In the summer of 1998, I had the pleasure of working on an isolated Pacific island with two Burmese doctors. This ‘husband and wife’ team from Rangoon took care of over 2000 Aitutaki residents, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They had originally found themselves on the island of Aitutaki as part of a VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) programme. They stayed on after, mainly to help the islanders, however, a contributory factor to their decision was the military government in Burma. In 1988 one of them had been in Rangoon at the time of the military crackdown that led to the deaths of over 3000 Burmese. She told me of the horrific scenes in casualty departments that night. The sight of numerous gun-shot wounds had clearly had a profound effect upon her. Furthermore, her family had, had close links with Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition movement and hence on her returns home she had been regularly subjected to close observation by the military.

As I watched the footage on television last night, remarkably being shared with the world via new media, I remembered my Burmese colleague’s recollections of the 1988 massacre. Today, Burma stands at a cross-road. The military government has succeeded in benefitting the very few and hindering the economic progress of the many. It has been humbling to see people on the streets calling for democracy ignoring the real threat of being shot. Despite this bravery, the international response has so far been modest at best, primarily because of Chinese heel-dragging. Once more the UN has appeared powerless to defend those rights we take for granted here in Britain: freedom of speech, democratic self-government, etc. What can Britain do to support the Burmese people? If possible, should a former colonial power been seen to intervene? My answer would be ‘Yes’. Not intervene in a military way, but rather, apply firm economic pressure via the EU – e.g. cancel credit, stop gas and oil purchase, freeze state assets, suspend trade and investment by Western companies. And if that did not work, apply pressure to China? How? Mention withdrawing support for the Olympics next year. Either the democratic countries of the world are serious about supporting freedoms abroad or they are not. It is about time basic principles of freedom are supported by the international community. It would be interesting to ask my former Burmese medical colleague what she now thinks about her freedom of speech, her freedom to move and her right to vote.

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women

– Alexander Litvinenko

The recent suggestion by Vladimir Putin that he may once again aim Russia’s nuclear arsenal at Western Europe has attracted much comment. The fear of a resurgent Russia bearing its military teeth has no doubt sent a few chills down the spines of Western foreign policy-makers. A cyberwar with Estonia, gas supply interference in the Ukraine and the on-going war in Chechyna are all reminders of Russia’s recent tendency to seek confrontation. The ex-KGB man, Mr Putin, has not been shy of talking and acting tough. The Litvinenko case, though unlikely to have been directly state-sponsored, is an unpleasant reminder of a Soviet past in Russia. Friends of mine who have working experience of the country talk of it verging on lawlessness, “a Wild West” in the East. This can hardly instill much confidence in Washington and London when formulating a diplomatic approach to the country’s foreign policy.

Not so long ago, Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union, straddled the world as a proper super-power. This is no longer the case. The problem for President Putin is that Russia now has all the appearances of an old heavyweight boxer returning to the ring: it is bloated on oil and gas revenue, less agile and apt to use under-hand (KGB-style) tactics to win each fight. Its economy is inherently weak, relying heavily upon revenues from mineral resources. With the G8 summit taking place over the next few days, what should the Western powers do in response to this Russian Rocky?

For Europe, a proper response is difficult. Our dependence on Russia for gas supplies is only going to increase over the coming decades. It is for this reason alone that building nuclear power stations is unavoidable. Indeed, energy independence for Europe would greatly aid our future relations with Russia. Furthermore, the mention of Russian missile targetting should sadly put to bed any question about replacing Trident.

For the USA, however, a proper response is more straightforward. American foreign policy of late has rightly “taken a kicking”. With Russia, they have a chance to re-establish their democratic, liberty-defending credentials. The democratic deficit, the apparent disregard for a proper legal process and human rights, in general, within Russia, should all be top of the agenda in US-Russia bilateral talks. A stable, democratic Russia will be good for both Russians and the rest of us. American and European foreign policy should be about achieving that goal. It should not be about tolerating a failing state simply because we need its gas. Our children and grandchildren would not thank us for that policy decision.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

We must make it clear that the international community stands ready to support and assist Zimbabwe, if its leadership is prepared to make the dramatic change needed to give the country a truly democratically elected government – a government that is determined to provide hope and relief for its people, and is committed to economic and governance reform.

– William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

The misery of Zimbabwe continues. Images of the beaten Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai (pictured above), lying in a hospital are further evidence of the depths to which the Mugabe regime have fallen. A country once famous for being the “bread basket of Africa” is now fast becoming a basket case. A country with an abundance of natural resources and a vibrant agricultural economy has become one where its inhabitants have a life expectancy of just 38 years. HIV infection is rife and malnutrition is a growing problem. The majority of those who are fortunate enough to be in employment exist on pitiful wages, at a time when inflation approaches 2000%.

Sadly, none of this is is new for Zimbabwe. The uncomfortable reality for wealthy Western nations is that Mugabe has been running wroth shod over the human rights of the majority of his citizens for years. His brutality and appalling governance have taken a once proud, independent nation into a position of growing reliance on others, particularly its neighbour South Africa. Those who have tried to oppose his governance have either been attacked (and sometimes killed) or left the country. In my clinical practice, I have seen many Zimbabweans that have fled their homeland, often displaying obvious signs of previous abuse. I have noted evidence of depression, poorly treated AIDS-related disease and physical harm in many of the Zimbabweans I have treated.

But, what are we to do? What can Britain do about this violent dictator? Should the former colonial master interfere in the country we once called Rhodesia? On Question Time last week it was painful to watch the Solicitor General justify Britain not intervening, in the process having the temerity to talk about Mugabe being a legitimate, democratic leader! He looked and sounded stupid. He was, however, subscribing to the view that Britain has no active role to play – i.e. the ‘white man’ interfering in sub-Saharan Africa would only inflame the situation. This would broadly appear to be the attitude of most commentators.

This attitude is frustrating, and above all, weak. I was, therefore, pleased to read William Hague in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph calling for “the international community to say enough is enough”. He argued eloquently for a broadening of established sanctions, both by the EU and the wider international community. Ultimately, however, if Mugabe (or one of his successors) is still there come next year, the international community may need to consider proper intervention. Zimbabwe’s sad situation has been created by one of its own, a brutal man with a track record of poor governance. How much longer can we all stand idly by, watching the majority of Zimbabweans suffer at the hands of this dictator? Our colonial history should not dissuade us from doing what is morally right for the oppressed people of that country. Britain should be at the forefront of eliciting a global response to this unfolding African tragedy.

It is important to recognise that morality is not the exclusive preserve of protesters, whether outside the gates of Parliament, hanging over the river, outside the gates of No. 10, or outside Faslane, Devonport or Aldermaston. Most people, including most Christians, reject the pacifist morality that says it would be better to be subjugated by superior military power and lose our freedoms than to possess nuclear weapons, on the grounds that no dictatorship lasts for ever and our moral judgment would be intact-even if we were in chains or dead.

– Robert Key MP (Salisbury)

This month’s BBC History Magazine leads with an article about Bomber Command in the Second World War. Titled, “Good Men Doing An Ugly Job“, it discusses the controversy that ensued following Britain’s decision to ‘area bomb’ large areas of urban Germany. The picture above graphically illustrates just one of those cities, Dresden, that Bomber Command chose to completely destroy. The resultant loss of 600,000 German civilian lives initially proved controversial, so much so, that unlike Fighter Command, there is still no national memorial to the memory of the ‘Bomber Boys’, 55,000 of whom died during the campaign.

Not only did over 50,000 men lose their lives, many were mentally scarred, one of whom happens to be my grandfather. He flew in 30 bombing missions over Germany and Occupied France, sitting precariously in his tail-gun position. I am told he suffered flashbacks about what he witnessed for many decades after the war ended. His sacrifice, and those of his fellow airmen, should be recognised as contributing greatly towards the noble cause of removing Hitler from power. By doing so, they won the peace, stopped the Holocaust and brought democracy to the continent of Europe.

Because it is a noble endeavour to go to war to remove tyrants. It is also right for democratic countries, where liberty and tolerance are part of the national fabric, to firmly resist intimidation and terror. The problem for the present generation is that the foe is less easily defined, and more importantly, far from easy to attack. Furthermore, with the advent of 24hr news media, everyone gets to see the results of warfare immediately. I have no doubt that appalling images from the Vietnam war, arguably the first televised conflict, contributed to the waning of public support at home in America. I am concerned, however, that warfare imagery could deflect political leaders from making the ‘right’ decision’ for the world in the longer term. Would the Allies have continued the bombing onslaught of German cities if camera teams had been on the ground in Hamburg and Dresden? If so, what of the Final Solution, the execution of which accelerated after the Germans began to lose the war? My point being that one could make a moral case for bombing Germany to defend the lives of innocent Jews, however, if images of civilian deaths in Germany had become more widely seen, the British public’s support for the bombing may have dwindled.

This week’s decision on Trident should be seen in the light of this recent history. Wednesday’s debate included many important contributions. Robert Key MP made an impressive speech in which he argued persuasively that Britain had the moral right to defend its way of life. I support his view in the same way that I supported the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. I have previously stated my concern that Trident may be a weapon for another age, however, history teaches us that sometimes world events warrant a tough moral response. When Hitler attempted to take over Europe and annihilate any who stood in his way, it was right for Britain to ‘stand up and be counted’. When the morally-corrupt Soviet Union threatened us with a massive array of nuclear weapons it was right for Britain and its Allies to stand firm. Today’s foe appears more elusive, but he and any future enemy, be they terrorist group or country, should know that Britain will defend itself firmly in the face of intolerance, tyranny and terror.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Thomas Jefferson, 1802

Alistair Campbell was once famously quoted saying, in reply to an American interviewer, “We don’t do God”. Yesterday, Michael Portillo used his Sunday Times column to advise David Cameron to essentially take the same advice. The article had been written in response to the news last week that David Cameron regularly attended Sunday worship in Kensington, West London. And furthermore, that Mr Cameron’s daughter was going to attend the Church of England School attached to the same church.

Response to the Portillo article was swift, particularly from social conservative commentators. Interestingly, the thread of responses to the Portillo article on Conservative Home provides enough evidence for why the Conservative Party should ‘go softly’ when contemplating the use of religion to put forward its admirable plans to improve British society. The wide range of views expressed, often quite strongly and with venom, illustrated that Britain would be far better off forging a path that separates church from state.

By arguing for the need to keep religion out of politics, I am not suggesting that Christians who volunteer and devote their time and energy for the improvement of our society should not be supported and congratulated. If, by following ‘God’s will’, these individuals become noble and good citizens, then who am I to criticise. For example, the research by the Centre for Social Justice provides ample evidence of the sterling work undertaken by faith groups up and down the country. My point is that to be a good person one does not necessarily have to be actively religious, be that Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other faith. A political party of an essentially secular country should be careful when contemplating the promotion of observance to particular religious practice. As Thomas Jefferson (pictured above) once remarked,”History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government”.

Where Michael Portillo had a point was when he asked the question, “If moderation and secularism have been overturned in parts of the Muslim world, why should not the same thing happen in Christian societies?” I am similarly concerned that Britain, and other ‘Christian’ countries, may respond to the indiscriminate attacks of extreme Islamists by making their societies less tolerant. To do so, would be wrong. Like Portillo, I am no ‘militant secularist’, however, I do not want British politicians of the future to talk about “crusades“, claim to have taken to prayer to aid decision-making, or to have indulged in overt religious activity. In Britain, a person’s faith has always been a private matter. Let’s hope it remains that way.

That this House, while accepting that the legal aid system is in need of reform, is concerned that the Government’s planned implementation of Lord Carter’s proposals could force several hundred law firms out of business leaving vulnerable clients without access to effective representation; is concerned that the proposals identified in the Carter Review could further endanger the supplier base; notes that the changes to the proposals announced by the Government on 28th November 2006, while welcome, do not go far enough…and calls upon the Government to guarantee a legal aid system ensuring quality representation and fair access to justice for all – EDM 537

Yesterday, I spent the day shadowing an MP friend of mine. During the course of the day, I had the pleasure of meeting three lawyers who had come to Westminster to lobby for support to fight the imposition of the ‘Carter’ reforms to legal aid in this country. I am ashamed to admit that this important issue has, up until now, passed me by.

In recent years, much has been written about what British society is about. Much of this national introspection has been caused by the terrorist attacks of recent years. One constituent part of that society,I would argue, is the access to justice. A civilised nation should guarantee that every person receives proper defence in court, irrespective of nationality and financial means. Until now, legal aid has been the British way of ensuring that access.

The Carter Report was commissioned because of widespread concern that the legal aid system was inefficient and, in some high-profile cases, appeared to be misused. Even if some of those concerns were justifiable, the reality for most lawyers working in legal aid cases, was that costs were already more than the monies received in return from the state. One lawyer told me yesterday that on present terms his ‘legal aid’ time was valued at approximately £60 per hour, out of which he had to cover his business costs before paying himself. That hardly struck me as an excessive amount, indeed, I am concerned that it is so modest that future generations of lawyers will be put off covering legal aid cases. Why be a legal-aid lawyer when one can earn more as a plumber?

The problem with Carter is that it appears to be suggesting further cost-cutting. The most controversial change, replacing hourly solicitors’ fees with fixed or graduated payments, is particularly concerning for legal firms. By some assessments, these changes will lead to up to 800 law firms¹ - double the number originally predicted by Lord Carter himself- being forced to close business. There are apparently already so-called “advice deserts”, areas of the country where legal advice is not readily available, e.g. Isle of Wight. My understanding is that there is a real fear that these deserts will become larger and more numerous.

On 15th January, a debate in the House of Commons took place to discuss the Carter proposals. Vera Baird QC, Legal Aid Minister, confirmed that the government had adopted the ‘direction of travel’ of the Carter reforms. She confirmed that there was no prospect of extra money for legal aid. The EDM (Early Day Motion) quoted above has been circulated and has attracted cross-party support from 112 MPs. If I was an MP it would get my support. The “What Price Justice?” Campaign started by the Law Society, and supported by many organisations including NSPCC and MIND, has been instrumental in raising the profile of this important issue.

I could see yesterday that there are lawyers who have a sense of public duty when it comes to legal-aid cases. I could also sense their anger and frustration with the Carter proposals. As Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, has said: “Solicitors go into legal aid work with a commitment to public service, but that commitment must not be exploited.”

The importance of a properly-funded legal aid system cannot be over stated. Clearly, proper regulation of the area is needed, however, to implement changes that could erode access to justice would be morally wrong. Ironically, this Labour government could be introducing legislation that could harm the most vulnerable people in society, the very people they claim to best represent. My fear is that without proper and fair legal representation, the families and friends of these people could be driven to exact their own justice, hopefully, not in the way that Michael Caine’s character did in that infamous 1970s film.

¹ LECG

We all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men who can provide a loving home for children – Ruth Kelly

In Britain we have an established church. In the USA there is a constitution that formally separates church and state. And yet, until recently, religion hardly played a part in British politics, whilst in America, ‘values issues’ increasingly make the difference between winning and losing elections.

Not so long ago, we had the issue of faith schools. On that occasion the Catholic church was felt to have ‘won’ the day. Now we have the issue of adoption agencies. It would appear that this time around enough members of the cabinet (not the PM) are determined that the government does not ‘lose’ to the Bishops again.

On Radio 4 this morning, David Cameron signalled that he would be supporting the government’s position. Interestingly, the Conservative Party has made the vote on this issue free, as it is views it as a question of conscience. David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, indicated on yesterday’s Sunday AM programme that he would be voting against the legislation. So it would appear that both major political parties have differences of opinion over this issue.

Instinctively, I would side with the government’s position on this issue. I am not a social conservative and would be happier if church and state were formally separated in this country. What amazes me, however, is that it is upon this issue that the Labour government has chosen to pick a fight with the bishops. Most of us would agree (I hope) that finding stable homes for disadvantaged children is of paramount importance. I am not aware that there were thousands of gay couples contacting Catholic adoption agencies offering their stable homes for placement. So why create the confrontation? Why has a compromise not been agreed?

Great strides have been made in the last two decades over the issue of gay rights, and rightly so. By pressing this issue now, the Labour government is in danger of pushing the train off the rails. I am not so sure that the majority of Britons are ready “to go into bat” for gay rights over this issue. I have no doubt that, with time, society (and indeed, most faiths) would accept the legitimacy of gay parentage. To push this issue too hard now could potentially undo the good work that has been undertaken to put gay relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.

Over time, the Catholic Church is going to have accept the law of the land. Discrimination laws will never work if religious and other organisations are allowed to pick and choose what they will accept. A more reasonable solution would have been to have given the Catholic Church time (perhaps a decade) to contemplate, and if, as has been indicated elsewhere, they are still unable to accept the law, go ahead and close the agencies. The sad reality is that if the government had been stronger over faith schools a few months ago, I suspect they would not feel such a need to be so dogmatic over adoption agencies now. Politics can be about idealism. Occasionally, it should also be about pragmatism and compromise. Good politicians should know this.