Go Small Part 2 - A supranational cooperative?

Since my last ramble about going small, there have been quite a few regions beginning to demand independence from the larger state entities! Did they secretly read my blog?! Viewing statistics would suggest ‘NO’ but I have a sneaky suspicion the answer is definitely …..no!

My last argument centered around the need to downsize in the hope that smaller entities would prove more difficult for corporations to buy, that there would be more interest in the politics of your area. This blog post touches on the interesting rumblings emanating from areas like Venice and the Basque Region. I know there are also happenings in Catalonia, Scotland and Wallonia, but for the purpose of this blog I’ll attempt to be concise with my argument. I’ll try to argue for the notion of Venetian independence using the concept of the Basque Region cooperative.

One of my previous points arose from my questioning of central government. I basically asked if we downsized, would that be beneficial to somewhere like Cork? Cork it was announced a while back, has seemingly struck oil; well a corporation has and thanks to deals made in the 1980’s the people will see absolutely no benefit from this. The Dublin government gets nothing except the corporation rate of tax on the profits. Yipee. With the recent abolition of and merging of lots of town councils, the Irish government is going to be even more centralised. There are parts I agree with in this – for example the planning process for developments was so corrupt it had to be taken away from the local councils. But a lot of the councils are now seemingly going to be money collection agencies for the government in relation to the forthcoming property tax. The central government gets to wipe its hands of this dirty business. How convenient. But I digress. My main argument here is that the national resources being utilised by the government are our police force and they’re being used against the people. The corporations by having centralised laws can use those laws to their benefit over both small and large landmasses. What government in one area feels is necessary may not what the locality wants.

Lets look to Europe and assess some examples both of regions who are actively seeking independence from the Nation State or who have unique regional identity and whose independence movements are not yet as pronounced as others. I’ll propose logical reasons as to why I feel going small could work.

The nation state as we know is only something of a recent political concoction. The Peace of Westphalia brought together lots of regions within a defined state border mainly for protection. Europe had just gone through two wars, both ending in 1648 with this Peace. Regions within Europe had been decimated by the Thirty Years War so these small regions sought sanctuary within the borders of a more powerful entity. This entity is what we call the Nation State. I believe that the nation state today has become too powerful, too corrupt and controlled by a minority that dictate to the majority what system we should use to live our lives and what economic situation we have to live in. The variance between states is too great and this variance is what causes people to risk their lives to escape one nation state for another. I do believe however, in an organisation like the EU. Yes it has its faults, but I think a supranational entity like that, run for the benefit of all the EU’s citizens is a way forward. The EU already has a regions policy. It promotes the cultural differences, the positives and the peoples of Europe’s regions. It has a webpage showing just some of the ongoing projects within the different regions and how they are benefiting from being within the EU. I think the world is too small today and wants to move too quickly to merit a move to nothing but totally independent regions. But much like the way the state system we have has ceded certain powers to the EU, for example in terms of trade negotiations, I believe regions could do the same. The EU could become a kind of giant cooperative movement. They have the basic formation of one in place already. Indeed “for one week every year European regions are in the spotlight. It’s called Open Days, lasts a week, and is dedicated to all issues regional and local. From every corner of the continent, thousands of local leaders and administrators come to Brussels to talk directly to EU officials and lawmakers. It is a time of networking, exchanging ideas and passing on information. It is also about celebrating the best of what Europe can produce. An array of local products – foods, wines [and] regional specialities.”  Could this be a way forward with our politics? The answer in my opinion is ‘yes’ and I look to the example of a current cooperative.

We have extremely sad stories coming from the nation state of Spain and most of us have heard about the economic difficulties Spain is facing, Well, despite these extreme difficulties there are success stories and they emerge from communities working together. While Mondragon is a corporation, it is one of the responsible and ethical ones. For “despite its international presence, Mondragon's co-operative structure has kept most of its jobs and production in Spain. It has 35,000 employees in the Spanish Basque Country, 35,000 elsewhere in Spain and about 13,500 abroad.” (France 24 article) I believe cooperatives are the way forward, both socially and financially. They bring communities together and ensure that the power base remains within the cooperative. There are no gigantic wages for someone sitting at the top while the people at the bottom work their balls off for a pittance. Profits are shared and communities worldwide benefit. Even when tough decisions have to be made, look at their methods:

“Most of its workers are partners in the firm, voting to elect the bosses and determine sensitive decisions. In May, for example, workers of its flagship electronics brand Fagor agreed between them to cut their salaries by 7.5 percent and to move workers to different locations.” People do realise that tough decisions need to be made to save business and protect industry. We often hear from governments that people ‘don’t realise that cuts are necessary’ etc. The big one for me at the moment is the bank debt. I wrote about bank reform previously and my belief that personal banks should be run more like Credit Unions (well maybe not Irish credit unions) but a banking cooperative that ensures responsible lending and not only promotes but rewards saving. Local money is used to run them, which again benefits the communities. I spoke last time about calculating interest rates based on the actual need of the loan. The aim of this is to go about reducing exposure to bad debts as people may well be put off unnecessary spending and bad spending practice if the interest for their proposed spending is too high. Easy credit leads to boom and bust cycles. Reducing the size of the banks brings them back to serve the localities they exist within.

Another regional example I’ll touch on is Venice. Venice was a Republic for around one thousand years before the Napoleonic Wars caused its cessation. What was a cause of its end? A powerful Nation State. Now you have the people arguing about things that are important: economics. Venetians argue about the tax they pay Rome and how they have a 20 billion deficit between that which they pay and that which they receive. It’s an understandable complaint when times are tough. What I am attempting to show here is that a lot of our security concerns now are economic. I would argue that Europe is safe from marauding hordes like the Mongols, that future independent regions like Venice are safe from empires such as the Hapsburg Empire that engulfed it as ‘territory’ after Napoleon’s France was defeated. I would argue it’s a safe time to return to regional entities.

I believe that using a supranational organisation like the EU could be the answer to future regional security. Now I realise that while I’m pointing out my belief in downsizing, I’m also arguing for a supranational body like the EU to operate as a gigantic cooperative! My argument for that is rational. I would still have bodies like the European Parliament, who do far more good than they are given credit for, to ensure there is no democratic deficit within this organisation. But firstly, by introducing a more cooperative corporation whereby people see the benefit of voting for bosses, for pay increases and decreases, for benefits – that may encourage people to vote in larger numbers for their representatives in the supranational cooperative that would be my vision of the EU. I believe that the policies of the EU could be carried forward with ease. Freedom of travel, freedom to work where one wishes. I believe these traits are transferrable to any future European Union. I think removing the hormonal Nation State from politics removes one of the scourges of humanity: nationalism. Downsizing society and its organs would not lead to a lessoning of ‘internationalism’. By having the EU promote your local goods globally, the people and their cooperatives can celebrate locally what they both can achieve and helping others would make everyone proud of their and others localities. Seeing your locality thrive on the international arena thanks in no small part to decisions you helped shape and voted for - that surely is a good thing.

The EU is not founded on principles like this. I think the nation state has served its purpose and a cooperative based European Union is what will bring people, communities and their cooperatives forward, together. For the better.

*quick update*
I also believe this can work on a worldwide scale - this is another example of a cooperative movement helping its community

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.

Blamphemer!

Brian: No, no. Please, please please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
The Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Man in crowd: Shhh!
Brian: You've all got to work it out for yourselves.
The Crowd: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
Brian: Exactly!
The Crowd: Tell us more!
Brian: No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do!

 - Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' (quotes sourced from IMDB)

There has been a lot of who-ha around lately surrounding the issue of religious beliefs, blasphemy and freedom of speech. I’d like to add my own personal thoughts to this very matter. The first part of this blog will be my own ramblings, using a variety of sources to back up or support or highlight my points. You know – a normal blog! I’ll ramble and roam and hopefully hit on a few valid points!

The second part of this blog coming in the next day or two will include a more structured and possibly civilised open letter/email to all of Ireland’s MEP’s regarding the recent declaration by Catherine Ashton. My letter will be inspired by this blog post.

Let us begin exactly with what she said and with whom she said it. That will lead into my main argument.

The aforementioned Catherine Ashton is the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs. A few weeks back she issued a joint statement with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, on the “importance of respecting all prophets”.  This is the same OIC that has for years been seeking to adopt a legally binding prohibition against blasphemy most recently in the UN. As Michael Nugent pointed out, “Respecting all prophets would mean respecting not only the prophets of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but also respecting David Koresh at Waco, and David Icke who believes that George Bush is a space lizard. This is clearly absurd. We can respect your right to believe, while not respecting the content of your beliefs. You have rights. Your beliefs do not. That is the essence of freedom of conscience.”

What I find most astonishing is these prophets and gods that our politicians aim to protect, need us mortals to fight their battles for them here on earth. If they actually existed and heard our ‘blasphemies’ and were truly so concerned about our cruel, hurtful words – why not do the old god thing and smite some poor suckers? You know? Show yourself to be angry, then speak from a cloud and apologise for the smiting saying, it was an incident that shouldn’t have happened…. and won’t happen again….. words to the effect of something like… oh I don’t know…… this:

 

'My smitings have brought deep shame. But shame is not enough. The smiting of said suckers is a grievous sin against god…. I mean me. Therefore we focus not on shame but on my sorrow for your sins. This terrible crime, and the inadequate response by some Church leaders, to my smitings grieve us all. Afterall…. You started it with your name calling.’

Hmmmm, no that won’t work. That’s too much of a ‘pass the buck’ attitude. We need more zazz.

How about:

"The suffering and trauma endured by some suckers who have been smited while refusing to respect my authoritah, and the effect on their family members, is a matter of continuing shame and dismay to all gods. Let us be very clear. The smiting of the suckers was, is and always will be a crime, and is contrary to all I believe in. But seriously. Just believe in the prophets, don’t question and I won’t need to do this again.”

Yes……that’s more from the heart. We’ll stick with that one for the time being. But rest assured oh prophet Space Lizard Bush – I know of an institution whose recent existence has been all about learning different ways to apologise for the same thing. If you need to call them their number is 1-800-GENERICOLGY – they’re also online at www.genericclericapology.abuse or www.institutionalcriminals.vatican In fact – your two apologetic examples above are paraphrasing some of their members worldwide apologies! They know how to apologise to so many different cultures and nationalities in the same meaningless fashion – if they can’t help you no one can.

So while EU citizens of all beliefs are being told to respect all prophets by the EU’s highest foreign policy prophet, here in what I like to call ‘reality’ or ‘everyday life’ we the people have an Institution full of prophets that blasphemes against my belief system: humanity. And it has done it since the first days of its formation. It has blasphemed against women, gay people, scientists, Muslim’s, Protestants, children…. everyone that isn’t deemed ‘Christian’. That institution is the Catholic Church. I have questions regarding their blasphemy aimed at our politicians.

When are we going to have a senior politician stand up and call out this criminal institution for the wrongs it has actually committed and worse still – covered up. The very Pope that ‘apologises’ for the abuse of children, is the same man that wrote the laws that damned the victims.

When will we have a senior politician who will stand up and tell this institution that their views on gay marriage are not even worthy of being associated with the stone age? Their views are so, so wrong. Plain and simple.

When will we have a senior politician come out and chastise the religious for having those whose interpretation of what their religion, religious book and prophet teaches, leads to crimes against humanity like this? 

What big men they’ve proved themselves to be shooting a 14 year old girl . I am not implying that all take their beliefs as literally as the above – but that is where the danger of Catherine Ashton’s statement becomes very apparent: the interpretation of ‘prophets’ and whose prophet says what to them. Some have a prophet or god who teaches them crap like this and some feel they have the right to say this. In fact, there are the beginnings of a few cracks starting to appear in one religious institution. One hopes more feel duty bound to speak out like Fr Hans Küng.

Lastly, I ask where are the voices in our political elite when the aforementioned authoritarian, criminal institution, the Roman Catholic Church, deems me and other people to be less than human? Where is Catherine Ashton’s voice condemning the following hate speech of one Benedict XVI? This Pope believes that gays and lesbians are, ‘less-than’. They are "incomplete".

I quote the following passage from a blog post by Michael Nugent because I believe what he says is so true and overall it is such a serious matter.

“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 humanities recent history, can you remember back to the teachings of a particular political party telling its people that a certain part of society were less than human? What were the consequences of those teachings?

Words have massive influence on people’s thoughts and it is for this reason that I await Catherine Ashton’s joint declaration with secularists and atheists on the need to respect all people from the threat of religious institutional and interpretive man made intolerance. Blaming ones personal beliefs on a figment of ones imagination is just a handy excuse for people that make known their prejudices. All people are important and should be respected no matter what their beliefs, but beliefs should not cost others their freedom. We the people exist. The proof? We pay the politicians salaries.