Israel - Stolen goods bring no prosperity.

I am not quite sure where I first read the phrase, “Stolen goods bring no prosperity”, but it rings true. Just think of any individual, business or government that has deprived anyone of what was rightfully theirs; just think about those who have fraudulently or unjustly used or taken advantage of someone’s intellectual property; think about those who make a living by avoiding or evading government regulations.

What brought this phrase to my mind has been the ratcheting up of the Israeli/Gaza impasse which has been bubbling away since 1947. I strongly disagree with anyone who advocates violence as a solution to any problem. Violence begets violence. People who feel aggrieved should avoid conflict at all costs – no one wins a war. Oh yes! Battles may be “won”; “victors” may assume sovereignty over land and peoples; trade may follow the “gun” but at what human cost? Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.

After the end of the Second World War the dispossessed Jews and those who had survived the appalling treatment meted out by the Nazis with the infamous “final solution” known to history as the Holocaust were “given” what is now Israel. This is a historic fact and I am in no position to argue the merits or demerits of this “gift” by the sympathetic Allies who had defeated Germany. What I can say with certainty however is that the Palestinians who were living in the Palestine/Israel area and who had been living there since Biblical times were now (in 1947) dispossessed of the land (and in many cases their possessions as well) to make way for the “new” nation of Israel. Many of these dispossessed Palestinians ended up in Gaza. It is my understanding that no compensation was ever paid or reparation ever made.

This injustice rankles. They were never asked; they never gave “permission” for the land to be expropriated. Injustice is never forgotten; injustice is burned into the soul – just ask the Jews! The Jews have been treated very badly by all peoples – from ancient Babylonia to modern day Christians and Muslims. They have been fighting and striving for millennia for Judea, their “home land” – what they consider their Holy Land, their God given right. Why should the Palestinians, dispossessed by the Israelis feel any differently about their “home land”; their Holy Land, part of which is now Israel?

The fact is that the ultimate source of land is beyond human ingenuity; we may surmise how land was formed aeons ago – but no one can create a single grain of sand. Land just “is” – therefore by default land belongs to no one; land, Holy or otherwise, belongs to everyone. We humans are merely the temporary caretakers.

The Israelis, if they want peace and stability, will, ultimately, have to share the land they occupy with the original inhabitants – the Palestinians. This land was in effect “stolen” from the Palestinians in 1947, and until the Israeli recognize this and accept sharing as a future reality the phrase that opens this post - “stolen goods bring no prosperity” – will haunt the Israelis and torment the Palestinians.

War and violence will never, ever, solve the problems caused by injustice.

Catholics priests, Paedophilia and Cardinal Pell’s response.

Something is dramatically wrong when a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, the titular head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal Pell can say (in apparent justification) that, and I quote from the Weekend Australian newspaper dated 11-12 November 2012, despite the Catholic Church having received hundreds of complaints of child abuse and notifications of paedophilia in New South Wales and Victoria he believed “it was no worse than any other organisation, and had been unfairly vilified”.

I find this statement astounding, utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of any “organisation” – particularly a church like the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell is obviously looking after his position and is protecting his back. The statement was obviously made to protect the “image” of the Church and to diminish anyone who dares to criticise the activities of the Church and its ministers.

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to recall the words of Jesus (King James - Matthew 18.6):

 “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believes in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”

As I understand it the whole point of a “Church” is that it espouses spiritual values and is supposed to guide, to nourish, to uplift its members. The whole point of priesthood is the (supposedly) spiritual training priests receive which is (supposedly) designed to make them “better” that the average parishioner so that they (the priests) may better minister to the needs of their “flock”. 

It would be well for Cardinal Pell to also recall the words of Jesus (King James – Matthew 22. v37 - 40):

 “37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.”

How can anyone trust an “organisation” such as the Catholic Church that breaks its own Laws, with children, innocent children; breaks the COMMANDMENTS, no less, of Jesus and then have its leader (Cardinal Pell) say, “We have been unfairly vilified?”

This statement beggars belief. Not only should a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the many hundreds of accusations of paedophilia and abuse but Cardinal Pell should stand aside from his position until this whole messy business is sorted out and the Church “cleansed” of its defilement.

I paraphrase Oliver Cromwell and say to Cardinal Pell and the Church hierarchy, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

(For the record - I am a non-practicing Anglican).

Turn back the boats!!

“Turn back the boats!! Stop the boats!!” These shrill statements relate to the divisive policies proposed by Australian conservative political parties to stop so called “illegal” immigrants from arriving in Australia by sea in small fishing boats. This is the mantra repeated endlessly by every form of media. It is a simplistic and mischievous refrain – implying that the whole “illegal” immigration problem is easily solved. This is wrong, very misleading and is just political humbug – all interested parties are fully aware of this.

Furthermore turning the boats back means what, exactly? Think about it. Setting aside important international political and moral issues the safety concerns and logistics of implementing such a policy are worthy of some consideration. Turning back the boats, presumably, means they would be either towed or escorted back to some port in Indonesia.  The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has a limited number of patrol boats – are these to be used to either tow or escort slow moving wooden fishing boats, sometimes hundreds of nautical miles back to where they came from, rather than performing their official purpose of protecting Australia? Some of these “turn back” journeys could take days! Also many of the wooden boats involved are not really seaworthy and would not survive being towed. The sea is a dangerous environment and changes in sea conditions – swell, wind and waves - often occur very quickly.  Would this necessitate the RAN rescuing the “illegals”? I believe that this would then mean that the “illegals” have achieved their aim – they would technically be on Australian “territory” – an Australian Government vessel!! And then what? Unless of course the conservative side of Australian politics try to “excise” RAN vessels from Australia thus rendering them and their Australian crews stateless.

In any event how many RAN patrol boats would be involved in this fruitless exercise? And what is to prevent these “illegals” from immediately trying again and recommencing their journey to Australia? This would initiate and perpetuate an apparently endless “loop” with more and more boats and “illegals” involved. Make no mistake “where there is a will there is a way” and the number of fearful, determined people trying to escape persecution or trying to find a better place to live will eventually overwhelm such a sterile and limiting policy. They will ultimately find their way to Australia – somehow.   

It won’t work – “turning back the boats” is not an option. Not only does the RAN not have the physical capacity to carry out any such instruction, doing so is inhumane and Australia, possibly, would be in breach of many of the treaties it has signed relating to safety at sea, refugees and human rights.

Remember the thousands of South Vietnamese who arrived, by boat, in Australia in the 1960’s after the end of the Vietnam war? They are now proud Australians and a vibrant element in the fabric of this nation. Certainly there would need to be some security checks but it would be far better to allow these unfortunate “illegals” into Australia where they will eventually become productive and hard-working citizens. It would certainly be less costly and more beneficial to the national economy than housing them for years in prison like so called “off-shore” locations (i.e. Pacific Islands).

The only way to “stop the boats” in the long term would be to provide such a safe environment in the “illegals” home country that they would not need to consider moving. This is not going to happen any time soon, so these unfortunate people will continue to attempt the dangerous journey to find a safe haven – Australia.

For God’s sake let us show some generosity of spirit and welcome them – let them come!

Now it could be virtual war!

There have been reports in the media about the possibility of the Americans developing autonomous robotic weapons to perform more and more front-line activities. These are robots that (they hope) will think logically and perform many of the tasks currently performed by human soldiers.

The whole reason behind this is to save soldier’s lives. Very laudable and should be encouraged. But I believe this misses the mark by a wide margin.

It misses the mark because it ignores the fact that no one ever really “wins” a war – the long term effects of wars are unforeseeable and normally very unpleasant. The “victors” would have incurred an enormous financial and human cost – to be felt for generations. And the cost to the “losers” is almost incalculable; tremendous damage to infrastructure and housing and huge loss of life in all sectors. So why fight?

I suggest that the robot “phase” be skipped over entirely and that those who wish to satisfy their urge to fight, destroy and to kill engage in a “virtual” war. Computer technology has advanced to the stage where such “wars” could be very realistic – a form of advanced computer game. To develop this concept a stage further robots should be devised that would  fight these “virtual” wars on our behalf!!

Think of all the money that would be saved! Think of all the lives that would be saved! Think of all the productive elements that could be directed into improving the underdeveloped regions of the world! Think of all the money, previously spent on military research, that could be used to improve the general human condition – health care (cancer for one thing), research into mental well-being (depression, schizophrenia and such like) that debilitates millions of people – and then there is food production.

It is completely illogical and defies rational thought that we (that is human beings) should spent vast amounts of money developing new and better ways to kill our fellow beings while millions are starving to death.

Why not fight “virtual” wars and spend the money saved to help our fellow beings!

Think about it.

Why ethics is important – again!

Quite a while ago I wrote a short piece about the importance of ethics. The importance of ethics today seems to be ignored, forgotten or, being charitable, it could be said that the idea is misunderstood. I now revisit this subject.

Just think about it – the basis of unethical conduct is usually injustice and dishonesty. This is often (in a corporate sense) covered by layers of “spin” – a public relations version of events. It is therefore sometimes very difficult to distinguish falsehood from the truth. And individually we all try to justify our actions in some way or another – no one over wants to be seen as “not good”. Companies, organisations and governments are no different.

As I pointed out in an earlier post a Melbourne court has heard explosive allegations from the whistleblower at the centre of foreign bribery allegations against senior officials at the two bank note printing subsidiaries of Reserve Bank of Australia (the RBA).

The whistleblower, Brian Hood, claims long-held concerns about kickbacks were steadfastly ignored and that the RBA was aware of them as far back as 2007. His statement also raised questions about the ethics and business culture of management and of his (unethical) treatment by the RBA – which I might say is typical of that visited upon all whistle-blowers

Then there is some recent news about Macquarie Bank employing “rubbery figures” in its financial statements! Banks never learn do they? I suppose that the temptation with all that money around is too great for many to withstand!

There is also some disquiet about the accounting practices at the ANZ Bank (one of Australia’s “big four” banks). Dear, oh dearie me!!

Now there are new allegations about more priestly paedophilia and child abuse in both the Catholic and Anglican Churches in Australia and in a former (now closed) Government run child hostel in Western Australia.

Recently there have been comments made by those who should know better – comments that cause anguish, cause anger, distress or just disbelief that any sensible person could make them!

•  Gina Rinehart (Australia richest woman, the heiress of Hancock Prospecting) said recently that Australians must become more productive to compete with “African mineworkers who will work hard for $2.00 per day” – now some of those mineworkers are striking (and dying) for more pay and better conditions!! Go figure.

• Then there is the appalling Florida pastor Terry Jones (he who caused uproar some time ago when he tried to conduct a public burning of the Koran) who said recently that he supported and promoted a film criticizing Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (this is the movie that has caused so much violence in the Middle East and around the world). He said the outbreak of violence should be rejected and is an example of the "true nature of Islam." If he thinks that Christianity has no history of extreme violence he must be delusional! Just think about the shocking cruelty perpetrated by the Crusaders; just think about the extreme violence in Northern Ireland; just think about the Spanish Inquisition; remember the “Final Solution” visited upon European Jews by the Nazis (who were at least nominally Christians – the Pope did not condemn them); remember the “ethnic cleaning” perpetrated by (presumably) Christian Serbs on Muslims in Bosnia  – all this in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace!!

Of course there is also money. Many people will go to the most extreme lengths to acquire and/or protect the money they have. And by extreme I mean extreme – abuse, slavery, injustice, theft, fraud and murder – unethical conduct all for the sake of money! People, institutions, organisations and governments will all, at times, seemingly do anything for money.

When it comes to religion there is no one, of any religious persuasion, who will not resort to violence when so moved to do so. When people think or believe they are given licence by God they willingly perpetrate the most extreme violence against their fellow beings! They believe that “my religion is better than yours”, therefore “I must be better than you”, therefore “God will approve of whatever I do”. Injustice, abuse, unethical conduct and the perpetration of extreme violence are all acceptable if it is believed that “God is on my side”!

Why, apparently, is it so difficult for us human beings to accept that we are all part of the Human Family? After all we all came out of Africa some five million years ago! All our imagining, thoughts, desires and attachments are all similar in that we all have a basic need for food shelter and clothing; this is the prime influence in our need for self expression and self-perpetuation and which gives, in fact, the evolutionary impetus for life itself.

We have to be forced to accept the fact that no one can achieve anything on their own. We need our fellow humans; nature forces us to include others in our plans and schemes. This is what our ego finds so hard to accept – this is what our ego resists – that we are no better (or worse) than millions of fellow wayfarers on our life’s journey.   

This is why it is so important to consider our fellow human beings FIRST; to always treat them in the same way that we would like to be treated. Failure to do this causes untold (and unnecessary) misery and is very definitely unethical.