Skip to main content

Corruption

It ocurred to me as I was watching the news last week that the most important story was not the racism row on Big Brother or the storms (which certainly disrupted my day) but the corruption probe into an arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

First thing's first, why the hell are we selling arms to Saudi Arabia? I despair that we don't seem to learn from history. Saudi Arabia is a regime with terrible human right violations. In all likelihood we'll be at war them in 20 years, just like we're at war with Iraq 20 years after selling them weapons. Why do we do this?

But not only that but the government closes down an investigation of corruption in the arms deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia because of "security reasons." And to hear Blair defend this decision saying, "our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country...that strategic interest comes first." Which is basically saying that Saudi Arabia can do what the hell it likes and we will go along because Saudi Arabia has "strategic importance" - just like Iraq had stragic importance in opposing Iran. Blair seemed to me to be admitting that corruption had taken place but had decided to shut down an investigation because the Saudis wouldn't like it. My opinion of Blair just gets lower and lower. This government is entirely corrupt. This is an utter rejection of the rule of law. This is so blantantly unethical and probably illegal.

On the subject, I recently found out about DESO - the Defence Export Services Organisation. This is a government department with the sole purpose of working for the arms trade industry. This mean that British state taxpayers' money is going towards a department with the sole perpose of working for private arms companies in bringing about arms deals. Follow the link for details of the campaign to shut it down.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...