The attack on Britain’s parliament

We are profoundly saddened, as is everyone we know, by the lone wolf attack on Britain’s parliament by an individual who must presumably be an ISIS / Daesh sympathiser.

What makes a man commit an atrocity of this kind in which innocent civilians are killed? Any attack that deliberately targets civilians is morally repugnant in the eyes of humanity at large, and is to be presumed utterly reprehensible in the eyes of any God the attacker may or may not believe in.

The worst of it is that any atrocity is by definition one of the worst crimes conceivable because atrocity breeds atrocity as retribution breeds retribution and a cycle of violence is spawned.

Forgiveness is difficult; moreso for some of us when we suppress our natural reaction to those that target the innocent. And in this instance a number of the injured were children. And the natural reaction of at least some of us is to wish any such attacker may burn in hell.

However there is a place beyond forgiving – for some acts can never be forgiven except by the righteous and there are precious few of those in this world. But there is a place beyond forgiving in which we show compassion, mercy and love to our enemies and their victims alike.

The enemies of humanity (whether Daesh / ISIS, or Al Qa’idah, or indeed any who deliberately target non-combatants of any kind) expect and deserve our outrage. Indeed they often act as they do in order to provoke our hatred.

We defeat them best, and their entire ideology of exclusivity, when we find it in our hearts to offer them our pity, and face down their self-consuming hatred with our own ideology of inclusivity, compassionate mercy, and love.

God will judge them, we should not. Nor should we allow extremists the satisfaction that their actions may have in some way instilled in us any sense of fear in regard to tomorrow. We have no need to worry about tomorrow. God is already there.

New UK Press Regulations: Are we Impressed?

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers” 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A new press regulation plan has been proposed by the UK government, formally known as Section 40 of the Crime Courts Act 2013, in response to the Leveson Inquiry. The plan is being put forward to protect national interests by regulating and assuring only trustworthy and reliable articles are published.

Under the new scheme, publishers must sign up to the UK’s first ever independent regulator; Impress. If newspapers do not sign up, they would have to pay the cost of any legal action against them, regardless of the merit of the lawsuit. The ‘regulator’, however, would be funded by the kind of people who are often subject of investigations. The leaking of the Panama Papers is a good example of a situation which would not have been published under the new proposed regulations; the publisher simply wouldn’t be able to afford the defamation claims against the reporter. The new regulations do not protect the reporters, rather it ties their hands and benefits the oligarchs and the wealthy; the primary funders of the scheme.

The public relies on reporters to have a broad scope of information about what is going on around us and in other parts of the world. Their freedom allows a range of theories and ideas to be tried and tested. If their level of truth and accuracy is questionable, then as the public, we have the freedom to personally choose and filter our sources of information. Freedom of press is no threat to our nation, rather its censorship would undermine the very values which support the heart of our country’s freedom. We have to ask ourselves who the regulations have been set up to protect. It certainly compromises the investigation for reporters with a regulated frontier.

Furthermore, the regulation challenges the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which promises the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Although Section 40 seeks to generate ‘trustworthy’ resources, if there is such a thing in our post-truth political culture, it simultaneously breaches the public’s freedom of opinion and expression by withholding from them information which might be enlightening. The public can use this information to put pressure on to create a more accountable and transparent system. Perhaps Section 40 would be doing the nation more damage than good.

Imposing Section 40 in the hope of punishing reporters who care little for truth is being done at the expense of their freedom; the freedom of press. Reporters would no longer be able to exercise their right to circulate opinions in print without censorship from this independent regulator. It surrounds reporters with egg shells, threatens publishers with possible bankruptcy for crossing a line which seeks to silence them, and surrounds the few who are exposed to scandal with a protective bubble.