You couldn't make this up: 20th November 2007 (page 24 of the Standard), Ken Livingstone says we should plant more trees, fruit trees in particular. 21st November 2007 (page 17 of the Standard) Islington Council wants to chop down some pear trees because of "dangerous fruit".
This autumn, I have noticed that there are dozens of homes around where I live that have fruit trees in their gardens, and the home owners clearly haven't got the first idea what to do with them. For the most part, the trees have not been pruned. The fruit is therefore too high up to be picked without a great deal of effort, and it just hits the deck every September.
I expect that many years ago, before London expanded so much, this was fruit-growing land, and what we see is the last remnant of the apple and pear trees that used to form part of someone's farm. They probably include species that have long vanished from the shops because they can't be grown in industrial quantities, wrapped in plastic, and shipped all round the globe. For example, I've got a pear tree which must be at least as old as my house, I prune it each year, and I get large green and yellow pears. They seem to be an early variety, and the shelf life is measured in minutes, so you've got to do something with them right away. I expect in the old days they were either fermented into perry or else jammed. I make compote from them and freeze it. In any case, they clearly aren't commercially viable today: they'd be dead on their feet before you could get them to the supermarket. When it's a contest between shelf life and taste, shelf life seems to win, and as a result we have food that tastes of nothing much.
It seems an awful shame to have something growing on a tree in your own garden that you never use. It's been suggested to me that we could start a "back yard gardeners' co-operative" to make creative use of the fruit. Let's suppose you have got an apple tree that you have no idea how to look after: you don't want to destroy it, but you don't have the time for its maintenance. Why not get someone else in the co-operative, who does know about trees, to keep it in trim for you? You can then decide if you want the fruit or not. If not, it can go to someone else in the co-operative. At the very least, it won't end up as a rats' banquet.
This doesn't apply only to edibles: if you've got a bush of some kind that seems to grow very vigorously, you could offer cuttings from the bush via the co-operative. I've got bay tree twigs that I am attempting to root at the moment, if they give rise to viable tree seedlings then you would be able to get from me what would, over time, grow into a very beautiful evergreen for the garden. And, if Ken Livingstone is right in his predictions of climate change, it would be a good choice of tree: the bay is native to the Mediterranean.
Any constructive comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Limits to religion and culture
These are my views on the YouGov poll (13th November issue of The Standard).
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)