Category Archives: Human Rights & Asylum

Devolution and the Right to Self-Determination

The Catalonian Debate

The King has Decreed! It’s official…

the Catalonian independence referendum and devolution is illegal and undemocratic“. (See video of the King’s speech with English sub-titles in local Finnish press)

Video Thumbnail Source IS, accessed  2017.10.06

But is it?

Please remember to vote in the poll at the end of this article 😉

The Spanish Government believe/claim the democratic vote on the issue is for all Spain as it affects everyone as part of a greater community that has ownership (sovereignty) rights, not just rights of possession on all the Spanish lands, including the Catalonian region. The broader Spanish community has fought, died and worked hard for many years to rid themselves and dictators and unify the country. Anyone who thinks they can or would willing let that all be thrown away are being extremely foolish. Also it seems unfair and selfish to them that the richest state within Spain should want to desert the ship they have sailed in because they don’t want to share. I.e. Fair Weather friends!. It smacks of Trump’ism – winners and losers and a state run by the ‘I am Alright Jackoffs!’

This is true except that the principle involved is in contradiction to the ‘Right of Self-Determination – as upheld by the UN.The problem is in where the boundaries are drawn – often as arbitrary (political) these days as they are culture and region based. The boundaries affect the outcome of the vote considerably, hence several attempts in the UK over recent decades to redraw the borders and map of the municipalities in order to influence the vote results – usually dramatically, by changing the demographic geo-structures to create the biggest minority of constituents in each voting area in their own favour.

No region is isolated, they all interact and have other overlapping regions. Change the preferred key reference points (boundaries) of a voting region and the result is totally different. The choice of key or dominant region to which others are subservient is always an arbitrarily political one, driven more often than not by the perceived pecuniary advantages pertaining to a politically militant few, e.g. Scotland and the issue of North Sea Oil. They all think they can do it now because of the security seemingly provided by the greater EU safety net that helps avoid isolation and the previous disadvantages of separation. In principle this process is the same as already happened within families and broader communities due to the creation of the welfare state.

A loose association of disassociated delinquent juveniles is no more beneficial for the Eu than it is with our sub-communities and social structures. It is however necessarily part of our right of self-determination. I ask you this however, how old / self-sustainable do kids have to be before they can just divorce their parents and leave home? Where do we draw the line?

Another question…
How many people are needed in order to declare an independent state?

Are there any rules about location, or geographical proximity / grouping? Should the Finnish government let the gypsies declare an independent state in any location their predominate? And what about the Laplanders? In UK, Indians moved into and took over a local town on mass, driving out all the original native residents. Should they be allowed to declare an independent state?

Woking used to be a middle class satellite town to Greater London. Last I heard from a friend of mine and former resident of the area, was that he had to leave because his child was the only native English (white) child in the entire school which, had not just social consequences, but also for personal identity, learning standards, religious education programmes etc. Indian immigrants, as thrifty, hard working and decent people as they are, tend to move into a house for four or five and live there with upto 15 people according to some reports. This has serious social and economic consequences for the value of local housing. Then their are large groups of Muslims in UK who make little attempt to integrate, merely build a Mosque in the centre of a town, buy up all the houses around it and turn it into a mini citadel! Not just hearsay, but first hand reports from an Englishman that was born and raised in such a town and then fell compelled to move out, eventually ending up in Finland.

The Papal enclave in Italy and several other city states (e.g. Monaco, Montenegro) in Europe are not much more than that. The use of force by the Spanish authorities is however a lamentable mistake that will never solve anything and, is already proving somewhat counter-productive. To solve the problem, feelings and concerns must first be recognised and acknowledged before rational discussion and negotiation can take place. The Catalonians should also be reminded that stable borders and relations with EU neighbours are a pre-requisite for EU membership that they will have to reapply for, as is a sufficiently well developed economic situation, social and political infrastructures, separate from the Spanish systems to which they are currently inter-twined – just as UK is to EU, hence the Brexit talks fiasco.  Integration as evolved over decades, a neural network of social and political bindings that cannot simply be picked open and undone overnight. As I was recently remined, Spain, like all the countries, have a right of veto on any new entrants to the EU. Even if Catalonians separatists get what they want, the rest of Spain will still need help to which, the Catalonians will still contribute via EU regional aid and development programmes.

The Catalonian situation, despite the generally accepted legitimacy of its cultural identity case, needs to be seen in greater perspective. Certainly, from a more far off perspective it seems like old European regional tribalism – and look where that got us all – endless wars including two world-wide wars. There are also considerable parallels with the Brexit referendum, which inspired this latest devolution activity / push, in that most voting has been on base sentiments and feelings rather than cool logic and rational thinking, much less actual comprehension of the overall facts and issues involved.

‘As it is below, so it is above’

The break-down and rebuilding of social and power structures is an essential pre-requisite for building a better, and stronger Europe. This has parallels in any learning and development process. For example I have experienced this more concretely whilst teaching hobbies such as martial arts in which, student development reaches a plateau at certain stages. My job was to break-down if not dessemble and tear apart their technique and what they thought they had established in order for them to rebuild it with a more sound and refined structure that will allow them to launch into the next phase of learning and development. ‘As it is below, so it is above‘ – social movements are but a larger scale aggregation of the smaller sub-social and individual processes, and ultimately nature itself. We have already entered a period of social chaos and break-down predicted by the Kondratieff cycles, a natural and empirically predictable natural cycle of social movement if not development. You can find out more about these from my earlier blog article on EU ‘brains’ warn about end of free capital markets by 2030.

The timing of the event however, is not so fortuitous for the EU and will cause much disarray at a time when we need more unity to weather the storm winds of change around the world. We already have 27+ states of various sizes, power and international expertise / worldly competence that are hard enough to hold together for the greater common good. If all our modern states start breaking up into a further multitude of tiny, bickering old-world regions and tribes lead by small-time politicians with little or no competence for the job – even by comparison to the current EU leaderships – this problem will be multiplied many times over, weakening the EU to the point of inoperability and totally vulnerable to the whims of other world powers who would be only to happy to exploit it to their own advantage.

The EU needs to be united and cooperate at least on the practical and functional levels of government administration in order to gain economies of scale that we need to survive in the modern globalised economy and political conditions. The historical process has so far been a piecemeal unification of smaller regions into modern countries as we currently know them that has helped to eventually stabilise borders, jurisdiction and many of the problems and violence of the old world – but nothing is perfect and the job is not yet complete, if ever it will be. A fully integrated and unified Federal European Union is a logical next step to some regional country groupings (e.g. UK & Ireland, Nordic union, the Netherlands – all passport free regions before the EU)  that some prominant groups in the EU are pushing for and have been seeking for a long time since. The U.S.  and Germany are federal states that permit a certain amount of autonomy and independence to constituent states to manage their own affairs, so, perhaps not such a bad thing.

Federalization however, would mean the creation of a European superstate that would diminish the position and influence of regions such as Catalonia even more that it is within the nations state of Spain. This is the hidden socialist agenda in Europe that many British (older generation mostly) have had a strong aversion to and resulted in the Brexit vote, one of the most ill-informed referendum votes in democratic history (except perhaps for recent U.S.A. elections ;). Democracy is necessary, but it does not always work it should, or as we would like it to, in large measure because of inadequate means to apply it as it is due to poor definitions/ parameters, elective criteria and administrative processes. In time, technology may allow us to achieve a nationhood and government administration based on membership rather than location, which, although already noted in discussion within academic circles, is not yet a practical viability.

In principle we believe, in pragmatism we trust

So consider this, constitutional and social contracts aside, the right of self-determination has no definitions or criteria as yet, and certainly is not an issue of scale. It is a principle only. And in principle the lowest common denominator is each and every single individual human being on this earth or anywhere else. Does this mean that I, and English man, living in Helsinki, Finland, can hold a vote with my self and declare my home and grounds an independent state that I might call ‘New Fingland’!?

Has a nice ring to it though, does it not? 😉




The Devils of Calais and the Great Escape

The Devils of Calais and The Great Escape

Original source:

Desperation is wide-spread. These people have been stuck there with nowhere else to go – the French don’t want them! Human dignity is to us paramount, but not to those the rule where they come from, yet their wait in this encampment seems interminable, akin to a prison / detention camp, especially when they thought they were escaping to freedom from abuse and oppression.

What seems reasonable in our culture may not be so in theirs, and vice-versa, as was clearly shown by the scandal of French police having to arrest Muslim women from the beach if they were wearing a Burka.  Western feminism  as yet has no place in the societies and culture from which these women come from, though even in the developed world we would all be better off without Feminazism.  The issue revolves around whether the Burka is seen as an emancipating development for Muslim women is  flaunted in our faces like a flag as a cultural and religious provocation that bites the hand that feeds it. This is as much an emotive issue as it is a logical one and clearly there are genuine and decent people on both sides all be they out-flanked by extremists into whose hands they are playing. Much depends on where you are living at the time, for the need to adapt and integrate is an everyday social group issue and skill as well as a cultural one on more international scales. Yet for integration to happen, we must help it along with understanding and compassion. As is usual in any social setting, the new arrivals must make the initial effort to adapt and then integrate, after which the host group may try to ‘meet them half-way’ as the saying goes.

The UK is already overcrowded and suffering yet another identity crisis (third or fourth in my living memory), just as EU is now beginning to due to the volume and speed of migration, nevermind the cultural and religious issues that have dogged this clash of civilisations, modern and ancient. It takes several (4 or 5) generations for migrants to adapt and integrate but, in these large numbers it is more likely they will just form insular ghettos leading to further civil unrest and trouble further down the line. The UK experience with Indian immigrants as well as with Muslim communities has clearly highlighted these risks and related problems long since, having taken in millions of them, so, by comparison the Brexit vote over a few hundred thousand culturally related Europeans seems quite ridiculous and ignorant, if not churlish. It is poignant that much of modern racism and inter-community problems in the UK these days is between the various immigrant communities themselves, having brought all their old and redundant cultural baggage with them. Even so, as we seemingly drown in non-adaptive third world cultures, attitudes and politics that drag us back down into the quagmire our ancestors spilt blood, sweat and tears for centuries to overturn and drag our society out of,  much of what we see today as modern liberal civil society is relatively recent and the result of increasingly rapid social developments since the last two world wars, and that includes our dress codes and sense of decorum in public places.

One hundred years ago we were not so different than Muslim and other developing-world cultures, at least in this superficial aspect, my own grandmother even, always wore a head scarf when she went out and probably never wore a bikini in her life, as full body swimwear was the accepted norm in her day.  In the public swimming pools however, the issue is more of a practical one related to hygiene and equality. If we cannot wear certain types of swimwear because of hygiene issues, for which, our own culture, religions and churches have already had to adapt, then why on earth should  anyone else be allowed because of theirs!? In the UK, the Sikhs already tried to use their first high court judge (appointed under ethnic and cultural equality and integration promotion policies) to get a legal exception made for their national costume which, includes the wearing of a dagger – something that is clearly unacceptable in British society, especially with all the knife related crime problems in inner cities and their schools in particular. Clearly (legal) education was not to rid him of his pecuniary interests and prejudices, let alone truly understand and comprehend the rules and values of our culture and society. If we opened the doors (borders)  indiscriminately, the whole world would try to come into UK and EU, then the lifeboat will capsize and sink. The problem is not just about the economics of financing these people whilst they get established here, but of social and cultural absorption. People are fearful of and slow to change, so just how much slower will a whole society and culture be!?

The Syrian migration is not a political asylum issue so much as an exodus of war refugees that has been hijacked by a multitude of others for their own pecuniary interests and geopolitical power purposes. Can’t say as I blame any of them, though the organised crime and human traffickers we could do way with for starters. Without a major military effort and ongoing guerilla warfare style policing and border control operation, this will only happen when the demand dries up – prevention is always better than cure, so we must help ‘solve the problem’. The ultimate and more lasting solution however, can only come from within, so the affected people must find a way to stand tall and put their own house in order, just as our forefathers had to and we too still have to do today lest the entropic forces of crime and prejudice dismantle everything our society has achieved so far. The EU immigration and asylum system (The Dublin agreement) was already straining at breaking-point from just the more normal migration flows from under-developed countries in crisis beyond the EU borders. This is where the root cause of the problems are and where it should be contained (quarantined) and solved if possible – this is basic health, safety, security and risk management principle and practical process for anyone working in the emergency services. Those countries that had the power to do this, conspicuously failed to act and do so, despite repeated warnings and requests for intervention by other local allies ‘in the know’.

The richer EU countries also selfishly dumped all the duties and costs of border protection on the poorer outlying states and still do little to share the burden more fairly. Talk of greater integration and common EU forces misses the point, i.e. the immediate threat and issues! The question is, how many is too many? How many can we absorb and at what rate of influx? How many have actually come over? How many actually stay permanently or return to their homelands once it is ‘safe’? We know that some migration is needed to replenish our stock of young people now depleted by years of economic success in which we cannot afford, cope with or even want large families anymore whilst all the time we live longer. However, no one has been able to or can at present answer these questions. We can’t stand by and leave people to suffer but, we can’t roll over like a welcome mat or we will get walked all over and swamped. The US and others talk much about how EU should accept them all, whilst, they themselves, having stood by and done little to prevent the problem or even in part caused it, cherry picked the refugees they are willing to accept – hypocrites that they are!  Funny how some countries can apply criteria for doing this but, the rest of us are not allowed to use such broad categorizations and criteria lest we be labelled  racists or otherwise heartless & inhumane whilst, at the same time are seemingly incapable of effectively screen asylum applicants because of practical capability constraints. There is no magic perfect solution here, so as usual, we need to draw a  line somewhere, all be it an arbitrary one, based on practical solutions that give an optimal solution under the  circumstances. That’s the reality of life!

Although Hilary Clinton, a seemingly genuine moderate, chooses to side with the brow beating ‘Political Correctness’ camp, whatever PC is politically or technically defined as,  the attempts to silence and suppress Donald Trump, the feelings and the arguments he voices and even conduct vilification campaigns without actually listening to them let alone answering the questions and issues raised, does them little credit, nor does it help solve the underlying problems. Again, innocuous and narrow if not biased partisan interests are clearly at play here which, should rightly raise strong suspicions about this political camp, or at least some of the driving factions within it. However, this in no way means that I agree with or support ‘Donk’ Trump in any shape or form, my feelings and attitudes towards his politics or him as a person and  a politician are in no way  favourable. Then again, I am not too enamoured with EU politicians and ‘

Then again, I am not too enamoured with EU politicians and ‘Commissionairies’ right now either! This whole episode has been the biggest farce and screw-up of modern western political times. Furthermore, the constant arguments and barrage of character assassinations over issues which, absolutely no one has the facts and figures for makes the whole debate nothing more than a futile load of bigoted speculation. This is precisely why the EU is trying to install automated border control mechanisms with finger printing and other biometric identity systems that have been long resisted for fear of abuse, not by hackers and other criminals so much as the governments and regulating authorities themselves.  For some (the older and wiser members of society), the memory of what happened in Germany when Hitler and his Nazis seized control of the country and started the second world war still looms large. What chance of overturning such a dictatorship would we have now with all this biometric and other high-technology in place and in the hands of similar people?  The EU may have been kick-started by economic issues (the  Transport strikes triggered by border queues between France and Germany), but, the EU has never been purely a business club. The foundations on which it’s success rests, as for the rest of us, is security, largely achieved through common culture and values.

Rampant political correctness has now exacerbated the problem of ‘mission creep’ and cross-linked electronic systems by trying to use the crisis as an excuse to extend the scheme from immigrants and criminals to the whole EU population. This poses a severe challenge and threat to the principles of privacy and data protection so cherished (so they tell us – they keep compromising on it under pressure from those whose business interests it serves) by the EU. Even before this there was resistance to biometric tagging of immigrants even for fear of being ‘shot by association’ when their information is kept in the same fingerprint database (Eurodac) as real criminals. Migrants are not criminals and UN human rights law and principles mean that even illegal immigrants should not be labelled as ‘criminals’ despite the attempts of some interest groups (governments) to have them treated as such. Even with these massive and hugely expensive systems, there are and always will be huge holes in the net, not to mention the loss of lives at sea by those desperate to escape their lot elsewhere, with or without life jackets even for their young children. Despite the emotional distress such occurrences cause, not to mention the emotional blackmailing conducted by some ‘interest groups’, this is not sufficient reason in itself to simply open the floodgates. The situation management and solution lies elsewhere.

Despite all our history and learning, it seems we keep making the same mistakes all over again with each generation (the price of forgetting history), This is the original message and true meaning of ‘to each generating is born’ the great Sah’tan (Miss-translated as ‘the Devil’) –  I.e. YOUR Ego! Yes, not an other-worldly fearful being hell-bent on our destruction, but our own innate over inflated egos! It is basic human psychology that we try to externalise the cause of our problems, rather than look in the mirror, in order to make them easier to cope and deal with, a fact that along with our fear all the churches and their religious doctrines have used and abused against us for their own interests since the beginning. So what does this tell you about the Devil’s counter-part and the original and true meaning of the concept of ‘God’!?


Related Blog Posts:


Experiencing E-Learning

Building Engaging Learning Experiences through Instructional Design and E-Learning

Private Sector Surveillance Detection And Special Protective Operations


Following migration by sea from Africa to or towards Europe.

%d bloggers like this: