Letter to The Archbishop Of Canterbury & Bishop Of London On Protest St Paul's Cathedral

The Archbishop of Canterbury                                                                       

Dr Rowan Williams

Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU

The Bishop of London

Richard Chartres

The Old Deanery
Dean's Court
EC4V 5AA

01 November 2011

Dear Archbishop and Bishop,

Does the intervention of the church reflected Christ?

It is with a deep concern that I chose to write you at this very dire time on the issue of protest right in the courts of St Paul’s Cathedral, London over the past 2 weeks.

Without re-telling the story so far, I am concerned that the Church’s management of the situation has reflected a Church that do not represent its claims of fairness and love. Although I know very well from the tones of the Church’s various voices, this opinion would be dismissed. Yet in the true reality of things, the Church missed the point.

CHOGM 2011: The Commonwealth At A Cross-road

On the 12th of this month, I participated as a panelists at an event titled; "Human Rights: can the Commonwealth get its bite back?" organized and hosted by the Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS).

The event was well attended and panelists included the UK minister for Equalities, Lynne Featherstone MP, former Head of Human Rights Unit at the Commonwealth Secretariat, Dr Purna Sen (now Director of programmes at London School of Economics - LSE), Co-founder and joint Executive Director of the Death Penalty Project, Saul Lehrfreund and chaired by Broadcaster and Writer, Simon Fanshawe.

In my short speech, I argued that the problem of the Commonwealth is not that it is not unique, but because it has lapsed into irrelevance. I questioned the knowledge of its boasted 2 billion plus population on its existence and their affinity?

In my conclusion, I suggested that the Commonwealth could be influential, invaluable and even iconoclastic only if it chooses to be. However, all the above can be a dream lost with the fading of the morning darkness.

Looking back over the 60 years of its existence, the question is, has the Commonwealth been advancing or diminishing? Has is progressed or retrogressed? Is it still needed and would it survive? But more importantly, is it prepared to survive?

The answer to these questions seems all negative; the Commonwealth doesnt, at this point, seem equipped to move on. Although it may defy this and continue to exist as a polity, but its lack of impact is equivalent to a living dead.

However, there is hope. It is not written off yet. In my speech, I stressed that majority still have hope in the body to make a difference; yet it depends on whether it would like to.

And the above brings us to the very present; the Commonwealth is on a wide freeway that is also the precipice of a gulf. Would it crash over the barriers and perish in the abyss below or can it navigate successfully on the freeway to safety?

In his article on CHOGM, first Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives (CHRI) argued almost the same as I did on the 12th.

Eleven years into the 21st century, the uprising in the middle-east spells out the desperation of the oppressed masses and unequivocally sends out signals to both governments and inter-governmental bodies that better governance and democracy is necessary to retain the realm.

And as Justice for Gay Africans showed in the last 2 years lobbying the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Secretary General directly on the issues of criminalization in its member-states, the time for a clear and decisive action is here.

The Commonwealth must make up its mind by the end of this week at its summit biennial gathering whether it would exist and make an impact or occupy Marlborough House, London as a private members club and a tourist attraction. Whichever it chooses, the body would be writing a new chapter in its history; but one would hope not one that gently digs its grave.

But now is the time; the choice must be made. The Commonwealth must now either DO or DIE!

Would Democracy Thrive In Tunisia?

Tunisian Flag

We watched our TV screens today in amazement, but largely unperturbed as Tunisians take the first step towards an assumed democracy. Of course, if you have not lived in the oppression that they just came out from, you would surely only imagine what it is like... even worse if you live in largely free western democratic countries.

What, however bothers the assuming mind is the question on whether this is real? And the truth is rather unpleasant - at least based on history, which forms the assumption.

London Economic Protests: St Paul's Cathedral Propaganda?

Since Sunday 16th October, a mass of the population in the UK has taken camp in front of the magnificent landmark of London, St Paul's Cathedral.

St Paul's Cathedral, London Southwest view

One of the thing that rings a bell, even to the irreligious, is that people including a sizeable number of Humanists and people of all or none faiths would make a church a focal point and a place of refuge in time of unbearable distraught. And what has been rather commendable in this particular protests is that the church has not been tampered with any way whatsoever.

However, the confusion lies in how the whole drama is now unfolding. Only today (23rd October), the Cathedral insisted that it cannot even hold a public church service as it usually does due to some gibberish of a 'health and safety' issue. I smell a fish.

On Sunday 16th October, the Revd Giles 'whoever' said its perfectly fine for people to protest in the area and even asked the police to not disturb the protesters. That was real Christianity! Christ would always be on the side of the oppressed if he was dealing with this. This protesters repressed the economically oppressed of our present world.

But the church has sold out; not that anyone is surprised. After all, the upkeep of the church - and St Paul's Cathedral in particular -  has largely been upholden by the accused greedy rich.

Why Theresa May Is Wrong About The Human Rights Act



Theresa May, UK Home Sec

 The Home Secretary, may have a case but falls short - and as the Secretary of State for Justice, Ken Clarke has rightly put it, - as a child, to deliver his message in clear and simple matter-of-fact manner.

And John Rentoul is wrong, as well as Ms. May, to define what those who drafted the said law meant. How do you know? You can assume but not sound outrightly absolute; that is misleading.

The said law, if removed, would harm both those complaining, and those that are assumed to have benefitted from it.

The Home Secretary seems completely foolish - again, well explained by the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke  - and utterly laughable for speaking to the conference about misinterpretation of a law... If she had a qualm about that, she should be speaking to the legal luminaries and sector.

Since the installment of the Magna Carter, the need to protect the people of this country has remained steady if not advanced; it ranges from simple prosecution for the innocent until proven guilty, to complex things as women and abortion, gay people and equality, voting rights, etc.

But above all, what makes Ms. May's approach utterly useless is the anti-immigration splashes. There is a difference between immigration & race, immigration and rights or immigration and justice. If you deport an immigrant because they committed crime, lets say, as gross as murder, what do you do to another murderer who is British? Do you exile him/her?