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

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

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...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...