Justice: Doing what you're told, or doing what is right?

Justice is a concept that is appreciated by humans even from a young age: a child will briefly resent being punished for being told not to do something, but they'll understand that they're being punished for doing what they've been told not to do, and in future they will (hopefully) modify their behaviour so as to avoid punishment; punish a child who hasn't done anything wrong, and they'll throw a tantrum, and likely grow up resenting your unfair treatment forever. Even monkeys have a primitive appreciation for justice, recognizing the unfairness of being rewarded a lesser reward for completing the same task as another monkey. But as we grow older, our understanding of what is just becomes more complicated, and we have to establish rules to ensure that fairness and justice are achieved. But some professions within our society approach justice differently to others, with some approaches appearing to be rather questionable.

One profession which has a clearly defined doctrine outlining how they see justice as being achieved in their area, is the medical profession. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath (or until very recently at least, they used to), which establishes the ethical principles upon which the medical profession operates. Among the tenets within the oath are that medical practitioners have a duty to use their medical training to benefit their fellow humans, and to respect and advance the field of medicine. This oath, dating back to Hippocrates in the 5th century BCE, establishes the duties of the medical profession, and stills serves as the basis of the ethical groundwork under which the medical profession stands to this day. It establishes that those who practice medicine have a duty in their jobs not only to treat their patients, but a more wider duty to society also, and the medical profession itself. It is easy to appreciate such a respectable position and the positive influence such principles have on the profession. But I always wondered why other professional fields don't likewise have their own oaths...

Before going to college, I had little need for understanding how the law was administered in the world, for how police arrested criminals and the courts sent them to prison. But as I got older, and I started to develop an appreciation of the significance of society and each of our places in it, such matters started to become of interest to me. The Hippocratic oath reaffirmed my adoration for the medical profession (how could you not adore those who dedicate their lives to improving the lives of others?), but I found myself feeling uneasy at the lack of such a defining oath existing in other areas, especially the legal system. After all, every citizen on Earth is subjected to laws, and can have the freedom that is granted to them by nature encroached upon for breaches of those laws that are made by other men. Of course, the Ancient Greeks couldn't establish a perfect understanding of how everything can and should operate (though they made a damn fine effort), but that isn't to say that we couldn't create our modern institutions founded upon our own beliefs of what is right and just. So why doesn't such a thing exist in our justice systems?

First of all, consider this: The motto of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), since adopted by other law enforcement agencies around the world, is "To protect and serve". That motto seemingly encompasses everything that law enforcement should be about; To protect the people, and serving on their behalf, it really doesn't get much simpler than that. But, as the Supreme Court of the US has ruled, the duties of police officers is not to protect and serve, but merely to enforce the laws. Now, some might say that of course the police ought to be enforcing the law, but I find it highly worrisome that "enforcing the law" is not synonymous with protecting and serving.

Before I became a Law student, I had only one source for my understanding of the legal profession: I'm sure most people would share my original perception of the law and the justice system in the English speaking parts of the world of two lawyers, in a courtroom, flexing their debating skills against each other before a jury and a judge to see who's the more artful word-smith. Of course, this perception is somewhat romanticized by the portrayal of lawyers on countless TV series devoted to the subject (as my first lecturer was quick to point out, being a lawyer is nothing like how it is shown in Suits), but the basic elements are there: a lawyer represents the defence, and another represents the prosecution, and the one who offers a more convincing argument regarding the facts of the case and the law, wins. This has always felt to me to be a far cry from how true justice should be achieved. Surely, it is not the most convincing lawyers that deserves to 'win', but the one who is representing the innocent party. This is a fundamental flaw that exists within the justice systems in English speaking parts of the world, and what causes me to hold our so-called "Justice system" in a rather poor regard. I say English speaking parts of the world, because it is only in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (I know they speak French too, but shhh) that the law operates this way. What you will find in the rest of the world, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa (we'll ignore Sharia Law that operates as the legal system in most Muslim countries, which is a whole other kettle of fish and beyond what I could accurately describe), is what is known as an Inquisitorial system, based on civil/Roman law.

In the English speaking part of the world, the Adversarial system dominates, and is characterized by the aforementioned process of two lawyers trying to essentially out-debate one another. But the Inquisitorial system prevalent in the rest of the world more closely resembles what I would consider to be a path to discovering what the right outcome in order to achieve justice is. The Inquisitorial system is characterized not by who is the most convincing of 2 lawyers, but, as the name suggests, an inquiry by the courts into the facts of an event and an attempt to discover the truth of what happened so as to rule in favour of the party that has been wronged. This is perhaps an oversimplification, and it would flippant of me to suggest that all lawyers in English speaking countries only care about winning their case and not about finding the truth. But is true to say that in such systems, lawyers have a duty not to uncovering the truth, but to defend their clients to the best of their ability. That is not to say that our adversarial system never achieves justice, though I think it would be accurate to say that justice is not by necessity, the most fundamental principle that permeates the legal profession. Inquisitorial systems meanwhile, appear to have the desire to seek justice at the forefront, with the legal systems built around that core pillar, which is surely the only way justice ought to be achieved.

This brings me to ask the question, what exactly is justice? Is it, as the US Supreme Court suggests, that people simply abide by and live up to the rules established around them, be that in the workplace by their superiors, in schools by their teachers, at home by their parents, or in their country by their politicians; or is it a dedication to achieving the right outcome and striving towards the truth? The principles upon which we are governed and by which we govern ourselves ought not to be taken lightly, as they affect our every action, and when ill founded, those actions can have drastic consequences.

In or Out?

Debates about Britain remaining in Europe are often heated, and with the referendum on our membership coming up on June 23, most people are still being betrayed by the politicians who refuse to give us a factual, informed dialogue. Everyone in the UK has a difficult decision to make in under two months time, and it is made that much harder by not being properly informed.

One issue that is brought up is of course jobs and so called "economic migrants": People coming in to the UK, working and taking the money out of the economy to send back home. Anybody would feel hard done by if the jobs they had applied for was taken by someone from another country thanks to an undercut in wages. But how could you blame a person for wanting a job? Surely most of the blame rests with the employers who decide not to give that job to a local, but instead opt for a cheaper migrant worker. After all, it is not unreasonable for a person to seek out a job wherever they can in order to support themselves or their family, and if someone was willing to offer me a job in another country, is it my position to consider all the people closer to that job who I'm depriving of wages, or is that down to the employer to consider?
Or perhaps it isn't even our employers' faults, but the Government's, for creating intolerable working environments. Just look at how our education secretary Nicky Morgan, and health secretary Jeremy Hunt, have been trying to strong arm their workers into accepting their almost universally reviled planned. Thankfully, Nicky Morgan has since backed down from her plans, but with the way these people treat our workers, I'm sure few would blame the workers for a mass exodus of the workforce (as might occur if Hunt refuses to back down from the Junior Doctor dispute, where the other countries in the UK would be happy to take them and offer them a happier time).

Immigration figures are probably the most contentious matter when it comes to the EU debate, due in no small part to the contribution of UKIP over the past couple of years. We've heard figures suggesting millions of people (or some sort of sub-human swarm) over the next 10-15 years if we remain, or even more millions if Turkey subsequently joins the EU. But if you look at the figures, you'll notice that it's nothing like the black and white picture it is being made out to be. Let us consider the figures for the year ending June 2015:
The number of emigrants exiting the UK, 300,000 , was just under half the number of immigrants entering the UK, at 636,000. Now that seems a very troubling statistic, 2 people coming in for every 1 that leaves. But if we delve a little deeper, all is not as it appears, as the number of those that are entering from Europe is less than half of that figure, 42% or 267,000. 45% of immigrants are citizens that come from outside the EU. So now, we have 300,000 people leaving the UK, but only 267,000 entering from the EU, which gives a net figure of -33,000! So how does 'Brexit' help there? Sure, the 267,000 EU immigrants will decrease, but so too would the number of emigrants. It seems obvious that the EU migration is not the Trojan horse it's being portrayed to be.



So when you go to vote on June 23, remember that leaving the EU is something that won't easily be reversed, so make sure you don't cast your ballot based on false pretences.

A rose by any other name...

There is unlikely to be many people around right now who haven't heard of ISIS. I mean, you'd have to have been living under a well-fortified and impenetrable rock to have not heard any news or witnessed any of their atrocities being committed by the group both in Syria and closer to home, with the recent attack in Paris renewing our awareness and condemnation. Yet, beyond the media's coverage of their atrocious acts, there remains a confusion: What are we supposed to call them?

Previously they had been known as ISIS/ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/the Levant) before our politicians applied pressure, and all of a sudden, out cropped the name "So-called Islamic State". Some even prefer we call them "Daesh", which we're told is apparently some sort of derogatory term for the group in Arabic. It is sometimes difficult to appreciate the sentiment behind why the groups name changes more frequently and confusingly than Puff Daddy/Puffy/P Diddy/Diddy/Sean Combs, or Prince/The Artist Formerly Known as Prince/.
Presumably, the thought is that by calling them Islamic State, we are somehow recognizing a legitimacy in their claims of a global caliphate, and in turn by refusing to call them what they wish to be known as and instead referring to them as "so-called IS" or "Daesh", we refuse to recognize any such legitimacy. But it seems that one thing is glaringly obvious yet somehow overlooked: It does not matter what the politically correct name to use in reference to them is, they are going to go on fighting regardless. And political correctness is absolutely the thing at play here.
Whether or not the general population or the media chooses to prefix "So-called" in front of "Islamic State" or not when referring to them, they're still going to fight on regardless. There are no discussions taking place among world leaders where there is a vacant seat waiting for the representatives of Islamic State: They're a terrorist organisation. Of that, practically the whole world is in agreement. So the issue over what we call them is a redundant one: Just by having the word "State" in their title doesn't somehow confer onto them any claim of legitimate statehood in the eyes of the world.
I would argue that rather than getting into debates over whether they're referred to as "so-called IS" or "Daesh" (as if using a term that is derogatory in a language we don't understand was in any way effective), perhaps we should instead all be calling them something overtly ridiculous. After all, imagine being bullied by someone called "Sally Nappyrash McFarts-A-Lot", at least such a stupid name might bring about a hint of a smirk every time you heard it out loud, and bullies hate being laughed at when they're trying to beat you up.

The History of Now

Hindsight is a powerful thing. Looking back at things retrospectively, it becomes easy to categorise history into distinct, tangible periods. The Industrial Revolution, The Renaissance, The Dark Ages etc. We learn about these defining periods of human history, their significance, and how they changed the world forever.

In the next couple of centuries, when the internet is embedded within every device in every single home, when Terabytes of data fit onto a device the size of a postcard, they will look back at where it all started, and the beginning of the technological revolution will be dated to somewhere around the development of the internet.

Nowadays, Pythagoras' Theorem is taught to children whose age is barely in double figures. Mathematical discoveries like that took years to research and uncover in the old days, and now infants learn them with ease. The mind boggles at the opportunities that befall those in the future considering the current growth rate of technology. In future centuries and millennia, I am sure people will look back on this period, the late 20th - 21st century as a defining period of technological advancement. They will learn how we learned to harness electricity, how we developed the internet, how quickly it grew, how data transformed from requiring whole buildings and tons of equipment in order to store megabytes of data to being able to fit gigabytes on a persons lap or in their mobile phones. They will learn how we had practically the sum of all knowledge available at our fingertips, and how for the most part, it was inconceivably cheap. And then they will come to learn with disbelief, how we used such fantastic technologies; How we spend hours upon hours sat in front of our screens, looking at pictures of kittens and puppies, sending anonymous hate to each other on sights like reddit, the amount of mindless accounts dedicated solely to the worship of teen idols like Justin Bieber and the rise of the so-called internet celebrities, those who make videos of themselves playing video games for others to waste their time watching, how dictionaries have to be updated to accommodate so-called words like "selfie" and "lol", and perhaps more maliciously how we willingly gave up our personal privacy to governments without a fight, giving them free reign to monitor our every communication.

They will cherish the ingenuity of those geniuses, those pioneers who led the revolution, those like Tim Berners-Lee, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Alan Turing and others. They will praise these precious inventions that were born in our times, the doubtless impact they will have over future inventions, and then they will look down upon is with contempt at how we wasted such gifts.

House of Commons decorum

The Speaker of the House of Commons has an important duty, chief of which is to maintain order among MPs within parliament. With over 50 new SNP MPs venturing south of Holyrood to take their seats in Westminster, many of whom were likely unaware of the differences in custom between Scottish Parliament and Westminster, the Speaker found it necessary to reprimand the Scottish MPs for clapping in the chamber, which he informed them went against the "long established traditions" of the house. That's a nice sentiment, but rather misguided I fear. 

I rarely bother to watch discussions from the house, and not for a lack of interest. One would imagine that seeing politicians debating things in the house where laws are passed will give a real sense of what their motivations and beliefs are, hopefuly informing of what our elected politicians our doing to represent us. But, if one is to tune in, perhaps to watch Prime Ministers questions for example, what is to be found is not a constructive debate about issues, but non-stop jeering across the floor, infantile posturing and juvenile digs being exchanged in a manner that wouldn't be out of place on a school yard. Clapping is a rather dignified sign of support compared to the typical behaviour displayed within the commons. It's nice to hear them refer to each other as "my honourable friend" or "the honourable gentleman", but when such referrals are followed with the most juvenile of comments, whose seemingly only purpose is to command self-congratulating affirmations from fellow party members, it becomes difficult to see exactly what it is within the house that clapping is actually detracting from, or what it is that the "long established traditions" are supposed to be upholding. The House of Commons may very well be a place where tradition is important, but in the context of a political chamber, perhaps those traditions are somewhat outdated. Perhaps one might consider that an apt definition of what tradition is...

A British tragedy...

The news play a vital function in today's world. Through news outlets on websites, their pages on social network sites, and physical print papers if that's still your thing, people from around the globe are able to learn about events happening on the other side of the world as they unfold. The manner in which these stories are reported influences the way in which they're interpreted, and it is the role of reporters to present the facts so that people may be reliably informed about what is going on around the world. Which brings me to a real tragedy that happened today, and the audacious way it has been reported by certain news outlets.

When I woke up today, i checked my computer and learnt there had been an Earthquake in Nepal. An absolute tragedy in which thousands have perished. However, certain headlines about this infuriated me. For example, here is a headline (in fact the first headline) that I saw, from the Daily Telegraph:

"Dozens of Britons missing after Nepal earthquake and avalanche"
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/nepal/11563414/Dozens-of-Britons-missing-after-Nepal-earthquake-and-avalanche.html

What an utter fucking disgrace. A human tragedy being manipulated into a British tragedy. THOUSANDS of people lose their lives, and instead of focusing on that, one of the most insignificant details of the story is blown up to inconceivable proportions, such that any meaningful information is hidden away, barely noticeable. It does briefly mention that a few hundred people are feared dead or missing, but that is the only mention of the non-Brits in the article, which then goes on talking about a Suffolk woman (mentioned by name) for 13 lines, including inexplicably the fact that she graduated in law last summer. What value does this add?

Is it impossible to feel sympathy or compassion about a story of thousands of people dying in a natural disaster unless there's a chance you may personally know some of them? I was plenty upset at the news without considering some of them may have been British. Are British so self involved as to show no interest whatsoever in any event unless given a case study of another Brit involved, so much so that we need to know her education history, birthday, how long she'd been on holiday and what she'd been planning to do? What it be far too frivolous had such details not been known? Obviously, the family of Britons who are on holiday over there are going to be worried. But I was under the impression that that fact was so obvious, it didn't even need mentioning. I wonder who else is worried besides the families of the "dozens" of Brits who were over there. Oh, hmm, perhaps the families of the HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN NEPAL AT THE TIME.

Putting the dozens of Britons ahead of the thousands of others belittles the situation immeasurably, and the manner in which it was done in this particular instance is an abomination and an affront; and affront to basic compassion for our fellow man (everyman, not just countryman) that is instilled within human nature, instead favouring some absurd sense of nationalism, because the headline "Dozens of Britons missing after Nepal earthquake and avalanche" really reads "Tragedy for dozens of our poor, unfortunate (which they are), fellow Brits and then some insignificant foreigners".

Cyclists vs Cars

I've grown to love cycling. Living in Cambridge, it is by far the best way to get around, especially since car traffic is gridlocked basically all the time. But nothing comes close to the terrifying experience of almost being mown down by thoughtless drivers. As a cyclist, one has to be extra vigilant on the roads, because a collision between a cyclist and car is unlikely to leave the car coming off worse. Nothing is more infuriating than coming close to death through the carelessness of someone else's driving rather than ones own lack of respect for the road. It's some retribution to see a driver give you a signal to indicate they know they were in the wrong and wish to apologise for it, but it is more often that they'll drive past entirely indifferent to the damage they nearly inflicted. Those ignorant bastards who just drive recklessly with no thought for any other road users are amongst the worst scum I have the misfortune of coming across. It's not as if I am a careless cyclist who gets myself into these situations. So often, a driver simply doesn't bother to look in their mirrors, something that is so simple to do which would prevent so many accidents. I'm not a driver, but even I know most of the rules of the road. And these aren't just arbitrary rules, they're laws, designed to protect people. The roads are only safe when drivers stick to all of the laws that are in place, not pick and choose which to stick to and when to do so. I wish the road laws were more like those in Amsterdam, where cyclists are recognised as vulnerable road users, because that's exactly what we are when compared to the other people on the road. Drivers need to appreciate the fact that they do not own the roads, and stop acting like inconsiderate bullies, because when they're involved in accidents with cyclists, the consequences are usually highly catastrophic for the 2-wheeled commuters.