Some updated thoughts on the Christmas show 'The true face of Christmas.'


MP3 File

Sometimes, it seems that the actions of those who debate the important issues of the day in our nations parliament building, resemble a 'Punch and Judy' puppet show more than they do any serious kind of political theatre.

Many of the most important questions are never addressed and when they do appear, they often wear the superficial clothing of scripted soundbites, or else are garbed in obscure linguistic technicalities. These serve only to obscure the shape and form of the issues they are supposed to uncover. In this matter, the government and the opposition parties often act in collusion; both concealing more than the reveal and both appearing to be party to private agendas that are never disclosed, and which remain largely incomprehensible to the general public.

Many of the most powerful lobbys funding and informing the policy development of political party agendas are not visibly apparent. They are rarely discussed openly. Where government itself is concerned, it is only as its period in office unfolds that the vested interests lying below the carefully cultivated propoganda surface begin to become visible.

When they do appear, it is often in a manner which tends to obscure their real significance and importance. This concealment, is further aided by the actions and statements of ministers and politicians themselves, who either have much to lose, or a great deal to gain in the overall equation.

Thus it is that our 'honorable members' often seem content to focus the discussion  on those areas of policy (and upon those issues) which serve to direct the course of investigation and the parameters of political debate into channels which can be easily controlled.

Indeed it is rare to see any politician appear in the House of Commons, who seems able to transcend the carefully contrived limitations placed upon them by the personnel managers of the party whip. Even rarer, the sight of one making a bold and brave defense of genuine principle, or pointing out the obvious underlying similarities, in the supposedly opposing positions of the political opponents facing each other across the parliamentary floor.

Against this backdrop, it seems pertinent to ask if the British parliamentary system is in fact merely an elaborately staged political puppet show, where our most prominent politicians act out the scripted agendas crafted for them by a group of largely unseen puppeteers; all the time cheered and jeered by an enthusiastic (though largely irrelevant) parliamentary audience of backbenchers and career politicians.

Is it possible, that some members of the current British government are now serving out their term of office, in the fore-knowledge that (barring some unforeseen circumstance), they will not be re-elected to serve a fourth term in government? Have certain powerful controlling interests privately concluded that the shelf life of this current administration is nearing its sell by date?

As strange as such questions may sound to someone who believes that the visible faces of our government are the real ruling heads of the political body we call the state; they do appear to be consistent with the evidence provided by this current governments recent behavior. Certainly the Labour leadership is demonstrating an amazing tendency to shoot itself in the foot of late and is doing so with an increasingly ridiculous (and barely believable) frequency.

Some will argue that it is the British people who decide who governs them and that they do so at the ballot box. The myth of our egalitarian parliamentary democracy (if in fact it is a myth) is the most important and powerful controlling paradigm of our culture. Yet it must be noted, that even in a supposed political democracy, the political good sense of the people can be hijacked and manipulated by unscrupulous interests.

The will of a people to make informed decisions about the men who govern on their behalf, is largely dependent on what they actually know about them.  Leaders do not govern in a vacumn, nor do they rise to prominence solely by virtue of their own efforts. Such men (and women) are promoted to power by virtue of the association and support of others, who both sponsor their political careers and help to build and craft the image which is presented to the public.

Information of that kind is very powerful and can make or break a political career. The asscociations and special interests which underly a politicians rise to prominence are not generally broadcast very widely. In addition much of the most vital and secret information in our society is not in the hands of politicians themselves, but is instead  likely to be provided to them piecemeal by those in a position to bestow it. It will be given at a price, that being, a degree of loyalty or allegiance to the agenda of the provider of that information.

Politicians are only human-beings and as such, are liable to be influenced, controlled, or even blackmailed  by those with the will and power to do so. It is naive to imagine that the political surface is all that it appears to be, or that we the people are truly informed of what manner and type of person or organisation may wield unseen influence over the people we elect to be our spokesmen.

Perhaps where this current government is concerned, it is simply a case of long-term arrogance breeding complacent incompetence.  Regardless of the visible or invisible truth, with every day that passes, it is looking ever more likely that the Conservative party led (but perhaps not controlled by) by Mr David Cameron, will be forming the next visible leadership front to be presented to the British public. That he will be doing so on behalf of a power that sits concealed behind the spin, rhetroric and theatrics of the parliamentary puppet show,is a fact in doubt only to those who have not observed the hidden hands so obviously pulling the strings.

Continuing a week of dispiriting behavior by television networks in the UK, the Guardian is reporting on a decision by the BBC to drop a drama it was making about the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005.

The paper quotes the drama's producer Katy Jones as saying,

I am extraordinarily disappointed, more than anything for the family. It was devastating for them. We had been told by the BBC it was the most important television commission of the year.

In a statement, the BBC cites 'timing and the mix of programmes' as the apparent reason why this (and a further sensitive docu-drama dealing with the lives of the 7/7 bombers) has now vanished from its schedule.

---

Comment

Apparently the most 'important television commission of the year', was unable to withstand whatever pressure was exerted from within the BBC's leadership, to ensure that it was never brought to air. The BBC claim that dramatic accounts are 'not the best way' to deal with these 'complicated' subjects.

Why then did they originally commission it to be made?

What is it exactly, that is so 'complicated' about producing a drama covering as accurately as possible, the fact that 18 months ago an innocent 27 year old man, was shot at least 7 times in the head by unknown members of an armed team, acting we are told on the authority of Scotland Yard?

It might also be asked, what message we are sending to ourselves, when such a crime can be committed in our midst, then summarily dismissed from our collective consciousness? Surely in such circumstances, those with the power and the mandate to facilitate public scrutiny should be making all available efforts to do so? Is it not important that we are able determine what happened that day?

Apparently not.

It is surely a prerequisite of a just society, that Justice is seen to be done in it. It can hardly be argued that it has been thus far. Unless we are to consider that the execution of Mr de Menezes constitutes a necessary price in the war on terror. One which, despite his death, requires no further investigation or effort on the part of the establishment or ourselves to explain.

Accusations that UN personnel in Southern Sudan have been involved in the raping and abusing of young children have been published this week in the Daily Telegraph.

The paper has gathered 20 accounts from victims claiming that children displaced by the civil war and sleeping rough on the streets of the capital, have been targeted by UN peacekeeping and civilian staff who pick them up in UN vehicles and force them to have sex.

Despite verbal testimony given by children, the British regional coordinator James Ellery has refuted all allegations, citing a lack of evidence and blaming the accusations on 'misunderstandings' and the local peoples illiteracy. He referred to the allegations as 'rumors'.  An internal UNICEF report for the Sudanese government and a report from an unnamed NGO both appeared to substantiate the claims, but as yet, no cases have come to court.

The story follows a spate of similar allegations that have emerged in recent years. A BBC investigation in November 2006 detailed numerous allegations of rape and prostitution connected to UN forces in Haiti and Liberia. The report highlighted the fact the UN appeared both disinterested and ineffective in responding to allegations of the rape and sexual abuse of young women and children and was unable or unwilling to police the widespread use of prostitutes by it's personnel in the region.

A spate of stories emerged from the UN presence in Congo when in October 2005, both ABC and Fox news reported the story of Didier Bourget, a senior UN official from France, who videotaped himself having sex with young Congolese girls and was said to be running an internet pedophile ring in the region. Police investigating Bourget stated that his bedroom was covered with mirrors and he had set up a a series of remote controlled cameras around the room. The sting operation that captured him, allegedly found him preparing to rape a 12-year-old girl.

Following this, a further ABC News investigation published details of Aimme Tsesi, a 15 year old deaf-mute Congolese girl raped and impregnated by a Uruguayan UN solider, who was turned away from the gates of the UN camp when she went there for assistance. These cases were amongst an estimated 150 allegations of sexual exploitation and rape in the region that were highlighted in the ABC program "20/20" which aired in February 2005.

A Times investigation in December 2004, turned up allegations that two Russian pilots based in Mbandaka, paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them. They filmed the sex acts and then apparently sent the tapes to Russia. The men were tipped off when the story was about to become public and left the area, escaping prosecution.

In 2001 former U.N. human rights investigator Kathryn Bolkovac sued the defense contractor DynCorp, (who administered the contract to provide police officers for the 2,100-member UN international police task force) on charges of wrongful dismissal, sexual discrimination and violation of Britain's whistle-blower laws. Bolkovac stated that the company dismissed her because she reported  in an email that Dyncorp police trainers officers were availing themselves of services offered by young women forced into prostitution and were complicit in sexual trafficking.

The email alleged that U.N. officers visited Bosnian sex clubs where girls as young as 15  were beaten, raped, refused food, and locked away for days or weeks if they refused to dance naked on tables and consort with paying customers. She stated that the women were told they would be arrested by the local police if they tried to contact them for help. She also said that officials were involved in helping local police to sell women into the sex-trade.

The British tribunal found unanimously in favor of Bolkovac and stated that Michael Stiers, the deputy commissioner of the mission in Bosnia who dismissed Bolkovac, for allegedly falsifying her time-sheet, "had his knife in her and was determined that she should be removed from her role as a gender monitor with IPTF."  Despite this decision and the fact the many Dyncorp official resigned under a cloud of suspicion, they enjoyed immunity from prosecution in Bosnia and were therefore never charged.

A similar lawsuit occurred earlier in 2001 when a former DynCorp aircraft mechanic Ben Johnston went public with allegations that during 1999 senior Dyncorp employees were "engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior." Amongst the many allegations were those of middle-aged men having sex with 12 year-olds, involvement with the Serbian Mafia, a DynCorp supervisor videotaping himself having sex with two females despite the fact that one of the women on the video was repeatedly heard saying "no" and the charge that many DynCorp employees bragged about purchasing women from Russia, Romania and other places for use as sex-slaves in Bosnia, and then sold them before returning home.

---

Comment

There is a sense in which the United Nation's efforts to stem a tide of corrupt practice and moral degeneracy by it's troops and employees is at best negligent and at worst makes it appear criminally complicit in the actions it says it is trying to prevent.

Spokesmen for the UN continue to mouth a combination of platitudes and excuses, denying knowledge, citing insignificant evidence, or else attempting to shift the blame for actions committed by UN forces onto other groups and peoples.

Perhaps it is not surprising though, that an organization which spends such a great deal of time and energy telling other people how they ought to live and portraying itself as a beacon of light and freedom to poor and oppressed people everywhere, should be found at heart to be capable of both high level political corruption and a degree of moral bankruptcy that if maintained, will only lead to it losing further credibility. But then again, perhaps that's the whole point...