Just a thought ...

The International Olympic Committee and their Chinese Olympic Dream

April 2008

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) broke more than a few of its governing rules and regulations dating back to Sydney 1999 and mired in corruption scandals beginning in the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Members of the IOC have been expelled over the past years for living extravagant lives and financially benefiting from the 'spirit of the games'. The IOC has claimed that after many difficult years of financial scandal it has finally got its house in order and to prove this, the IOC chose China to host this year's 2008 Olympics. The Dallas Morning News (April 9th 2008) reported how 'IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch was particularly eager to see the Games in communist China. The IOC's Evaluation Commission swooned like schoolgirls, calling the venues "environmentally impressive" and the budget "viable and sound." You have to hand it to totalitarianism - it tends to assure you a reliable cash flow. The committee even found a way to give a big-thumbs-up to oppressive dictatorship itself: "The overall presence of strong governmental control and support is healthy."' The IOC supported by many Western governments with more than a friendly nudge from their business partners claimed that the Olympics would be good for, and I use this word loosely, 'democracy' that is apparently emerging in China. They pointed to the huge changes in the Chinese economy and to the processes of modernisation that were occurring. They claimed, as did many Western governments that staging the Olympics in China would be a way to further encourage the Chinese regime to reform and expand democratic freedoms; in essence they attempted to convince the world of the benevolent nature that is contained within the mythical 'Olympic spirit'; it was accordingly a moral vehicle for the creation of a newly-resplendent order. Business opportunities are, apparently, secondary to the wishes of the IOC and their financial and political supporters' desires to see 'true democracy' to emerge in China. Human Rights Watch (April 1st, 2008) said: 'The Ethics Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) should articulate human rights standards for host countries to end the moral void in which it operates ... The IOC, which is scheduled to hold meetings in Beijing from April 1st to April 12th, has refused to publicly articulate concerns about the human rights situation in China.' Amnesty International (April 9th 2008) says: 'Positive changes such as a reform of the death penalty system and a greater reporting freedom for foreign journalists have been overshadowed by stalled reform of detention without trial, repression of human rights defenders and internet censorship ... Hundreds of people have been detained in response to the unrest. They could face torture and other ill-treatment by China's security forces, especially those accused of "separatist" activities.' Perhaps the IOC, Western governments that remain uncritical and business who will profit from the games need to be reminded that economic reform isn't necessarily linked to democracy. After all, Nazi Germany with its Chinese style one party state also operated a capitalist economic mode of production. A look at Daniel Guerin's (1938) Fascism and Big Business would be useful ... or perhaps they already know that?

Where Will Harry Pop Up Next?

March 2008

Senior editors of the British print and broadcast media struck a deal with the Ministry of Defence in late 2007 not to publicise the fact that a member of the British Royal family, Prince Harry, had joined-up with British forces currently occupying Afghanistan alongside American, French, German, Canadian and other military forces. Their complicity in this charade is at least 'unethical'; at most 'gutless'. To kow-tow in this manner clearly demonstrates a complete lack of integrity and independence on their part and as Jon Snow argued is reminiscent of how state controlled media operates in dictatorial regimes (Channel 4 News, 7pm, Thursday February 28th, 2008). Snow has since received emails from members of the public accusing him of treason and disgraceful behaviour; some claim they won't watch Channel 4 news again. And all because Snow launched a scathing attack on the decision not to publish and offered a stout defence of media freedom and independent spirit, something that apparently went AWOL! 'D' Notices were used during World War I and subsequently in WW II to silence the media; no need for those any longer, media complicity will do nicely thank you very much. All of this raises important issues not simply concerning 'independence' but equally concerning the 'function' and 'purpose' of the media vis-à-vis the political and military establishment.

It was left to the American based Drudge Report to reveal what sometimes is conveniently removed from media discourse ... yes once again the truth isn't so much out there, it just slipped their mind. Snow had wondered whether any of the complicit media tribe would feature on the Honours List ... probably. This is what Drudge reported:

'British Royal Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan since late December, and has been directly involved in gun battle ... Prince Harry is taking part in a new offensive against the Taliban. Ministry of Defence and Clarence House refuse all comment. Army chiefs have managed to keep the prince away from media and have encouraged fellow soldiers in his squadron to stay quiet' (Thursday, February 28th 2008).

Even though the occupation of Afghanistan is a disgrace the decision by the Royal to go and put other soldiers' lives at risk is profoundly irresponsible and selfish. And all because he wants to play at soldiers! But when senior editors kow-tow to Ministry of Defence commands not to publish it's reasonable to ask what will they keep quiet next? Of course the Russian and Chinese leadership will be watching with keen interest and perhaps wondering whether their tactics to silence the media has been successfully exported to the UK.

The British press don't do complex

February 2008

On Thursday February 7th 2008 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams gave a lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice titled 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective' that concerned integrating parts of the Islamic Sharia code into English law. (The full text can be viewed here: Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective). Predictably, most news coverage reduced the Archbishop's lecture to meaningless sound bites and was met by a chorus of shock and anger. This reduction of context came as no surprise to Paul Vallely (The Independent, February 8th 2008 article titled 'Williams is snared in a trap of his own making'). The author poured scorn on the Archbishop for having the temerity to speak publicly on an issue that entailed intellectual reasoned discourse and was complex in meaning! Vallely also was non-apologetic about the way in which many of the newspapers in the UK reduce complexity to simplicity. Here is what Vallely said:

'The error is assuming that the leader of a major church has the same intellectual freedom that he had when he was merely an eminent theologian. The cold fact is that the semiotics are entirely different. An academic may call for a nuanced renegotiation of society's attitudes to the internal laws of religious communities. But when the Archbishop of Canterbury does that the headline follows, as night follows day: "Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, says Archbishop". This is not what he was saying, and yet it is. News has little room for the subtleties of academic gavottes around delicate subjects. A canny religious leader - or at any rate his press office - ought to know that'.

In response to the reduction of context a letter appeared in the Independent (February 11th 2008) titled 'A travesty of what the Archbishop said':

'Sir: We never thought we would be moved to write to the press in defence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or indeed any other religious leader. However we have been dismayed and outraged by the press and radio reaction to his lecture on Thursday. We were there, and when we left the Royal Courts we felt we had heard a cogent, thoughtful argument, eloquently delivered, which is not to say we agreed with the points being made ... The reports we read the following day, and the sensational furore that they created, were a travesty of what we heard for ourselves. If this is an example of a responsible press, then we despair. If newspaper editors had any sense of responsibility, they would print the lecture in full ...'

So, in view of Vallely's comments does this mean that Dr. Rowan Williams or any of us for that matter are wrong to speak out because the press according to Vallely don't do complex? And what of the press' moral responsibilities to report fully and accurately?

This isn't just about Chickens ... is it?

January 2008

The British television broadcaster Channel 4 recently screened a nightly series of programmes concerning chicken welfare, hosted by celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and featuring Jamie Oliver (also a celebrity chef). The programme 'Hugh's Chicken Run' set out to prove that free-range chicken is a morally justifiable way of both rearing and consuming chicken. Jane Simon in the Daily Mirror (07-01-08) wrote 'if you really cared for the welfare of the chickens you wouldn't eat them' which is the obvious vegetarian/vegan retort I suppose and whilst this view is perfectly reasonable there are other issues raised here such as 'campaigning television' against big business. There is a certain wonderful naivety displayed by the two chefs, and it is arguable whether they are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. The British poultry industry and the major supermarkets are not amused, and I'd imagine that the UK supermarket Sainsburys may be more than perturbed to see an employer of theirs campaigning against it (Oliver fronts their advertising campaigns). There are similarities here to 'some' of the BBC's gardening programmes; for instance, the emphasis on 'community gardening' and the defence of public allotments (small plots of land to grow fruit and vegetables) against building development of land. The protection of green spaces in large cities is another campaign. One can't help but think of the comments of both Marx and Adorno here particularly in relation to capitalism's drive to control nature for profit.