An Open Letter to Rhoda Grant MSP

-->

Dear Ms. Grant MSP,

I am writing to you today regarding your proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex in Scotland. I hope this email can help you to open your eyes, change your heart, your mind and your proposal. I have highlighted below the questions I felt were properly answerable. 

I am a private individual. I recently obtained my Criminology Masters from University College Cork and one of the areas that I studied was Prostitution. I wrote about and analysed whether or not it should be legalised. I honestly approached this topic weighing more on the ‘no’ side as I was under the impression from certain groups here in Ireland, that prostitution itself was wrong, the people involved were in it as a last resort and were being abused and trafficked. In researching this topic with an open mind, every view I held was challenged and overcome. I am now firmly in favour of legalising sex work and using all available resources to tackle the scourge that is illegal human trafficking. The two areas unfortunately are currently interlinked, but not as much as some NGO’s would like you to believe. I believe that with proper regulation, supervision and employment services, sex workers can openly contribute to society and the scourge of human trafficking can be tackled. I will attempt to answer some of the questions in your proposal while providing you with evidence from my research that shows the Swedish model of criminalising the buyer does not work.

.     Q1:  Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate 
“yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.

I do not support the aim of the proposed Bill. Criminalising the purchaser of sex services only makes the provision of these services more difficult. This Bill will not make sex workers disappear, the provision of sex services will not go away. All that will happen is that those who are involved in sex work will be made more vulnerable and will be forced to accept unsafe working conditions and sexual practices due to the very nature of Police evidence compilation. Condoms, lubes etc. are used as evidence in cases of sex purchasing in Sweden and Norway. The sex workers who I write about in this email will have the recognisable faces of the people we know. “Their circumstances may be different from our own but they are ordinary people living ordinary lives – the fact of their buying or selling sex is part of those lives rather than the defining characteristic of them.” (McKeganey et al. 1996: 1-2) Is prostitution actually a crime Ms. Grant? What harm do sex workers do to society? If it is your morals motivating you to propose this Bill – I will point out that it is not a crime to be unchaste Ms. Grant. I ask why is it a crime when two consenting adults conduct a business transaction for sex? In a sample of interviews with men in Glasgow, the overriding reason for buying sex was one of ease: “The attractions of prostitutes are that it’s easy. We both know what we want, there’s no charade. If I go to a club or something I have to work for it but with a prostitute it’s pure sex, no one’s kidding the other.” (McKeganey et al., 1996: 52) It is not a crime to go on a night out, spend money on a woman with the intention of sleeping with her. If two consenting adults conduct a business transaction for the purpose of a sexual act, why do you wish to criminalise the buyer?

It seems that two major groups have been established. On one side, ‘sex work’ liberals want to normalise prostitution and see it as just another form of employment which, however demeaning, is seen as being no better or worse than many other forms of service work which disadvantaged women engage in. The abolitionists and radical feminists, on the other side, claim that prostitution is a distinctively different form of activity than other types of service work and has damaging personal and social consequences.” (Matthews 2008: 136) What I am attempting to show is that the people who sell sex, their views and attitudes differ from the radical feminists and that people do decide to sell their bodies for sex – of their own free will. Prostitution like sex in general, is surrounded by myths, one of which is the belief that it always involves someone else; the woman who sells sex is never our mother, our daughter, or our sister but some anonymous other who is infinitely more desperate than those we love. Similarly the man who buys sex is never our father, brother, husband or boyfriend, but another whom we do not know and may not even wish to know.” (McKeganey et al. 1996: 1)

Sex work has a human face to it. Criminalising the buyers pushes sex work further into the underworld and makes everyone more vulnerable to the criminals you claim to be stopping.

.     Q2:  What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise the purchase of sex (as outlined above)? Please provide evidence to support your answer.

I believe the effects would be entirely negative. Sweden to the best of my knowledge, has not released a proper report into their criminalisation legislation. You have to go to Norway to get reports on the Swedish model. In 2004, a report by the Norwegian justice ministry “cited evidence of an ‘increased fear of attack’ among Swedish prostitutes, who found it harder to assess their clients because transactions had to be agreed hastily or on the telephone.” (The Economist, 2008)  Skeptics have argued, indeed it has been widely reported in Sweden, that by “driving prostitution away from Sweden the authorities have simply exported it, sending sex-hungry Swedes to nearby countries or else to Thailand.” There was a report late last year in the Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, that investigated the number of Swedes availing of cheap flights to places like Thailand to avail of sex. (www.aftonbladet.se; The Economist, 2008) Even in 2001, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) expressed concern that “the Swedish legislation may have rendered prostitutes more vulnerable, and asked the Swedish Government to evaluate the effects of the law. (CEDAW 2001:79; cited from Bryngemark) The Swedish Parliament recently voted in favour of a proposal to undertake such an evaluation, but to my knowledge no investigation into the matter has been initiated as yet.” (Bryngemark, 2005: 50)

Following another investigation into the matter in 2010, Norway presented a Progress Report to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.  It noted the following:

“Experience shows that it has become more difficult to have a good overview of and gain admittance to prostitution circles. In addition, it is reported that individual sex workers no longer want to carry condoms and lubricants out of fear that they will be used by the police as indicators of sale of sexual services. The support and health services for sex workers in Norway, describe increased vulnerability for sex workers. They argue that due to increased competition and greater stress on the market, sex workers are forced to offer clients e.g. unprotected sex. In addition, sex workers in escort services are forced to sell sex at the customer’s arena, which makes them more vulnerable to violence and abuse.” (Norwegian Ministry of Health cited through http://feministire.wordpress.com)

NGOs like Ruhama in Ireland who want the Swedish model implemented – (Ruhama are the main opposition to sex worker rights being established in Ireland and are also a powerful religious anti-sex work organisation. Ruhama is a joint initiative of the Good Shepherd Sisters and Our Lady of Charity Sisters, who have been ‘caring’ for Ireland’s ‘fallen women’ since 1848 and 1853 respectively. Please Google ‘Magdalene Laundries’ to see for yourself, the shining example of the care they provided Irish women) – they argue that another deterrent of this style of anti-prostitution law is that it would curtail the trafficking of women. On their website they say that prostitutes tend to be women who “were trafficked into prostitution in Ireland but a significant number were trafficked or prostituted into other countries but escaped to Ireland. Now while living here, they have sourced Ruhama for help” (Ruhama.ie) ‘In Whose Name?’ – the largest study of migrant sex workers in the UK to date raised a few issues. It argued that there is a climate of fear being created amongst sex workers due to increasing police activity that is driven by “hype and misinformation promoted by NGOs who are ideologically opposed to commercial sex.” (bbc.co.uk; 2011) This claim is backed by the rare voices of sex workers against the same campaign in Ireland. The Metro focused on the same study and reported “the majority of sex workers who were asked in a study say they prefer working in the sex industry to menial jobs where they are less likely to achieve such a good standard of living.” (The Metro, 2011)

Jesper Bryngemark is a lecturer in Law in Malmo. He argues that “one reason this law (criminalising the purchaser) became a
reality in Sweden in the first place
was that so few sex workers were
ready to go public. Prostitution
traditionally has been invisible in
Sweden. Connected to this invisibility is the fact that the sex workers’ movement in Sweden is very, very weak. And feminism is very, very strong.” (Bryngemark, 2005: 49) Regarding the law, “a few reports have been written, although none of them meet acceptable scientific standards for methodology. Two Swedish official reports in 2000 and 2003, state that street prostitution appears to have decreased, but that no causal link can be drawn between this decrease and the law. The question, “What happened to the sex sellers who stopped working from the street?” is raised in both reports, but is left unanswered. According to the same reports, clandestine prostitution has increased since the law entered into force.” (Bryngemark, 2005: 50)

.     Q3:  Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused by the offence? Please provide evidence to support your answer.

.     Q4:  What are the advantages or disadvantages in using the definitions outlined above?

.     Q5:  What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence? Please provide reasons for your answer.

It should not be an offence. Prostitution and sex work should be legalised.

.     Q6:  How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any techniques which might be used or obstacles which might need to be overcome?

.     Q7:  What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?

Legalise sex work and the economic implications are entirely positive.

.     Q8:  Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?

It creates massive inequality by not providing a safe work environment for sex workers. They will not stop working. They will only become inaccessible and invisible as Norway reported to the UN.

There are very few sex workers voices being heard in any argument regarding the criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Ireland, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Why not? You realise that sex workers are people? With their own reasons for doing what they do? They can be people who have suffered either physical or sexual abuse at home, run away and had to live a life on the streets that has led them into prostitution. They are also young people who simply happen to be in debt. When looking at Sweden previously, feminists argued that no woman would willingly choose to sell herself.  However in studies where the sex workers have been interviewed, it has been shown that “prostitution offers a means of earning a good income where otherwise employment opportunities might be considered limited and low wages the norm.” (McKeganey et al., 1996: 26) More recently, a letter was published that was sent to the Irish Justice Committee who are debating prostitution laws in Ireland. The sex worker said the following:

“There is no NGO currently speaking for sex workers in any real sense. All NGOs ruthlessly exclude them from decision making as if they were stray animals, or some kind of substandard, feral people in need of guidance and control from their “betters”. They even go so far as to abuse invalid statistics and distort facts to cultivate this as an image of sex workers in the public eye. The truth is, most sex workers are of above average intelligence, many of them are remarkably well read and/or well educated. They are intelligent people who can do their own thinking and speak for themselves far better than the NGOs who try to insist on being funded to do it for them against their will and sex workers are likely to base that thinking and self-representation on reality rather than the usual NGO basis of pursuit of agenda and funding that is mostly deployed on huge and superfluous salaries and expenses.” (sexwork.ie)

I urge you to read the rest of that sex workers letter.

Any interviews conducted with the actual workers produce very similar stories. For example, women interviewed in Ann Marie O’Connor’s study in 1996, said that “the bad thing is having to hide, the good thing is that it keeps you independent. I have been able to provide for my children without being dependent on any man.” (O’Connor; 1996: 12) On the streets, the dangers are greater as the author noted that “a number of women had experienced problems with clients; making them leave, being beaten up, being forced to have sex.” (O’Connor; 1996: 13)  In comparison, lets look at a sex worker from the last decade: Belle de Jour. Belle de Jour on the other hand, she was part of an agency. She was secure in the knowledge that if anything went wrong and she failed to text or ring her agency after meeting a client, “the manager will ring the client, then the hotel, her own security if they’re nearby, then the police. She knows. She’s been in your shoes too.” (Jour 2005: 11) What other profession would you have to deal with this disparity? What is amazing is that despite everything these people have to go through, “in virtually all countries, sex workers are strong, courageous women, attempting in any way possible to establish control over their work and their lives.” (McKeganey et al., 1996: 2) Why should there be differences especially when it affects the most vulnerable of the sex workers. The answer lies in the legal aspect. That is where politicians can actually help society. Not by moralising, not by attempting to pass laws criminalising adult behaviour, but by legislating to ensure workers can work in safety.

Can I just finish my email to you with the following? A report released in 2004 by the Association of Chief Police Officers notes that ‘Police Forces in England and Wales are currently operating in a policy vacuum: the law regarding prostitution is clear, but the application of the law – in order to best serve the public and protect the vulnerable – is not.” (Brain in Matthews 2008: 126) The law surrounding prostitution is fair to no one, whether it is the police or the women involved. But the question must be asked - is prostitution actually a crime? Who in society says yes? Politicians? They will say yes when it is deemed to be a public menace and laws will be drafted. But policy vacuums emerge due to inadequate legislation. When society demands action against prostitution, it is generally because they’ve read that trafficking or drugs or pimping is out of control. “People are not disturbed by things, they are disturbed by the view they take of them” (Epictetus) and this is proven in the fact that “policing prostitution has generally been seen as a low priority in police work and the police response has largely been a function of community and political pressure.” (Matthews 2008: 125) Very few people in reality experience problems with prostitution. Their problems arise from what they read is ‘happening’. Operating in a policy vacuum is not fair on the police. In a study conducted in Ireland in 1996, only one Garda (police officer) gave an interview for the research and while the views expressed do not represent those of the Garda force, it is very interesting to note that “in his view legalisation of prostitution would be the best option, from a control, security and health point of view.” (O’Connor; 1996: 17) Legalising it would stop any ambiguities arising, that is, on the one hand stressing that “the law must be enforced” (O’Connor; 1996: 17), while similarly “he agreed that relationships have to be built between the women and the Gardai: “if anything goes wrong they must feel they can come to us”, saying that women would certainly “not be charged if they reported an attack”” (O’Connor; 1996: 16) Removing the criminal label is a first step to “giving women the power and authority to report abuse and coercion and to believe that such reports will be taken seriously and acted upon.” (Matthews 2008: 124) Research has shown that “where a woman had been forced to have sex with a client the woman in question worked on the streets and would not tend to report the attack to the Gardai.” (O’Connor; 1996: 12) This is not right. The law should be there to protect everyone. Policy makers need to be encouraged “to introduce some more radical and far reaching reforms” (Matthews 2008: 138) and religious organisations who argue that prostitution is wrong and lobby governments to make it illegal should be ignored. Previously, courts that tended to be led by a moralistic view were “excessively punitive towards women who deviate from the norm by not conforming to acceptable standards of femininity, heterosexuality and monogamy.” (Heidensohn in Sanders, 2005: 95) It is hard to argue that “if forms of welfare intervention are developed which can reduce women’s motivation to engage in prostitution, address their personal social and economic needs, the need for criminal sanctions should be removed.” (Matthews 2008: 125) The multiplicity of legislation directed at prostitution has not succeeded in eradicating it. We have a simple choice. We either decide “whether we want to essentially increase the welfare response or extend the criminal justice response.” (Matthews 2008: 124)

When the Irish government first looked into prostitution, little changed. After a government paper was released entitled ‘Girls on the Street: The Need for a Welcome’, Jim Finucane, who in the late 1970’s was the researcher and secretary to Fine Gael’s spokesman for Justice Michael Keating TD, “was appalled to discover the full implications of prostitution in Dublin: ‘the slavery, the brutality and the way the system works against the girls on the street” (Levine et al., 1987: 35). “The findings of the paper recommended the establishment of ‘Welcome Centers’ and law reform. The center would be run by ex-prostitutes to provide a homely atmosphere for women who needed help. They would also try to develop any talents that would encourage an alternative way of life, offer professional help when required and provide protection and relaxation.” (Levine et al., 1987: 35) Mr. Keating raised this matter in the Dail but nothing ever came out of this work and the number of women involved in prostitution only increased. Today, we are again looking at prostitution but from your current perspective: criminalising the buyer.

Lastly, can I ask you to look at a hypothetical: Brothel keepers like Tom McDonnell earned millions from running their brothels in Dublin in the 1990’s – “McDonnell was earning around £1,000 a day from the brothels at Grattan Street and South William Street.” (Reynolds, 2003: 24) Yes he exploited the women working for him. But in a legitimate environment, a safe house, that is regulated by government and run by sex workers, for sex workers, why can they not avail of this demand when it is evidently there? Money earned goes back into the economy. Why can’t the government use this revenue potential?  Profits could be used to increase the police force to fight the real crime: trafficking. Money can be used to pay for health care and education centers for the sex workers. Good would come from it.

In regard to prostitution and trafficking, ensure trafficking is the focus of criminal law. They are linked, but they are not hand in glove like some NGOs portray it. No system is ever going to be perfect. You need to try and help the greatest number. Legalising prostitution could help lower the number of trafficked people. By regulating it, governments, councils and the police will know who is involved. Keep a register. New person comes in? Find out where from? If you regulate properly then problems as reported by The Economist, need not happen. The Economist noted that while the level of sex trafficking into the UK appears to have significantly increased over the last decade, the level of regulation of prostitution in general and brothels in particular has declined. (The Economist, 2 September 2004) Proper regulation and laws would negate this. While you keep the sex workers illegal and criminalise their buyers, the likelihood is that the only relationships sex workers will be able to maintain will be with those see them as an easy source of money. (Davis et al., 1994) That is what we should be tackling.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you read this with the open mind I did when researching my topic.

Yours sincerely,

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BBC News; (2011) Most Sex Workers ‘Not Trafficked’, says study. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15522279

Belle de Jour; (2005) The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl. Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Bryngemark, Jesper; (2005) Sex Workers Rights. http://www.sexworkeurope.org/

Davis, S & Shaffer, M; (1994) Prostitution in Canada: The Invisible Menace or the Menace of Invisibility?  http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/sdavis.html

Mai, Dr. Nick; (2011) In Whose Name? Migration and Trafficking in the UK Sex Industry: Delivering Social Interventions Between Myths and Reality. London Metropolitan University

Matthews, Roger; (2008) Prostitution, Politics and Policy. Routledge-Cavandish

McKeganey, Neil & Barnard, Marina; (1996) Sex Work on the Streets: Prostitutes and Their Clients. Open University Press

Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services; (2009) UNGASS Country Progress Report, Norway. Online @ http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/2010progressreportssubmittedbycountries/norway_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf

O’Connor, Ann Marie; (1996) Women Working in Prostitution: Towards a Healthier Future. University College Dublin

Reynolds, Paul; (2003) Sex in the City – The Prostitution Racket in Ireland. Pan Macmillan Ltd.

Sanders, Teela; (2005) Sex Work: A Risky Business. Willan Publishing

http://sexwork.ie/2012/12/12/letter-from-a-sex-worker/

The Economist; (2004) ‘It’s a Foreigners Game’, Volume 372, Issue 8391, September 4^th

The Economist; (2008) Policing Prostitution, The Oldest Conundrum. Available online @ www.economist.com/node/12516582 October 30th

The Metro; (2011) Prostitutes Believe Selling Sex ‘Beats Doing a Menial Job’ – Study. www.metro.co.uk/news880224-prostitutes-believe-selling-sex-beats-doing-a-menial-job-study

My open letter

As promised in my previous blog post, this is the letter that I have sent to the following Members of the European Parliament from Ireland:

Emer Costello, Gay Mitchell, Paul Murphy, Liam Aylward, Nessa Childers, Mairead McGuinness, Brian Crowley, Seán Kelly, Phil Prendergast, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Marian Harkin, Jim Higgins - their profiles can be found here

Dear MEP,

I write to you today as a very concerned citizen of the European Union. You probably have heard of a lady called Catherine Ashton – she’s the European Union’s Foreign Affairs minister. A few weeks back she issued a joint statement with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, on the “importance of respecting all prophets”. The joint statement came about due to the violent reactions caused by the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. I, like many others, worry greatly that the statement included only a passing reference to freedom of expression and that its main focus was on the point that we should be expressing respect for all religions and all prophets. I wish to briefly highlight some very worrying points which I hope as a Member of the European Parliament you can bring to Ms. Ashton’s attention and help persuade her to think otherwise for the sake of the freedom of expression, speech and thought for Europe’s citizens.

My first concern is regarding one of the organisations she issued the joint statement with – the OIC. This is an organisation that has, along with others, been attempting to introduce an amendment to the UN charter that would make defamation of religion a crime. If they succeed (which thankfully at this moment in time they have not) they would be criminalising my right as a European Citizen to question anything to do with religion. Why does Ms. Ashton wish to associate Europe with this organisation? Now please, do not misunderstand me – I am all for respecting the beliefs of people that are religious; but why then are my beliefs as an atheist being targeted? Why are my rights to question the messages, rules and contradictions in the teachings of ‘prophets’ being eroded? The old saying ‘history repeats itself’ is never more accurate than it is now and I will use the example of the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages to highlight the importance of freedom of thought when it comes to religion.

I ask you, where would women be if no one was ever allowed question the religion taught by the Roman Catholic Church? Take the views of one of the Church’s most revered saints:

"The woman is subject to man on account of the weakness of her nature . . . Man is the beginning of woman and her end, just as God is the beginning and end of every creature. Children ought to love their Father more than they love their mother." – Thomas Aquinas

Do we still respect this view? I should hope no one does.

Would we still have to respect this view if we were not allowed question, challenge and criticise the Catholic religion? I imagine the answer to be “yes”.

Another of the Church’s fanstastic modern views relates to homosexuality.

They are of the view that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. The church believes these acts close the sexual act to the gift of life; that they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Do we as citizens of the European Union respect this stance of the Catholic religion?

Again I should hope not. But if Ms. Ashton’s statement is allowed to stand, our ability to question archaic beliefs like the two examples I’ve given becomes all the more difficult. Where would we be as a society if we were never allowed question the Church’s belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun orbited around us?

Where would we be as a race of people if we never questioned anything that the Roman Catholic Church deemed to be blasphemous? 

It is only by questioning the religious that we the people help to make it freer. By challenging Saudi Arabia this summer, the Olympic Council persuaded them to allow women to participate in the games. If Europe aligns itself with an organisation such as the OIC it is entering dangerous territory. Should they ever get their defamation of religion law passed, it means we lose our right to question their interpretation of their prophets’ teachings. Look at Malala Yousafzai, this week shot by extremists because she wishes to be educated. We lose the right to question the extremist’s motives if we respect their interpretation of their prophets’ teachings. They are after all merely carrying out their interpretation of Islam and punishing those who counter the teachings of their prophet.

My second concern is that by issuing statements with the aforementioned organisations, Europe gives increasing credence to some of these Islamic states and their use of the blasphemy laws currently on their statute books. Here are five examples that Atheist Ireland’s Michael Nugent gave when writing on his blog:

·      In Indonesia, Alexander Aan, a 31-year-old atheist civil servant, has been jailed for two and a half years for sharing material on Facebook about the Prophet Mohammad and writing that god does not exist.

·      In Pakistan, Asia Noreen Bibi, a 41-year-old Christian mother, has spent three years in prison and faces execution by hanging after a farcical blasphemy conviction. And last year two Pakistani politicians who questioned her sentence were murdered.

·      Also in Pakistan, Rimsha Masih, a 14-year-old Christian girl, was recently arrested for allegedly burning pages from the Quran. An islamic cleric was later arrested for planting the Quran pages as evidence.

·      In Saudi Arabia, Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Muslim poet, has been jailed for blasphemy for publishing tweets saying that he would shake Muhammad’s hand as an equal if he met him.

·      And in Iran, Youcef Nadarkhani, a 35-year-old Christian Pastor, has just recently been released after spending nearly three years in prison facing execution on charges of apostasy and evangelising Muslims.

The European Union’s focus should be on getting these people released from prison and forcing these countries to repeal their ridiculous blasphemy laws. I say again that by aligning ourselves with oppressive organisations, it makes it very difficult to speak out against their crimes when Europe is a partner in their statements on what they interpret to be crimes against their beliefs.

Lastly, I ask where is Catherine Ashton’s voice, or indeed any high-ranking EU politician’s voice, condemning the following hate speech coming from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church? Again I quote from Michael Nugent’s blog because he puts it far more succinctly than I could hope to: 

 

“Pope Benedict recently said that to truly live up to our being we must recognise that we are dependent on God. And Pope John Paul II said that a culture which rejects God cannot be considered fully human; that spiritual values are ultimately what make us fully human; and that Jesus came to teach us what it means to be fully human.

This dangerous arrogance is spread by Cardinals and Bishops and theologians. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has said that atheists are not fully human because we leave out the search for transcendent meaning that he calls God. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo has said that we will be fully human when we see the shining face of God. Cardinal Paul Poupard has said that there does not exist a fully human culture that is not open to the dimension of faith;. Bishop Patrick O’Donogue has said that the fundamental needs of the human person can only be truly fulfilled through encounter with the deepest truths about God and the human person.

More disturbingly, this dangerous arrogance is embedded in the principles of Catholic education of children. The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario says its Fully Alive program was created to help Catholic parents teach their children to be fully human. An Archdiocesan Board of Education in Iowa says that a Catholic school’s program must concern itself with the whole child in development that is fully human and thoroughly Catholic. Roncalli Catholic High School in Nebraska says its students become more fully human by becoming more deeply aware of God, self and others. Pope John Paul II Catholic School in Chicago says that it fulfills a person’s right to be fully human. Holy Cross Catholic College in Bury says a Catholic College strives to be fully human. These are only some examples.”

This is a far more serious matter than people wish to acknowledge. In Europe’s recent history, can you remember back to the teachings of a particular political party telling its citizens that a certain part of society were less than human? What were the consequences of those teachings? What was Europe built for if not to counteract intolerance and bullcrap like that?

Words have massive influence on people’s thoughts and it is for this reason that I await Catherine Ashton’s joint declaration with leading secularists, atheists social and religious leaders on the need to respect all people from the threat of religious institutional and interpretive man made intolerance. All people are important and should be respected.

I thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

(Me)

I should point out that when I emailed an MEP of whom I am not a constituent, I added the following:

'I write to you today, not as a constituent, but as a......'

And I signed off with my name! Not (me)!

Please feel free to use this letter as a template if you wish to email the MEP's. The more that do, the more they realise this is how we the people feel.

Reform the Personal Banks

Hello again! Been a small while since my last post but thesis writing has been taking up most of my time lately. I’ll have a blog soon about some of that but today I want to write about what I feel needs to be done about our banking system. 

My blog is based on something I read a few weeks back. Mr Irvin hits the nail on the head quite well with his points and I just wish to touch on a few important points, points that I personally want to throw out there for your interpretation. When I look at the banking industry today I see nothing, absolutely nothing but greed. I see no one but the average person getting hurt by the irresponsibility of our current financial system. The last great act that we had to protect us was the Glass-Steagall Act. I say us collectively because as the biggest unregulated financial sector, the US has the ability to destroy what we have. I think it’s time we nationalise our personal banking system so that what people invest and save can not be touched or mercilessly gambled away like in 2008. I look at the bonuses that the financial sector ‘rewards’ itself with for its ‘hard’ work and I ask myself, if the average person was actually provided with a savings account that was rewarding for them, how much fairer and equitable would society be? Consider the pipe dream of a bank director getting a bonus of €10,000 instead of a few hundred thousand euro, or even the millions that some get, and the rest of the money being given to the loyal customers whose money the banks make fortunes from. You know, a decent savings account rate that rewards your average person for making the effort to save. I’d have a separate investment banking side that businesses could invest in and they could take risks with their money. You know, a business (the bank), taking both calculated and insane risks with another businesses money. And I wouldn’t allow a personal bank have an affiliation with a corporate bank. We’ve seen how easy it is for them to suck money from one to the other to cover losses. I’d certainly give business banks the ability to borrow capped amounts from personal banks. Nothing so great that they could bankrupt a personal bank; However it would be enough so that if they needed a short-term loan, it would be an available avenue for them. I’d also make sure that these loans were fairly high interest due to the risky nature of the loan. The interest the personal banks earn helps reduce personal interest rates on loans for customers and/or adds to the kitty for improved savings and investment rates for their personal customers. I’m fed up with hearing about how the financial sector needs less and less regulations, that they need tax breaks, that a Robin Hood tax would put too great a burden on the financial sector in ‘difficult’ times for them.

Rubbish.

Maybe not in Ireland, but worldwide the biggest banks are still doing ok. Their directors are still taking home insane salaries. They’re still paying out stupid bonuses. Meanwhile the people are unemployed, starving and their governments have somehow been hoodwinked into bailing out the financial institutions. Two countries stood tall and told the banks and world institutions where to stick their recapitalisation plans – Iceland and Denmark and they’re doing ok. We need to bring services back to the people and make them for the people. Not for corporate profit. Corporations profit massively from short-term bets and the CEO’s take so much money from the companies that when things go arse up, there’s no money left to help the companies they run.

« To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them. »
Montesquieu

I think banks should be run a bit more like Credit Unions. They should be there to serve communities and the people in them. Loans should be available and interest rates should be dependent on the nature of the loan. Children’s Education? Minimal interest rate. Necessary home improvements? Low interest rates. A second or third car? Medium rates as it might not be necessary. Shopping trips? High interest rates for discretionary, unnecessary spending. These are only examples of course but I’m just throwing ideas out there! There has to be a better way to run our banks and make them work for us. Institutions may complain that without massive salaries then they can’t entice the ‘best’ to manage them. Em…. The best did a right old job on the world economy in the last 5 years. How about moderate salaries starting at €60,000 rising to €100,000 after 5 years of proven ability? You want more money? Ok then. Go elsewhere. Oh look – a hungry, employee who has worked under you for the last number of years and is perfectly qualified to take over your position. A position needs to be filled? Oh look – a qualified graduate who would be delighted to have a job in which career prospects are good and it’s a solid job. Want the excitement of the private boom and bust banks? By all means – go work for them. In no way is this aiming to restrict people and their job choices. I think a higher management turnover provides more job opportunities to our graduates. It means fresh ideas are constantly being brought from our Institutes of technology, our Business Schools and our Universities. People no longer get lifetime positions on gigantic salaries and pensions. Job security is not affected as if you prove yourself capable of doing the job – then it’s yours. Just like it is now. But you work for the honest growth of an institution; Not for gigantic profits at year-end and therefore a gigantic bonus for you. Even the Financial Times has opinions bubbling to the surface for a redistribution of bank wealth to make the banks more competitive. (You'll need to register free with the FT to read the citation)

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending” – Maria Robertson

 Change needs to come soon