From The Inside

Cycling for Charity!

I'm very proud of my son.  Only 7 years of age, he finally learned his bike last month - and we managed to get his stabilizers off.  He has now taken to it like a duck to water!  

A new stretch of motorway near Glasgow (the M74) has been completed and the City Council has decided to open it up for a charity day on May 22nd to allow folk to either walk, run or cycle it for charity.  Even the registration fees themselves are going to charity.  Read more here.

Jacob had already raised money through his Boys Brigade for the One In A Million Project.  When he heard he could cycle for charity he jumped at the chance and knew at once what the money would be for.

This is a fantastic and much needed project.  Even though I haven't blogged for months I'm still getting hundreds of hits every month from all over the world - I'm amazed.  So if you have arrived here - even accidentally - every penny counts!!  Please consider sponsoring him at http://www.justgiving.com/oneinamillion2

Many thanks!

Rights.... Or Recommendations?

The past week has seen not one, but two events in the House of Commons regarding prisoners and offenders on the one hand and human rights on the other.  The first was a debate over the issue of whether prisoners have the right to vote.  The European Court of Human Rights have declared that a blanket ban on all prisoners is against their human rights, while David Cameron says the thought of giving prisoners the right to vote makes him feel sick.  The second issue was an announcement that sex offenders will be given the right to appeal being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life, following a ruling by the UK Supreme Court.

It would probably not surprise regular readers to this blog that I am in support of the rights of prisoners on both of these issues - and I will tell you why in blogs to come.  (Of course, if you listen to the Government, nobody could actually support these rights - so maybe I'm in a minority of one!  Or maybe the Government should stop telling the public what the public think!)

My wider issue however is with the selectivity of human rights.  If rights are not absolute, but can be debated on and ignored if the Parliament of the day so decides, we are on very dangerous grounds.  These rights affect us all; we are all governed by human rights, and these protect all of us.  They shouldn't be made a political issue on which Parliaments may vote to decide whether they should be granted or not.

Of course some would say that what is at issue is not the rights themselves, but the courts' interpretation of them.  This is a thin distinction - and I for one would much rather that independent courts and judges decide these issues, rather than those who hold the power and have an eye not on the rights of the minorities but on the votes of the majority.  For me the choice between having experienced and trained judges interpret the law, or unqualified politicians who themselves show a scant regard to the law when it suits them, is a no-brainer.  If that means courts may decide in a way I don't like then that is a price I'm willing to pay.  That may be difficult for our Governments, who increasingly seem to forget that in the UK they do not hold absolute authority, but are themselves subject to the rule of law.  What seems to be happening at the moment is if Parliament doesn't like the decisions, then they want their ball back!  (The ball however was never theirs!)

The UK played a key role in the writing of the European Conventions of Human Rights in the 1950s.  As a nation, along with the USA, we frequently criticise Islamic, Third World, and Far Eastern countries on the issue of human rights.  Yet now, given a few decisions which we don't like, there is talk of abolishing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights.  What arrogance and what churlish nonsense.  Would it not be nobler and humbler to wonder at why the rest of Europe can have no problems with these rights to prisoners, while the UK kicks up such a fuss?  Maybe we could learn from our European neighbours and their treatment of prisoners and ex-offenders.

Re-Branding?

In previous generations it would have been regarded as a success of the criminal justice system.  A young teenager is convicted of embezzling £2,000 while serving as a church treasurer.  He is removed from his post, charged by the police, convicted by the courts and receives a non-custodial sentence.

But he learns his lesson it would seem - and goes on to study for an Accountancy degree and 27 years later is made Chief Executive of Northern Ireland Water.  It's a success story - for he turns his life around and doesn't re-offend.  The offence is regarded as 'spent' - and he is free to get on with his life.

But this is 30 years later - and attitudes have changed.  Resigning last week from NI Water in the aftermath of all the burst pipes following the 'Big Freeze', Laurence MacKenzie's offence has come to light.  There is to be an enquiry into whether his past was known, calls for his severance package to be suspended, and questions as to why he was allowed to reach "the highest echelons of this organisation given that background". (See for example: Guardian, BBC)

It's a perfect example of the change of attitude, at least within the media and political circles, which we have seen over the past decade.  Notions of rehabilitation and fresh starts, to say nothing of forgiveness and grace, have long since departed from the dialogue, and instead a more punitive, unforgiving and retributive climate prevails.  Where it would seem that if someone breaches the legal code, irrespective of the punishment they serve or how they live the remainder of their life, that somehow their status as a citizen is irrevocably changed, they become a lesser-being, an ex-offender, and they must never be allowed to forget nor move on.  Where even 30 years later when an offence comes to light, totally removed from any context of what exactly happened and why, the crowds continue to bay for blood.

It's a retrograde step to pre-modern times where criminals used to be branded for life, and made to forever bear the marks of their shame.  Reminiscent of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables where Jean Valjean is forced to adopt a new identity in order to redeem himself, but where his past is always biting at his heels, in the form of Javert, seeking to destroy the progress he has made.

Far removed from grace and Gospel.