There is a clear link I believe between the recent case of the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley’s comments relating to the way she dismissed the case against an Indian man beating his 7-year-old son, in UK, in which she maintained that “ proper allowance must be made for what is, almost certainly a different cultural context” and the parallel case in the USA of the white woman Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black and leading the Spokane Washington branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured (Black) people, (NAACP) America’s oldest civil rights group. A black British female novelist being interviewed on the subject on Channel 4 News on Friday 13^th June said, “It should only be a black person leading a civil rights organisation”.

In the first case both white and black people are up in arms about Pauffley’s comments and yet in Dolezal’s case it is mainly black people who are not happy about her claim to a black identity. (Excepting of course the NAACP, who is still not sure how to deal with being hoodwinked by someone who has done such great work for the civil rights movement in USA).

So what is the link?

In the end it is down to our own individual worldview. If we agree that any discrimination is an exercise of power in some form or another then Racism is also a demonstration of power against another based on colour, race or nationality.

Let us take the case of Pauffley. When one examines the case it is clear that on the “Balance of Probabilities” she found the man not guilty of using a belt to chastise his son. Therefore he used reasonable punishment, which is legal.

She also found that the man had abused his wife violently, but this was never reported in the popular media.

It is however her world view which brings into question her judgement as a High Court Judge.

She has used her power and not a legal basis on which to make mitigation in favour of the Indian accused. If she had not mentioned the man’s ethnicity and only a made a judgement based on the facts, the findings would have been seen to be just and fair, irrespective if people had disagreed with her findings. What came first, her worldview and then her findings or her findings and then her worldview?

By adding the comments she made she may have effectively ‘positively discriminated’ in favour of the accused, therefore using her power inappropriately.

Let us take the second case. Rachel Dolezal has undoubtedly been a great advocate of Civil Rights as the President of the Spokane branch of NAACP in Washington. (I am personally not in favour of the use of the word ‘Coloured” when referring to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people), however, her excellent work in this arena goes without saying. She may have broken the law in declaring her ethnicity as African American in any application for work. It is also true that she has been dishonest in stating she is black when clearly she is not. That is not the issue, the issue is her mind set at the time of entering the world of civil rights and wishing to do good work in that field and maybe feeling, look if I am not black will I be accepted? and clearly listening to the backlash from the black community on this subject she may well have been right. Is it racist to exclude somebody on the basis of the colour of his or her skin? Of course it is.

Any exercise of power to exclude people based on the factor of colour is wrong.

The link is that racism is much more nuanced, subtle and multi-faceted and layered than ever before and we all need to look at it differently, both from the law and our own individual worldview.

There is racism between white and black, and within the black community.

I have personally experienced the racism in the Caribbean of racism between Africans and Indians; I have observed the racism within tribes in Africa, and also in the Middle East between Arabic sects. I have also observed the racism between these groups in our own society. We need to stop looking at colour and start looking at behaviour and the reasons for that behaviour, so that people cannot hide behind the old adage of “I’m not racist but”!

Actions or lack of action determines racism and all other forms of discrimination together with, not just colour, race, nationality, gender, gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation, faith and religion.

This is a monumental shift in view, which society and the politicians need to understand. It is not just good enough to reflect society because we immediately get drawn into a numbers game of this amount of these people and this amount of those people. Big picture thinking means we create opportunity for everyone through education, training, a level playing field in terms of advancement in the workplace, pay, contracts of work and the access to the law, housing and safety and security for all. Only in that way will we create a society capable of true integration. A society where actually it’s OK for someone who is white to be accepted enough to lead a civil rights group and where an Indian boy who is beaten by his father receives the justice he deserves.

Once you cut through all the fog and smoke produced by both parties, I believe there is a clear choice to be made by the voters.

Labour

Reduce the deficit more slowly.

Raise taxes

Maintain public spending.

Remain in Europe

Tory

Reduce the deficit as quickly as possible.

Reduce taxes

Reduce Public Spending significantly

Get out of Europe.

Create a Neo Liberal business culture.

So Labour appears to be moving left in line with Socialist principles and away from Blair’s Neo Liberal fudge when he tried to appear to be all things to all people in a naked pursuit of power.

The Tories are advocating a return to the right wing principles of Thatcher.

This all against a world which is more dangerous now than ever, increasing sectarian divisions becoming more apparent in our society and the need for a government of all the people and not just the few. A government that looks outward and not inwards, a government that supports the Rule of Law and good governance, a government that leads ethically and with integrity both individually and as a group.

The other parties are nothing more than a sideshow, which the voters take great delight in taunting the major parties of Labour and Tory into some response guided by nothing more than narrow societal interests such as immigration and fear of other.

They are not relevant to the major issues facing a future government.

How then to vote?

If you seek more equality, fairness and consistency in Health, Education, Local Government, Business and Foreign policy across the whole of society, then I suggest Labour will do that more significantly.

If you are happy to have less equality, fairness and consistency across those things, which are key to our entire well being, where those in the minority who have, either increase what they have or remain with what they have, then the Tories are for you.

This is clearly demonstrated today in Cameron’s speech to the Chambers of Commerce where he asked them to raise peoples wages which in the following interviews were roundly rejected by all those attending, saying leave wages to business and they expressed surprise that a Tory leader would even comment on wages to the business community.

Where the HSBC scandal rolls on and on (this one has more legs than most) and government chose to do nothing once they were told. Naturally the Tories deny they were told. Perhaps they should have asked, as everyone else knew about the industrial tax evasion by the UK rich. Government has denied a conspiracy of course, but how can we believe anything else when all those who have been involved in this criminal behavior are not prosecuted or even investigated, ostensibly it seems because they are rich, powerful and well known, vis a vis Savile, LIBOR etc.

This country is crying out for a leadership style which is open, honest, lacking in discrimination and providing good health services, education and opportunities to all our citizens irrespective of class, colour, creed or social background.

It seems to me that Labour although they get it wrong at times provide that, whereas the Tories blatantly only appeal to a minority of the electorate which the first past the post system is complicit in facilitating their grab of executive power.

We cannot afford to get it wrong, as the next 5 years are crucial to the national well being of everyone not just the chosen.

Once again this has resulted in conflict and once again the world wrings it’s hands and does very little except become entrenched in one camp or the other. This is manifested in statements such as “ The Israelis have a right to defend themselves against rocket attacks from within Gaza” and the counter statement of “ The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza” and there appears to be no common ground between either of those statements and they are both right when viewed in isolation.

The Israelis very cleverly will not speak about anything other than: –

1. Rocket attacks
2. Tunnels

Accepting no responsibility for turning Gaza into a large concentration camp and when pressed cite the reasoning for this stance as the Holocaust, which did happen and was horrendously inhuman. Genocide is inhuman and that includes all groups who suffer it and in whatever numbers. Any decent human being would agree with that statement I am sure. The Israelis must recognise the consequences of their actions.

The Huffington Post has exacerbated this situation just by defining their current on line discussion as:-

Pro – Israeli or Pro – Palestinian

The whole tone of those words is unhelpful and inciting. However they are not alone and it allows both sides to determine the righteousness of their cause.

The historic significance of the UK in creating this problem is well known and there is no point in reminding everyone of the previous duplicity of the British government to both Israelis and Palestinians after the Second World War. Unfortunately the UK government is no position to right this wrong at this late stage, lacking the power or credibility internationally to play any effective role in a resolution. It also begs the question who ever appointed Blair to preside over the Middle East peace initiative when I suggest that he was one of the biggest players to have a hand in causing these problems. Yet he continues to expound the righteousness of his actions years after the immense and continuing loss of life in the region. Unbelievable!

But let us explore the current situation.

Any sovereign nation may fight a “Just War” and the common principles of the justice of war are universally known as “Jus ad Bellum” and are held to be:-

1. Having just cause.
2. Being declared by a proper authority
3. Possessing the right intention.
4. Having a reasonable chance of success.
5. The end being proportional to the means.

By adhering to these principles, a sovereign nation’s right to wage a “Just War” will always be upheld. Where the Israelis compromise this right is by prosecuting a “Just War” in an Unjust way. Unlimited and Absolute war is counter-productive to the end result sought in a “Just War” and should moral conditions not be present this will and is resulting as we have seen historically in this conflict, an endless war of retribution and revenge over generations.

Clearly the 2 State solution is the only long-term resolution to this intractable problem, which will require the Israelis to take a leap of faith in not using their own people to secure and buffer their borders through the use of settlements on the West Bank or enclosing a whole region such as Gaza in a virtual prison, from where the inhabitants are so helpless that they are willing to die to achieve any dignified Human Rights at all. If the Israelis continue to create hopelessness in the minds of the Palestinians in Gaza, then they cannot complain if they are attacked. There is no other course of action for the imprisoned people and the continuous war will create more and more warriors to the cause of Palestinian freedom not just in Gaza.

This then leads me onto the turn of events at home in UK where Baroness Warsi has resigned from the cabinet over the “indefensible position of the Government over Gaza”. Irrespective of her reasons, which I believe are admirable, she has now realised the paucity of power that people in this country from a BME heritage have, even at the level of government, which she currently enjoys. She was patronised into believing that she was accepted into the inner coterie of the Private school, Oxbridge educated elite who dominate all aspects of our society today and a dawn of realisation that, “Yes! I really am brown, a woman from the working class and Muslim and that no matter how bright, gifted and humane I am, in reality the doors of power are closed to me.”

That is the reality of being a BME person in UK today. This is clearly evidenced in all the statistics, which are available in both the Public Services and Business today.

If she was really principled “crossbenching” is the only political solution for her, because it is clear that the Tory party will never really take BME people to it’s heart.

The reality of politics today is the power of business to drive government policy, hence the government stated policy on Gaza from our Prime Minister’s own mouth is “The right of the Israelis to defend themselves against rocket attacks” whilst behind the scenes the lucrative business deals with the Israeli government and companies proliferate and more and more donors from a UK Pro Israeli business lobby throw money at the Tories to achieve their ends. Once again, of course the Lib Dems throw their “considerable” political weight behind the Palestinian cause once they believe the opportunity is right, thus losing all credibility in the eyes of the public and showing themselves once again to be the most disingenuous politicians of the whole phalanx of our representatives in “The Mother of all Parliaments” by their excruciating timing and lack of guts to have done so before.

The only solution to not just the Israeli v Palestinian problem but also the rest of the Middle East is Secular and Humanist. Therefore all negotiations will have the most chance of success if:-

1. There is no reference to religion or faith.
2. There is no reference to history as it cannot be changed.
3. Accept the autonomous State solution.

Build consensus around the following principles:-

1. Safety and Security- applying this principle to all aspects of the negotiations means asking in response to any question. “How can we do this and provide safety and security for all our people?
2. Human Rights- “How can we provide these to all our people in these circumstances?
3. Autonomy- How can we provide autonomous government, trade and international representation to all people willing to negotiate a solution?

Lastly, be strong enough as an international community to punish those who transgress the rule of international law through all lawful means.

It is enough nowadays for any writer to write that name to conjure up in peoples minds all that is good. Now that he has passed away, the great and the good in places all over the world are espousing what he represents, however I note they all use adjectives in their eulogies to him and I believe he was much more than that, I believe that what he did best, describes his achievements. He was a very active leader in the world and it was the things he did that define him, not what may appear sometimes to be trite adjectives of his undoubted and many qualities, but his living legacy  that he leaves with us all, individually, collectively and historically.

His book “Long Walk to Freedom” should be on every leaders list and throw out the rest, as the messages he gives us in this book will stand the test of time forever and all other theories of leadership, which are constantly regurgitated and sold to us as new, pale into insignificance compared to his simple philosophy of truth and compassion. He was a man of vision, who communicated his vision, simply and clearly to friends and foes alike, with equanimity and conviction that burned so brightly, none could afford to ignore it.So much so that he inspired others to strive for the common goals that he held so dear.

He believed passionately in equality, he never sought celebrity and remained a humble man all his life. In truth there are few to compare except perhaps Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Teresa. He is in exalted company, but what of the man and his achievements. He will say that he only showed the way, others achieved and yet he was the spark that lit the fire and turned it into the largest conflagration to blow away the last vestiges of one of the most evil regimes in the world. This he did without an ounce of bitterness, imbuing others with truth and reconciliation and demonstrating to them that revenge is neither a “dish best served cold” nor is it to be enjoyed, as this will always be at the expense of others.

Not all people agreed with the methods to achieve the ends on his behalf, and one particular leader would not participate or support sanctions or boycotts and before Margaret Thatcher passed away I often wonder if she considered the power of simple honest persuasion as so aptly demonstrated by Mr Mandela.

So what is his legacy ?

It is South Africa, the rainbow nation, but more than that, it is a philosophy for all people. It is one of Utilitarianism, that neither greed nor personal gain are the most important things in how we live our lives, but others. The human being no matter what colour, creed, size, shape, religion, class, education or disability matters beyond all else.

It is that individuals can make a difference, no matter what the obstacles that confront us or the power of the executive . Every individual has the power to make the smallest of dents in wrongdoing to such a degree that eventually the dam of truth and justice will burst forth and cleanse the wrongs and right the rights, bringing light into darkness.

Nelson Mandela was undoubtedly a great man and we will hear many eulogies and praise heaped upon him in the weeks and months and years to come. None of them will be enough, so is it not better just to recognise that and also to realise that in this particular instance words do not count or mean enough.

Long Live Nelson Mandela.