.

Personally, I find the entire debacle simply the latest example of the Church of England’s commitment to self-destructive marketing. The Christian faith should be something you could not give away fast enough, but when your PR campaign features celebrity endorsement from Bush and Blair, and the occasional mailshot with unwelcoming messages around abortion and homosexuality, you are making yourselves a pretty hard sell.  

The apostle Paul has indeed been a useful blueprint for many Christian believers, but like all the pioneers of the early church he is refreshing and accessible exactly because he was not perfect. When a religion is more head than heart, people tend to get hurt, and to really get to the heart of any movement, you don’t focus on the followers, but the one they are following. From what I have read, you would be hard pushed to find Jesus advocating church division through segregation of opportunity. Given a room full of people he would make a beeline for the disenfranchised, was moved by compassion not customs and tradition, and considered each case on merit. If there is a PR HQ for the C of E, the way forward might be getting back to basics, more Jesus focused, less jam making and judgemental. He He nnnnnn

Elected Police Commissioners, Expensive Political Codswallop?

As Oscar Wilde deemed democracy as simply “the bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people,” I would love to learn his take on the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners. When the people have been passed the baton to decide which other people will hold to account the people who carry the batons, isn’t that just getting too many people involved?

Around 40 million adults in England and Wales are eligible to vote for commissioners in 41 police forces, although, as widely anticipated, at least 70% seem caught up in a wave of national apathy and have not actually bothered to do so. The lowest recorded electoral turnout to date was for the European Elections of 1999, so for those answering former Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair’s rallying cry to veto the vote and stay at home, the number to beat is just 23%. Those of us living in London have a reduced power to protest through non-participation however, as we have no vote to veto, the role being part of Boris Johnson’s in-box as Mayor already.

The stated aim of a Police and Crime Commissioner is not to actually commission crimes, as the title would suggest, but to engage with the public, including victims of crime, and ensure the budget is spent “where it most matters”. Now, the question of what matters most suggests an agenda, and this is where the process becomes regretfully yet predictably political. Only 54 out of the 192 candidates are not actually badge wearing brokers of a particular political persuasion, and these independent hopefuls are even less likely than their rivals to have been heard of beyond their own breakfast tables. So, in most cases, those doing the hiring and firing of the country’s top coppers will have a “where it matters most” position aligned at least in part with their respective party principles, which can hardly help what Sir Hugh Orde, Head of the association of Chief Police Officers, referred to as “inevitable tension” around “the allocation of resources”.  

Whatever eventual reality emerges from the £100 million election, it is unlikely to echo the Prime Minster’s original prescription. Falklands veteran and author Simon Weston, amongst others, pulled out of the process because it was “too political”, and Mr Cameron’s campaign for a “big job for a big local figure” seems destined to be consigned to the Big Society cul-de-sac of good intentions.

My dad entitles any trip to the polling booth as a chance to “exercise his democratic right”, and in some sense every election can be seen a symbolic affirmation of our hard-fought for freedoms. However, by Thursday, a good many of us will have voted on X-Factor, Strictly, and that carry-on up the jungle, not to mention venting pithy opinions via Facebook, text and Twitter, before using up our monthly mobile minutes on a chin-wag with a chum. We are hardly starved of having our say, so leaving hearth and HD TV for a cause few care for, is a box barely any will be ticking.

Encore Obama or Millionaire Mitt?

 

If the bible states it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, then Mitt Romney’s $200 million may not get him past the pearly gates, but his odds look better on the White House.

 

If he were to wake up on Wednesday as the next incumbent of the Oval Office, Governor Romney would become the second richest American President of all time, after George Washington. The first US President’s plentiful prosperity came courtesy of the family business, a wholesome blend of tobacco and slavery, and what he didn’t have by birth, he married into. Whilst slavery seems thankfully absent from the Romney portfolio, tobacco is certainly not. He was CEO of Bain & Co, the consultancy that turned around Marlboro’s flagging fortunes, forcing the price war which repaired the balance sheet of parent company Philip Morris. Who knows, maybe he can do for the world’s biggest economy what he did for one of the world’s biggest killers?

 

Much political capital has naturally been made of the campaign promises on which Obama has yet to deliver. US troops left Iraq, but have yet to fully discharge their duties in Afghanistan. Despite signing an executive order to effect its closure, Guantanamo Bay is still very much open for business. The Democrat dream of health coverage for the uninsured was duly delivered, Osama Bin Laden was caught and killed, but global warming legislation predictably ran into a Republican road-block in the Senate. However, to negate Obama’s achievements is to forget both the depth of the depression he inherited, and the apparent absence of bipartisan potential in Washington. Indeed, warm praise for the President’s efforts in the aftermath of storm Sandy from Republican Governor Chris Christie raised eyebrows on both sides of the Senate.

 

If the Sunday papers were anything to go by, Barack Obama would be a shoe-in for a second term if the ballot was based on this side of the pond. Even right wing newspapers in the UK have not been able to bring themselves to endorse Mitt Romney, preferring to view another four years of Obama as the safest dish on a dodgy menu. Across the Atlantic most states seem to stick to historical allegiances, with the outcome of only the half dozen “swing states” considered genuinely up for grabs. The beleaguered residents of these battlegrounds have therefore been campaigned at to within an inch of their lives by both presidential candidates and their armies of ardent affiliates, and now 24 hours should tell the tale.

 

Barack Obama was elected on the promise of change and a wave of hope that has now admittedly broken. Mitt Romney famously said of fires in aeroplanes that “you can’t find oxygen from outside the aircraft...because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that.” One might say that America would be in better shape if Obama’s actions could have matched his message, but imagine the mess if Romney was given the power to put his reasoning into practice.