OUR Lives - OUR Deaths

Alf Thomson, 20 August 1926 ~ 28 March 2009

We are not the property of church or state.

I am writing this on 28 March 2019, the 10^th anniversary of my father’s death.  An experience which had a profound effect upon me and which is burned into my memory for the rest of my life.

My dad had both cancer of the bladder and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.  The steady deteriation in his health over six years, and his death were anything but dignified, and whilst he never said that he wanted to end it all, he had previously in his life said he would never want to linger, and had he known what lay ahead, I am certain it is not a death he would ever have wanted to face.  Dad was never a very athletic man in his later years, but he was blessed with a hugely inventive intelligence.  To this day I am finding things he built, which show a marked genius and which few, myself included, would ever have thought of.  At the end, he was less helpless than a newborn baby.

My sister and I were called to get to the hospital as quickly as possible on 28 March 2009, as our father was sinking, and was not expected to see the day out.  When I arrived, my sister was already there.  Dad was apparently unconscious, his breathing laboured, as the fluid from his own lungs was slowly drowning him.  I took his hand, and although we were told he didn’t know we were there, his fingers feebly tried to tighten on my hand.  For what seemed like an age, we stood by his bedside.  I shall never get the sound out of my head for long as I live.  A gurgling, bubbling sound, for all the world like a child blowing into a bowl of soapy bubbles.  There was a pained look on his face, and he was obviously struggling for breath.  He was given an injection to ease his breathing, which made things a little easier for him.  His breathing shallowed, and his death rattle was more like a sigh.  He was gone.

Amidst my grief, the overwhelming emotion that filled me was relief.  It was over, and nothing and nobody could ever hurt my dad again.  One of the first things I said to my sister was “Whatever happens to me, I will never die like that.”  To this day I stand by those words.  If I am ever in a situation where there is no hope, and things will only get worse, I shall take matters into my own hands before I lose my dignity and independence, even if I have to do it myself.

What does the law say when it says that we cannot choose to end our lives if we feel that it is the only option?  It is effectively saying that our lives are not our own.  That somehow our bodies, our minds, our very existence – our souls if you choose – are not ours; they are the property of the state.  The state is telling us that they own us, and they are doing based on archaic ideas and laws, many of which are religious-based, which have no relevance in an increasingly secular state, where most count themselves as “not religious” at the least, which do not reflect modern medical science, and which are unfit for purpose in the 21^st century.

UK laws surrounding killing are solidly based in Biblical theology, and the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” in particular.  But what does the Sixth Commandment say?  It is effectively saying “You will not commit murder.” or literally translated, “You shall not kill unlawfully.”  That’s fair enough, but where does the distinction between ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ killing fall?  For the record, as a pacifist, I make no such distinction between murder and war.  As far as I am concerned war, whilst sometimes unavoidable, is never just and is merely murder on a mass scale, which society paints as heroic to justify it.   And contrary to what many think, suicide by one’s own hands is no longer an offence in the UK.  It has not been illegal in England and Wales since 3 August 1961, when the Suicide Act 1961 ruled “The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.”  And in Scotland?  Well, actually in Scots Law it has never been an offence to commit suicide.

There may be some who will quote the Hippocratic Oath, stating “First do no harm.”  Well, bad news for them.  “First do no harm.” does not appear in the Hippocratic Oath, but rather comes from another work by Hippocrates, Of the Epidemics.  Certainly, the Hippocratic Oath does state “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”  This is the key paragraph that is the oath equivalent of “First do no harm.” and would seem to rule out any support for assisted dying (AD).  However, one has to consider what is and is not “deleterious” and what is indeed “for the benefit” of patients.  Besides all which, the Hippocratic Oath in its purest form is an anachronism that is simply unworkable in modern medicine.  One line states, “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”.  Well, there goes most drugs out of the window immediately.  The Oath forbids abortion, yet it is practiced.  And another clincher is the line “I will not use the knife”, which if the Oath were treated as sacrosanct as some claim it is, there would be no surgeons, and not one operation would ever be carried out.  Indeed, if the Hippocratic Oath were taken to it’s logical conclusion, then your doctor could not as much as lance a boil on your bum.

I am not suggesting that anyone in the medical profession should never seek to do no harm.  People go into medicine because they care about others, none would ever seek to purposely harm another, and for that and the work they do, they have my enormous and undying respect.  However, to do no harm, ever, in medicine is simply not possible.  Some treatments are in fact very harmful in their nature, despite the end result being beneficial to the patient.  Chemotherapy, which destroys healthy cells as well as cancerous ones, is a prime example of such.

Therefore we see that however well intentioned, the Hippocratic Oath is simply unworkable and anachronistic in the modern age.  As every bit as so as the Bronze Age books written by men (and I do mean men – people with penises) who were trying to make sense of the world around them, and who had zero in the way of scientific knowledge.

The entire issue comes down to the question of the quality of life, and that is different for every individual.  There is only one person who is the expert upon the quality of any given life, and that is the individual concerned, nobody else.

When there is no hope left, when the individual only faces further pain and torment, when they are going to lose all dignity, then there is no more quality of life, and it thereby ceases to be “sacred”.  Under such circumstances it should be the right of the individual to make the decision when to end that life, and there should be provision within healthcare to assist in those wishes.

When the question of terminal diseases and assisted dying comes up, many say that we would not allow an animal to suffer in such a way, and ask so why should we allow it in a human being.  This is a fundamental truth, but I do not think many realise the full enormity of that observation.  When an animal is suffering and in pain, it does not understand what is happening or why.  It is confused and knows only the pain of that moment, and wants it to stop.  Human beings however are sapient creatures.  When we are diagnosed with an illness or condition, we are informed of the facts of such, given a prognosis, and as it progresses, we have the foresight to know what is yet to come, and if it is terminal, that it can only get worse, with more pain.  To subject any human being already suffering to that form of terror is cruelty of the highest order, and to refuse them the option to avoid that is the most abject hypocrisy.

And the mind is an important point here.  When people speak of assisted dying, they immediately think of terminal diseases of the body.  Yet there may be an argument that mental torment may be grounds for assisted dying, and indeed, there is a precedent for this.  Nathan Verhelst was a Belgian transgender man who was assigned female at birth, but who identified as male from an early age.  Due to familial and societal pressures, Nathan never came out until he was in his 30s, and after living as a man for a number of years, finally underwent gender reassignment surgery in his 40s.  However, the surgery went terribly wrong.  First his double mastectomy was horribly botched, leaving him with terrible scars, and then his body rejected his newly formed penis, which had to be removed.  The doctors informed him that nothing more could be done, so faced with living the remainder of his life, which could be up to 40 years, as neither biologically male nor female, Nathan instead decided that death held less horrors, and opted for assisted dying.  He passed away by lethal injection on 1 October 2013. aged 44.

The case of Nathan Verhelst is tragic, and unbelievably sad.  Some have said that he should have been given more psychiatric therapy.  He was already in therapy, and just how could any therapist empathise with Nathan’s circumstances?   Are there any therapists, anywhere in the world, similarly “neutered”?  Who are faced with a life of being neither male nor female?  The facts are that the grounds for Nathan Verhelst’s euthanasia were that he was suffering “unbearable psychological suffering” and it was under those grounds that the Belgian courts allowed his assisted dying.  And the important point here is that in the end it was Nathan’s decision.  His body, his life; he chose to retain his dignity and do with that body and life as he saw fit.

The entire question of where the mind comes into assisted dying must therefore be taken into account.  It beggars belief that in this day and age we still seem to consider mental conditions to somehow be considered to be of lesser importance to physical ailments.  I once heard a psychologist being interviewed who summed it up; that the brain is an organ, every bit as important as any other organ in the body.  Therefore, when the mind is injured or impaired, then that effectively is a physical injury.  I would actually go further, and suggests that as our minds are what make us, then any impairment or injury to the mind is more important than a physical injury.  After all, most of us could live with losing a limb, but it is the mind alone that would make us realise that limb was missing.  Likewise, the very question about AD is one of dignity, yet dignity is purely a mental construct, and one which is unique to every individual’s perception of such.  Therefore psychological issues must be given as much credence for grounds for assisted dying as physical ones.

There are many who object to assisted dying on various grounds.  There are those of religious persuasions who will be quick to cry out that “All life is sacred”, and that it is a “gift from God”.  Well, sorry (not sorry) but as I have pointed out above, when quality of life is gone, that life ceases to be ‘sacred’.  And as to their god, an increasing number of people in the UK do not even believe in that god, by seeking to maintain the law, they are imposing their beliefs upon others, which happens to be against both the UN Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as completely against basic human dignity.  To put it bluntly, if you believe in a god, then as happy as you are in that, it is not your place to enforce those beliefs upon others who do not share nor have any interest in them, and what others do with their lives is none of your damned business.

There are some will claim, and the God squad are infamous for this, that dying can be dealt with by increased palliative care.  They could not be more wrong, and anyone who claims this has obviously never witnessed someone at the limits of palliative care.  I know it to be wrong, because I have witnessed it with my own eyes.  While my dad was given something to ease his breathing, which worked, no further medication could be given.  Besides which, prolonging palliative care only means prolonging the suffering of the patient.  So much for “First do no harm.”  And here comes the perverse part; when a patient has reached the limits of palliative care, doctors cannot and may not administer any more medication – in cases it kills the patient.

There are some who claim that assisted dying could lead to a “slippery slope”, whereby more and more people are euthanised for the slightest of reasons, or coerced into choosing AD.  The anti-AD proponents often point to the Netherlands, where it is legal for parents to opt for AD for children.  However, this does not take into account the facts that in those cases the children are in extreme suffering and can only be allowed to die if parents and medical professionals agree that is the best course of action.  The opponents of AD citing the Netherlands may as well campaign for no child to have a “DNR” notice on their file, or for parents to have the right to switch life support machines off.

Then there is the “killing granny” argument that many come up with, that the elderly may be coerced into opting for assisted dying, to prevent them becoming a ‘burden’ upon their family.  Throughout this article, I have continually emphasised that only the individual is the expert upon their life, and has any right what to do with it.  This is the line which most proponents of AD take; that it is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and must be taken only if one is of sound mind.  I would suggest that any elderly person who can be coerced into AD is definitely not “of sound mind”.  And actually, the only instance I have ever seen of anyone suggesting that the elderly and infirm should kill themselves was from Baroness Warnock.  Baroness Warnock is a Peer (member of the House of Lords in the UK parliament) from the Conservative Party; the very party which claims to be “Christian”, and stand steadfastly against AD.  In 2013, Warnock suggested that elderly and infirm people should consider AD, to prevent them becoming a burden upon their families and society – her ‘complaint’ being that they survived on government benefits.  Baroness Warnock was 90 years old at the time, and I sent her a Tweet suggesting that as her income comes from the taxpayer, perhaps she should lead by example.

If properly regulated, with extremely stiff penalties for abuse, there is no reason why a system of assisted dying could not work in the UK.  Would it be abused?  The evidence of such happening in countries that allow AD is flimsy at best, and non-existent in some countries.  But then, anything can be abused.  We allow people to drink alcohol and eat unhealthy foods, that doesn’t mean people are not going to kill themselves by them. 

On 21 March 2019 the Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-term opposition to assisted dying, with the president stating that the college “neither supports nor opposes a change in the law”.  It’s a small step, but it is an important one as it is the first step towards AD in the UK, which the majority of people polled support.

It particularly angers me that the late, great Margo MacDonald, a Member of the Scottish Parliament who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, twice put Bills on assisted dying before the devolved parliament, and both occasions the parliament threw her motions out, without even debating them.  Margo, one of the best-known, and best-loved stateswomen in Scottish politics, died without her proposals ever even being discussed.  Most polls have placed public support for AD in Scotland to be around 65% in favour, while one in particular returned 75% in favour.  That’s three quarters of the electorate.  In Scotland there is a 700-year-old principle that sovereignty rests solely with the people; not parliament, nor the crown.  This is one area where I am both disappointed in and angry at the Scottish National Party administration for failing the people and ignoring their sovereign rights.

Do not get me wrong.  Life is precious, I enjoy it enormously, always have done, and I have absolutely no wish to shuffle off this mortal coil just yet.  However, I have always been of the view that death holds no horrors.  I actually don’t think that most people are afraid of death, but more of the fashion in which they die.  As the years advance, I increasingly frightened of becoming feeble, helpless, of losing my independence – of losing whom I ‘am’.  That prospect absolutely terrifies me.  Therefore, I would make it clear right here and now that should the worst come to the worst, I and I alone should have the right over what becomes of my life and what to do with it, and should I choose to end it, then there should be the resources in place to do that, at the hands of medical professionals, who are best placed to end life peacefully and painlessly.

Am I angry?  You bet I’m angry.  I am angry, even 10 years later, at what the state did to a man I loved dearly.  How it made my dad suffer.  How it robbed him off all dignity.  How it assumed ownership of his very person and continued to harm him long after that suffering should have ended.  For that I cannot, and I shall not, ever forgive them.  Even if I were offered an apology, I still wouldn’t forgive them.  I simply can’t.

Our lives are just that; ours.  They are not the property of the state, far less of the Christian churches, or of any other religious belief for that matter.  As such, it should the right of every single individual ultimately what to do with their life.

To argue any otherwise is to deny our own personal independence - our very existence, who we are - itself.

Just WHO Are Atheists Blaspheming?

Offensive to God?  Or just to you?

Comedian Stephen Fry is under investigation by Irish Police for Blasphemy following a member of the public complaining about some comments he made on RTE television show The Meaning of Life in February 2015.

The show host, Gay Byrne, asked Fry what he might say to God at the gates of Heaven, to which he replied "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

Speaking of the Greek Gods (Stephen Fry is also a classical scholar), Fry added that they did not "present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent... ...the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported that a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis the same month the programme was broadcast, which he claimed breached the Irish Defamation Act. He has more recently been contacted by the Garda to say they are now investigating his complaint. It is claimed that the complainant says he was not personally offended by the comments, but felt that Stephen Fry's comments qualified as Blasphemy under the 2009 law.

The Defamation Act entered Irish statute books in 2009. It was introduced to extend existing blasphemy laws in Ireland to all faiths, as the Irish Constitution of 1937 only gave Christians and the Christian faith protection under law. Breach of the Defamation Act carries a 25,000 Euro (UK £22,000) fine.

Stephen Fry in 2015 pointed out that he had not singled out any one religion in his comments.

Scotland also has a Blasphemy Law still on the statute books of Scots Law, although it was last enforced in 1843, when Edinburgh bookseller Thomas Paterson was jailed for 15 months for selling "blasphemous literature".

So, under risk of prosecution, if the Bible were to be believed, let me tell readers exactly what I think of the God of Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition.

By the very admission of the Bible, this is a petty-minded, childish, cruel god, with all the loving kindness of a sadistic psychopath.

From the very beginning, our "loving father" placed the first humans in the Garden of Eden, and forbade them eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But hold on, if they did not know what good and evil were, then it therefore logically follows they had never been taught right from wrong. Therefore, when they did eat from the tree, they were wholly innocent in their actions, not knowing any better.

That's the same actions of the arsehole who puts paint thinner in a milk bottle and leaves it within reach of a toddler. Our 'loving father' is one helluva shitty parent it seems

It was inevitable that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree, for it is human nature to be curious. That's why in 2010: Odyssey Two, Arthur C Clarke had the aliens tell humanity "All these worlds are yours to explore except Europa. Attempt no landings there."; because they knew the temptation would be too great for mankind to resist.  It is also why you get kids climbing over walls and fences into 'forbidden' areas, and even why if you put up a "Wet Paint" sign, some daft bugger will inevitably always touch the paint to check.

So, with Adam and Eve innocently breaching God's rules, which he never explained fully why, what was God's reaction? Not only did he punish the first humans but he condemned all mankind to come for all time to be punished for all eternity, for a minor infraction by the first two who could not have known any better.

This is a god who in a fit of pique, wiped out every species of flora and fauna on the face of the planet, save for a few on a ruddy great boat, because mankind had become "wicked".

A god who commanded his "chosen people" to kill every man, woman and boy child, right down to babies, but that they could keep all the young unmarried virgin girls for themselves. Thereby sanctioning not only mass murder but also rape and sexual slavery.

A god who loved his chosen people so much that he deliberately hardened the heart of Pharaoh, ensuring he would not accede to the pleas of Moses to let his people go. A god who then proceeded to rain down hail, affecting everyone, poison the water, affecting everyone, spread disease and lice, affecting everyone, destroy the crops, affecting everyone, and kill the cattle, affecting everyone. A god who rounded off this particularly nasty set of parlour tricks by killing every first born son of every Egyptian, right down to the babies.

A god who laid down his book of rules, in which he freely admits to being jealous, and goes on to tell his people to kill adulterers, gay men and women - whom he allegedly created yet calls them an "abomination", and even unruly and cheeky children.

A god who was so angered by the sexual licentiousness of two cities that he destroyed them, leaving only one man and his two daughters surviving. Yet when the daughters got their father drunk and had sex with him (because obviously there was loads of wine lying around in a cave, and Lot somehow magically did not suffer from 'brewer's droop'), the same god who frowned so much on the sexual practises of Sodom and Gomorrah apparently had no problem with their incest.

A god who laid down rules for slaves, telling them to be loyal and faithful to their masters.

A god who punished some children who were cheeky to a bald man by having a bear tear them to shreds.

A god who is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, yet somehow had to impregnate a woman with himself, then have himself sacrificed and brought back to life, to 'save' mankind from the eternal punishment which only the same god alone could have created.

A god who told his followers to leave their families and follow him only.

If any human being told you that they watched your every move, they knew everything you do, everywhere you go, everyone you met and what you did with them, and that same person told you that you had better love them and them alone above all others, or they would punish you in the cruellest ways without mercy, you would be more than a little alarmed. You may seek an exclusion order against that person. You would more than likely contact the police, and if their investigation proved that the said person had indeed said all of the above, they would be charged, convicted, and imprisoned for your safety and that of the public in general.

Yet that is exactly what the Christian faith is based upon; that an all-seeing God is following you all the time, and if you don't accept him, love him above all others, and do his bidding, then you will be thrown into Hell and punished mercilessly for all eternity.

The 'love' of God is no love at all; it has all the love of the dangerously obsessed psychopathic stalker who needs locked up for their own good as well as that of society.

If the God of the Bible was proven to exist, then I would have no reason but to accept that, but there is no way I could ever bring myself to follow the evil fuck. And what would I say? I would tell him to his face all of the above and condemn him that if anyone truly deserved to be burning in Hell, it would be him.

If anyone is offended by all I have written above, as I said, Scotland has blasphemy laws, so go ahead, make my day – bring a complaint against me. I would relish my day in court, I would plead Not Guilty, and for my testimony I would use no other documents than the King James Bible. Referring to it, I would prove that not one word I say in any way blasphemes the Christian faith. Indeed, much of it actually is central to the faith and thereby upholds it.

I would call God as a witness, but I think he may unavailable to comment.

Moreover I would make the point as I do not believe in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, or any other gods for that matter, then I cannot possibly be guilty of blaspheming the Christian faith, or any other faith.

When Sir William Wallace was dragged before King Edward I of England for his show-trial in 1305, he admitted many charges. But when the charge of Treason was read out he defiantly cried out that he could not be guilty of Treason, as he had never sworn allegiance to King Edward. It did him no good, but it was a sound legal point. Similarly, neither the God of Abraham nor Jesus are my kings; I don't believe in the former and the jury is still out on the very existence of the latter. Therefore, I am no more guilty of blasphemy against the Judeo/Christian God than I am of blasphemy against the Elfin Queen, unicorns, Father Christmas, the Green Man, or the Loch Ness Monster.

And exactly the same can be said of Stephen Fry. Indeed, more so for Fry, as unlike me, he did not single out any particular religion.

Many would find a great deal of what I have said above offensive, but it is by no means blasphemous. If it is offending, then it is not my belief that it is offending God, because I don't believe he/she/it/they exist. So just who then is being offended? Only the believers, and herein lies the problem.

The brilliant You Tube atheist cartoonist who goes under the name DarkMatter2525 once posted an absolutely brilliant video, "The Real God; An Epiphany", in which he argued that when theists are offended by atheists, it is not because the atheist is rejecting God, but rather it is the believer who feels rejected. Likening belief to an attraction to another person, he pointed out that when someone approaches another, only to find their attraction is not reciprocated, that person has their feelings hurt, they feel rejected, and may lash out in anger as a result. DarkMatter2525 went on to claim that this is because that the 'relationship' that believers feel with their god is in fact a deep relationship with their own ego. The god they 'worship' will often share their own views on social, moral, and even political issues, and that is because the 'relationship with god' is in fact a deeply-set relationship with the subconscious self. In reality, the believer IS the very god they claim to worship.

And of course, among all this, there actually has been no rejection at all. If any one of us is approached by another who is attracted to us, but are not interested, we may let them down lightly, we may agree to be friends but not more than friends, but are we rejecting them? No, we are not. We may already be married or in a relationship, we may be of a different sexual persuasion, the time may not be right for us, or we may simply not be interested. There are hundreds of reasons why we do not enter into relationships with others, none of which can be defined as rejection. So it is if we do not believe in the existence of god(s), and/or we consider the writings of 'holy' books to be nothing more than mythology, we are not rejecting those beliefs. If you think that we are, then consider whether you likewise have rejected Maebh, Queen of Faerie.

Yet the believer will react angrily, often even violently, to the non-believer for this 'rejection'. History is replete with instances of atrocities carried out in the name of religion, where countless millions, possibly billions, have been killed for "blasphemy", "heresy" and "apostasy". Here in Edinburgh alone, we have the Witches Well; a memorial on the site where hundreds of innocents, mostly women and girls, were once burned at the stake for Witchcraft (over 500 alone during the reign of King James VI, who was paranoid about witches, and whose youngest victim was a little girl of 4 years old). The Holy Inquisitions killed thousands, all based on idle superstition and dogma which has since been proven to be wholly mistaken.

We have all seen or heard about the atrocities committed by Daesh, and there are Islamic countries where questioning or denying the Qur'an can earn sentences ranging from fines, to imprisonment, to lashes, or even to hanging or beheading. Saudi Arabia has recently passed laws which define atheism as terrorist activity.

But do not be too quick to point the finger at the dark ages ideas of fundamentalist Islamic states, Christians, because although you may claim that Christian atrocities are part of a sad and mistaken history, your faith does not have clean hands to this day. In Kenya it is not uncommon for fanatical Christian mobs to hunt down, attack, and even massacre people they suspect of witchcraft. In Uganda faith-based laws see gay men arrested, beaten up in cells, and even 'disappeared' in some cases. Nor can you put this down to the idle superstition of some uneducated African peoples. Chechnya is quite openly rounding up gay men and placing them in concentration camps, with full sanction of the Islamic authorities, and the Orthodox Church. And of course the homophobic views of Russian President Vladimir Putin are more than well known, and gay men in Russia are often arrested and/or beaten up, which the authorities either turn a blind eye to, or are actually involved in. This again again has the sanction of the Orthodox church.

Believers reacting to what they perceive as blasphemy, be it through law, by violence, or both, actually suggests a distinct shallowness of faith. For surely if you believe your god is omnipotent, that is all-powerful, then it is down to that god and that god alone to deal with the blasphemer. Or do you believe your god to be so weak and powerless that he needs his earthly minions to do his fighting for him?

This is actually a very important message for the Christian faith, which indeed tells believers not to be judge, unless they too should be judged. In Deuteronomy 32:35, God allegedly states "To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." This is repeated in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." In other words, by the very rules laid out in the Bible, it is not the place of Christians to seek revenge for imagined slights, but they are actually meant to leave it to God to deal with the 'sinner'.

Gandhi, although not a Christian, was a very devout man who believed there was truth in all faiths and who greatly admired the story of Jesus. He once stated "Violence implies atheism", again working on this idea that if you turn to violence, then you are denying the power of your god.

If any believers are offended by my writings, they therefore have to ask themselves just who have I offended? Have I really offended their god? No, because I don't believe their god exists, and if they did, then it is that god's place to deal with me, not the believers.

Have I offended the believer? No, I have severely questioned the Judeo/Christian faith, which I consider to be utter nonsense, and the Bible - already proven to be unreliable and inaccurate - to be little more than a bunch of Bronze Age goatherders campfire tales. Believers, whichever faith they follow, really need to get over the idea that their 'holy books' are somehow not open to scrutiny. If they do not, then they are little different from the Taliban. As Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist fundamentalist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination says "No idea is beyond questioning. No human being is beyond dignity."

Have I as much as suggested suppressing the right to freedom of religion? Not by the slightest iota. I am in fact extremely passionate about human rights, including the right of freedom of religion, thought and conscience. I may consider religion to be absolutely barmy, but if anyone chooses to believe, then not only is it their right to do so, but I would be the first to defend that right. I may not be a parent, but I believe every child has the right to a good education. You do not have to be part of something to defend it. I only wish that more theists would likewise defend my right NOT to believe in god(s); freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

So, believer, if you are indeed offended by my writings, and think they are blasphemous, here is my open invitation; go ahead, bring a complaint against me. I do believe that the statute in Scots Law against Blasphemous Libel would cover it. I think I have already clearly illustrated however that I am innocent of any such charges, and I will more than happily stand up and repeat those arguments in a court of law.

Then before you bring any such action, consider that if you do so, not only would you be trying to do your God's work for him, but in doing so you would also be bearing false witness against me.

Would both of these actions not in fact be, ermm, blasphemy?

Ban the Bum

Land of the. . . ???

Trumpeters answers questioned.

On Friday, 27 January 2017, US President (I baulk to call him that) Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel visas from seven mostly-Islamic countries, which came into effect at 4:42pm Eastern Time the same day. I am sure it was purely coincidental but in a supreme irony 27 January was also Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Executive Order indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from the USA, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks entry for 90 days to travellers from the seven named countries.

The seven affected countries are;

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The immediate effect of the ban caused chaos with flights and arrivals at airports in the USA. There were reports of hundreds of travellers arriving in the USA being detained in airports, while many about to travel to the USA from abroad were refused to fly, or even taken off planes before take-off. To add to the confusion, this included students, visitors and green-card-holding legal permanent United States residents from the seven countries. Some who had entered the USA were indeed refused entry and sent back to where they came from. Two Iraqis who had worked as interpreters for the US military were held in JFK airport, and as they were not legally on US soil, were refused access to legal representation.

On Saturday a Federal Judge in Brooklyn blocked part of the order, ruling that refugees and others being held at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. Three other Federal Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington soon followed suit, and the Massachusetts judge ruled that authorities could not detain travellers. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to comply with these rulings. On Sunday Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said that Green Card holders would not be prevented from returning to the USA “going forward”, but also added that border agents had “discretionary authority” to stop and detain any travellers – including US citizens - to additional questioning and scrutiny, should they have been to any of the seven countries mentioned in the executive order.

The ban led to huge protests in the USA and around the world. Here in the UK a petition to cancel the announced state visit of Donald Trump attracted in excess of 1 million signatures. Largely seen as an anti-Islamic move, the Trump administration has claimed it is not. It is not, but more of that later.

So, what is the rationale behind the ban, and just why has Trump implemented it?

The ban is to prevent international terrorism and keep US citizens safe.

The logic from this is that the countries affected present a terrorist threat to the USA. In fact, there has never been one terrorist attack in the USA from any citizen of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

Compare this to the nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetuated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9 September 2001, in the USA, with the immediate loss of 2996 lives, and the subsequent deaths of over 1000 due to effects from the attacks. Of the nineteen attackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt are not at all affected by the ban and anyone on passports from these countries may travel freely to – and even claim asylum in – the USA.

Likewise nobody would deny that the greatest terrorist threat today comes from the brutal Islamic State (IS) group. The current hotbed of IS recruitment is Tunisia, which likewise is excluded from the executive order. As are other countries which recruit Islamist terrorism, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Algeria.

But intelligence and experience show these countries are most likely to produce terrorists.

And where else have there been terrorist attacks in recent years? Ooh, let's try the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, and almost a daily occurrence in Israel. In the majority of cases, the terrorist attacks have come not from immigrants or asylum seekers, but rather from nationals of those countries. So based on that argument, all these countries should be included as a danger to US security – including Blighty.

Ah, but those attackers were the children of immigrants or asylum seekers.

In some cases they were, in some they were registered citizens of the countries they attacked. And indeed, with regard to the USA, there is one particular case which defeats this argument. Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, is a white, culturally Christian, English man, who converted to Islam, became radicalised, and attempted to ignite explosives packed into his shoes on a flight to Paris to Miami. Yet I still don't see either the UK – or France – on that list.

Omar Mateen was a home-grown US Islamist terrorist who shot dead 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Florida, before being shot dead. His parents emigrated from Afghanistan, which is not on the list. It is also worth pointing out that Omar Mateen was a very disturbed young man, who was a regular customer of the Pulse nightclub, and his killing of 49 mostly Latinx people had much more to do with his own deeply closeted homosexuality than any religious convictions.

Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, on 2 December 2015, killing 22 and injuring 14. They fled in an SUV and were later both shot dead in a police shootout. Farook was a Chicago-born US citizen and the son of immigrants from Pakistan. Malik was born near Islamabad, Pakistan, had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia, but was a lawful permanent resident of the USA. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are among the banned countries.

Brothers Tamer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, killing three and injuring 16 others, were naturalised US citizens, born in the Kalmyk Republic (part of the Russian Federation) and Kyrgyzstan respectively, both are half-Chechen but identify as Chechen. Kyrgyzstan is not on the list of banned countries - and neither is Russia, for reasons best known to Donald Trump.

The Executive Order was instituted on powers already there, instituted when President Obama banned Iraqis from entering the USA in 2011.

Except that President Barack Obama never instituted any such ban against entire nationalities in 2011. In fact, there never was any outright ban – merely a bureaucratic mess.

Here is exactly what happened. Two Iraqi refugees in the Bowling Green, Kentucky were arrested in May 2011 on charges of Federal Terrorism charges. Informants had told the FBI that one of the men, Waad Ramadan Alwan, had previous to fleeing to the USA, constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. Alwan was fingerprinted, and his prints matched those on part of a cellphone which had been used to detonate one such bomb in 2005. The other refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was convicted of providing material to Al Qaeda, possession and export of Stinger missiles, and making a false statement on an asylum application.

The arrests led to demands in Congress to re-examine the records of Iraqis settled in the USA, and the Obama administration pledged to do so. This entailed going through the records of some 58,000 Iraqis already settled in the USA, while more stringent background checks were imposed on new applicants. The USA was still involved in the Iraq War at the time, and with them looking to pull out at the earliest opportunity, there was a rush of such applications from a great number of Iraqis.

The result of re-examining visa applications, some Iraqis already settled having to re-apply, some still in Iraq having to re-apply, while all the time new applications were pouring in - under new, more thorough rules - led to a logjam which the State Department's National Visa Center struggled to cope with. In September 2011, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if a hold had been placed on Iraqi visa applications. Napolitano replied;

"with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Center) databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused... ...Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So, there never was a hold on visa applications for six months, only a bureaucratic jam caused by exceptional circumstances. And it was one Republican senator who asked if there was a hold, but the reply given was ambiguous, and does not confirm a hold.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer stated in Foreign Policy;

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Eric P Scwartz, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration in 2011, told the Washington Post;

“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.”

Notice that both men, in separate journals, have stated the resettlement of Iraqis did indeed continue during the six month delay in processing visas. Now, either both of them are lying – or Trump's administration are lying. I know which I am going with.

But even had there been a ban, notice that the Obama administration targeted individual visa applicants. They never, not for one moment, ever placed entire nationalities, or all citizens of chosen countries, regardless of background, under suspicion of terrorism.

And even had there been call to do so, it would be because the USA was still involved in war in Iraq, which would indeed be grounds to trigger a suspension of travel into the USA from hostile countries. The USA is not at war with any of the countries on the list, and the Trump administration therefore has no legitimate nor justifiable trigger.

The ban is temporary – only for 90 days.

Try reading the Executive Order. Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely, that ban being lifted is cognisant on the President himself. The US refugee program in it's entirety – not just among the targeted countries but affecting anyone from all around the world – has been suspended for 120 days. The 90 days applies only to the seven named countries.

There is no guarantee however that the 90 day limit may not be extended, or the 120 day ban on all entries, or that more countries may not be included in the ban.

Trump has also reduced the number of refugees to be allowed into the USA in 2017 by more than half; down from 110,000 to 50,000.

This is not a Muslim ban.

Screenprint from Trump's campaign website

No, it's not, I agree. It does not ban all Muslim-majority countries, and there are some Islamic countries which Donald Trump actually has business dealings with. Not least of which is Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists came from, and where there are 'charities' within the Wahhabi Muslim sect, which are nothing more than fronts for funding Islamic State terrorism.

So, does this mean that The Donald is this kind wee soul, with no religious prejudices, who embraces peoples of all the world's religions? Hmm. Let's see what he actually said in his presidential campaign.

This is a statement taken from Trump's presidential campaign website, donaldjtrump.com, which is actually titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

On exactly the same page, Trump himself is quoted as saying;

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Notice he even said “Without looking at the various polling data” - so he was willing to actually ignore the facts. Well nothing new there. But there we see that Trump's own website specifically called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

That specifically targeted an entire religion. Therefore, while the ban is not a Muslim ban per se, it was and remains based upon and deeply-steeped in the populist anti-Islamic rhetoric which US citizens have been fed by right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces ever since 9/11.

So did he have a change of heart and open his arms to Muslims? Nope, Trump simply could not have issued an Executive Order to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, because to do so would have contravened the First Amendment of the US Constitution;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Had Trump instituted his Executive Order banning travel visas based solely on the Muslim religion, he would have effectively have established a law prohibiting the right of Muslim refugees to enter and to continue to follow their faith. To do so would have been unconstitutional, and he would have been out of the White House so fast that his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

So instead he went for countries with Muslim-majority populations, and this has created it's own problems. Due to the ban, Christians seeking asylum from the named countries have been refused entry to the USA, in some cases sent back to their country of origin, or stopped from getting on flights in the first place.

The persecution of Christians in Islamic countries is an all too often ignored 'hidden' shame in many Islamic countries, where they are subjected to many atrocities, including being lashed, having limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive. Among some of the worst countries guilty of carrying out atrocities against Christians include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the seven countries upon which Trump has placed a blanket ban on entry on all citizens. Oh, the irony that many 'good Christians' voted Trump in, and he has now just condemned many Middle-Eastern Christians to the tender mercies of the fundamentalist Islamist authorities in their countries of origin.

And of course, it is not just Christians this affects. Followers of other faiths are equally persecuted in these countries, as are atheists, and even those Muslims brave enough to speak out or write about the wrongs those in charge are doing in the name of Islam. By issuing a blanket ban on visas, Trump has condemned them all, and now that some may have tried to leave, the authorities in their home countries will know just who they are, and the outlook for all these 'dissenters' and 'infidels' looks very bleak indeed.

Nor will this ban stop anything to stop Islamist terrorism. We have seen in living memory just how much ill-treatment by the west has actually driven terrorism in the Middle-East, which has spread to Muslims in the west. By instituting a ban, Donald Trump, far from defeating IS, has just handed them one of the best recruiting tools they could ever have wished for. It will not be lost on those who indoctrinate young minds with fear and hatred of the west, particularly the USA – the 'Great Satan' as the Islamists call it – just how it has 'shunned' the Muslim people, and by extension, has insulted the Islamic faith and it's prophet. And once those minds are groomed and indoctrinated, there sadly can only be one inevitable outcome of that; more Islamist terrorist attacks, not less.

And as we have seen from Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino, that need not come from outwith the USA, certainly not from the banned countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, is much more likely from a country which is a close US ally, and one which Donald Trump happens to have a lot of business dealings with.

Neither does this ban do anything to stop the incidents of domestic terrorism which take place within the USA, often carried out far-right extremists who profess to be Christian. Trump's election victory saw a sudden surge in racist and religiously-bigoted hate crimes. The FBI reported that in 2015 hate crimes against Muslims surged to 67% - the highest since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jews remained the highest proportion for hate crimes at 53%, and there were 1,053 hate crimes regarding sexual orientation, 19 percent of which were committed against gay men. Where hate crime attacks result in fatalities, they are rarely reported as terrorism in the USA, but generally referred to as “lone wolf” attacks carried out by some sad loner – only when the “lone wolf” nutter happens to be Muslim does it suddenly become a 'terrorist attack'. Meanwhile, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations continue to exist, enjoying the liberty the USA affords them, as “Christian” organisations.

Whenever a move against any racial religious group occurs, it can reverberate outwith the country it comes from. The Sunday after the Executive Order was instituted, a gunman open fired during evening prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, just across the border in Quebec City, Canada. The shooting suspect, now in custody, is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian, whom it appears holds extreme-right, pro-Christian, anti-Islamic views, and who admires Donald Trump and French National Front leader, Marine LePen. Bissonnette was identified by the leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, as a far-right internet troll, known to make anti-immigrant and hostile comments on the group's online page.

Pants - on - FIRE!

With absolutely no proof, the media immediately tried to make out it was an Islamist attack, Fox News - darling press outlet of the darling American right - claimed that witnesses had heard the gunman shout "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), and without a shred of evidence, went on to claim in a Tweet that the shooter was of Moroccan origin. As I write this, that Tweet has not yet been taken down.  And of course, while it was thought the attack was of Muslim origin, it was called a terrorist attack. Now the suspect has been identified as a "Christian", anti-Islamic, white supremacist, the media are portraying him as a "lone wolf" and sad nutter. Kudos therefore to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told it like it is; "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge."

While the media was busy pouring out their anti-Islamic bile, the Trump administration was very quick to attempt to make political capital out of the atrocity. Without being cognisant of the full facts, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the Quebec attack;

"It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,"

What? Mr Spicer - and Mr Trump? Will you now impose a ban on extreme-right Christians crossing the border from Canada into the USA?

Or will you just continue to deliberately target Muslims? To abandon Muslims and others to the very regimes you claim to be against? To continue to give Islamic State a propaganda tool for further radicalisation? And to continue to stir up hatred against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom are in fact far more likely to be the victims of intolerance and violence, rather than the perpetrators of it?  

Will you in fact continue to openly flout international human rights legislation, as well as common decency?

You already have blood on your hands, Mister Trump, and your shameful actions shall cause much more to be shed.  The only person who needs to be banned is you.

Some rights DO require greater emphasis - get over it

She could be.  Could you?

Check your privilege before claiming equality.
 

In the wake of heightened racial tensions in the USA, there have been demonstrations both there and in the UK under the banner of “Black Lives Matter”. As ever when that phrase comes up, it has been met with someone stating “All Lives Matter”, and even accusing those protesting of racism.

All lives do indeed matter, but Black Lives Matter throws into sharp relief where even a society which claims to be equal in reality affords privilege to some, and denies those same privileges to others, for which the establishment, the police, and the general public are responsible for.

I am a 'white' person (hate the term – my skin's not white; “Peach Flake” is nearer the mark) myself and I would ask other white people to ask themselves the following;

• How often have you been stopped under suspicion by the police, and subjected to a search?
• How often have you been pulled over by the police for driving a flashy car (or even a crap one) because you “fit the description” of some alleged crime?
• If you are reading this in a country with armed police, how often has an officer stopped you and drawn their gun on you?
• How many of your friends, family, and local community have been deliberately targeted, and in some places shot at and killed, purely because of their ethnicity?
• How many times have you been refused a job or other opportunity because of your ethnicity?
• Were you ever asked or expected to aim lower in the employment market because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your car or other property vandalised by people who think that because of your ethnicity you should not have it?
• Have you ever been told to “go home” or “get back to your own country” by someone of another ethnicity to you?
• Have you ever been threatened, spat at, or physically attacked because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever received abusive and/or threatening letters because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had excrement pushed through your letterbox?
• If you are a business owner, have you ever had your business smashed up, or the windows smashed, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever had your house or business set on fire, or such an attempt made, because of your ethnicity?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who was killed purely due to their ethnicity?

I am guessing that most if not all white people reading the above will have answered in the negative to all of these. Yet these are things which people of colour (another term I dislike, but it is useful for this article) face or have faced on a daily basis, in the USA, the UK, and many other white-dominated countries. I frankly take my hat off to people of colour, as if it were me, I'd be a nervous wreck, wondering what's coming next.

And of course, these things do not only pertain to people of colour, but to other people within our society, who are targeted by bigots purely because they differ from the “accepted norm”. Following the EU Referendum in the UK returned a vote in favour of leaving, Polish and other eastern European people have faced an upsurge in anti-European, xenophobic verbal and even physical attacks. Indeed, while not all Leave voters were xenophobic or racist, every such bigot probably voted Leave. Now some of these bigots, fuelled with bravado with the vote, seem to think that gives them the right to verbally or even physically abuse eastern Europeans – and people of colour. And the sad fact is that the majority of the British public look the other way, because a, it's not affecting them personally, and/or b, they more than likely share the views of the bigots.

And there are even white people, native to their country, who are still targeted because of other “differences”. Not least among these are the LGBT+. A bunch of racist thugs in London within days of the EU leave vote were heard chanting “First the immigrants, next the queers.”, and there are now some anti-LGBT+ groups, such as Christian Concern, who are calling for equal marriage legislation to be reversed. Meanwhile, as I write this the UK is facing having a new Prime Minister, the choice being between Home Secretary Theresa May, or Energy Secretary Andrea Leasom; both of whom claim to be deeply devout Christians, and both of whom have a track record of opposing pro-LGBT+ measures.

Not that it needed an EU Referendum to spark any anti-LGBT+ feeling; it has always been there, in the UK, in the USA, and in a great many other countries in the world. Cisgender and heterosexual people reading the above add the following questions;

• Have you ever been afraid to kiss, embrace, or hold hands with your partner?
• Have you ever been arrested for doing so?
• Have you ever been stopped by the police and / or arrested for the clothes you are wearing?
• Have you ever been verbally abused, threatened, or physically attacked for your sexuality or gender?
• Have you ever been convicted of a crime and put in a prison full of those opposite to the gender you identify with?
• Have you ever attended the funeral of someone who has been killed, or has committed suicide, due to their sexuality or gender?

Again, the overwhelming majority of cishet people will answer no to most if not all of the above. Yet many, if not all, are the harsh reality for many LGBT+ people.

As I made mention of before, the problem lies with privilege. As a white cishet male UK national from a culturally Christian background, my life is full of privilege – and I am painfully aware of that. The only prejudice I face are a, for being a short man, and b, for being a Scot. But even then, I can't say either have ever been a real problem, and neither have denied me of many opportunities, or seen me fearing for my safety (apart from the very occasional 'big man' who thought he could bully me) or my life itself.

But those who upon hearing “Black lives matter” immediately reply “All lives matter” are ignoring their own privilege. For it is generally those who have not lived the experience of those affected, who have not been denied privilege who shout that the loudest.

A few years ago, my partner was on an online forum speaking about the importance of feminism. She came under attack from a 'man' (well, a silly wee laddie, really) who described himself as a “Humanist” and tried to argue that we should not fight for women's rights, but for the human rights of all human beings. My partner, myself, and a few others tried to reason with him, that yes human rights are an issue for us all, which all should be involved in, but within human rights – and within humanism – there are certain people who are denied so much privilege that greater emphasis must be placed upon them.

I made the point to the said fool, imagine what would have happened in the 1950s and 1960s, had white people in the USA not joined in with and lent their weight to the Civil Rights movement on the grounds of “I'm not going to fight for black rights, I'm a Humanist, so I will only fight for equality for all.” We don't have to imagine as the facts are staring us in the face; the USA would still be segregated, and there sure as hell would be no African American President.

Now, I do not wish for one moment to attempt to take anything away from African Americans and the victory they won so hard in the Civil Rights movement. For it was their struggle, it was their victory, and it was many of them who paid with their lives for that victory. The fact remains however that in 50s-60s USA it was the whites who held the power, who dominated over politics, public services, and companies. Without some of those whites speaking out and taking action, the politicians would never have taken any notice. As much as I admire the late, great John F Kennedy – and trust me, I do – he once advised that the Civil Rights movement needed to “slow down” a bit. It was another man I admire greatly, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who made it clear; “Slow downism leads to stand stillism, and stand stillism leads to do nothingism.” It was very easy for Jack Kennedy to ask the Civil Rights movement to “slow down”; as an affluent, powerful, white male, he enjoyed a great many privileges which the majority of African Americans were denied. The fact is that African Americans could not afford to slow down, and Dr King made that perfectly aware to President Kennedy, and thereby forced his hand to take action.

Back to the said guy who claimed to be a Humanist, he was having none of it, and despite her blocking him, he thence commenced on a hate campaign against my partner, trolling groups she belonged to and slandering her at every given turn. Some Humanist. Some 'champion' of human rights.

I can already hear those who are fond of saying “All lives matter” sneering “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.” I would point out to them that the second line of that particular quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm was in fact added by the pigs, who were the ones who were enjoying all the privileges. And that is what it comes down to; if you enjoy any degree of privilege which others are denied, then you cannot say that your life has equal value to theirs, or your struggle and their struggle are the same, because they simply are not. Nobody goes into an oncology ward and moans about their ingrown toenail.

Whether the “All lives matter” brigade like it or not, there are different degrees of privilege within society, and as long as that remains a fact, then we shall never have a truly equal or cohesive, united society. We see this already by even those who claim to stand up for the struggles of others making statements about “the black community”, “the Asian community”, “the immigrant community”, “the LGBT community”, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Yet you never hear anyone speaking of 'communities' by labelling them “white”, “European”, “cisgender”, “native”, “heterosexual”, etc. Why not? Because the latter all enjoy privileges which the former are denied.

Surely 'society' is made up of ALL people, with many differences? And trust me, each and every one of us is different from others. So when we start pigeonholing people into different communities, we immediately set them apart from 'society'.

And anyone who does that has just negated any right they have to whine “All lives matter”.