Migrants at Calais and Racism

When I see the disturbing scenes at Calais of hundreds of migrants from Africa, Afghanistan  and the Levant trying to avoid the police to jump on trains heading for Britain, I think of racism. If all of these desperate people were white skinned they would stand much more of a chance of being accommodated in both Britain and France. The migrants have been forced to live in appalling conditions in "jungle city". This is much to the chagrin of local residents. Everyone wants to escape this situation resolved and none more so than the refugees and residents of Calais.

Most of the migrants are genuine refugees from violence , torture, false imprisonment and starvation. They are desperate to find a new home. Some of them will be miscreants who are using violence to gain access to lorries and the channel tunnel system but the miscreants are few in number and they can be dealt with by the justice system.

The British and French governments are reluctant to take positive action to accommodate these poor people because of public opinion. I am ashamed to say that not many people in Britain or France have got much sympathy for the plight of these people - and it is probably because  they are seen as being from a different "race" by some of our compatriots. Some politicians are also stirring up political trouble with their populist opinions and simplistic solutions to a complex problem.

The leader of UKIP is being disingenuous when he makes public statements that all France has to do is give the 3,000 migrants at Calais French passports and then they can all come to Britain legally - so let's leave the EU to prevent this happening: Balderdash. The French government cannot and will not grant any of these migrants French citizenship. There are already thousands and thousands of immigrants in France who have not been given passports; they are the "sans papiers" and they work in the under cover economy. These migrants have been staying in France illegally for years and they are going nowhere else.

The French government is coming in for much criticism from the  British tabloid press and right wing MPs. The same people who object to the EU from doing anything which impinges on British freedom of action are telling the French what to do. Hypocrisy  - hardly a British value is it? Maybe the French find this objectionable.

Of course, the British Home Secretary recognises the need for co-operation with the French government which has been generous enough to allow British border posts and fences on the French side of the channel or La Manche. If the border posts had to be moved back to Dover and Folkestone then the migrants would establish "jungle city" in Britain and in short order. We are lucky that the French are prepared to secure our border for us. We are also lucky that the French police are prepared to go along with this.

Many of the migrants have travelled a long time and across dangerous terrain and countries to get here. Many would have risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea in flimsy boats to land in Europe. The people at Calais are resourceful risk takers and have not given up on their objective. Many of these migrants would be hard working people who  have no need to sponge off the state as they can survive on their own resources. They would probably be happy to work hard for Britain if we let them in.

Successive British governments have done nothing to make provision for traffic to be managed when the channel tunnel is closed for whatever reason.  If there is just a storm in the channel then the tunnel cannot cope with the diverted traffic from the ferries. Lorries, therefore, are parked on the M20 motorway. This is a ludicrous solution. With migrants blocking the tunnel on a nightly basis the M20 stacking system in Kent has now reached crisis point. Complacency is no longer an option.

The French and British governments must find a solution which helps everyone including the migrants, lorry drivers, the residents of Kent and Calais and the police from both nations.

The French and British governments have a moral duty to resolve this crisis as they have brought war to Africa, The Levant and Afghanistan and this is the major reason why the migrants are coming. We really have no right to treat any of these unfortunate people so badly. The answer can be found if we use a sense of compassion on both sides of the channel rather than xenophobia. The voters of France and Britain should give their governments more room for manoeuvre.

Breakthrough Listen and the Fermi Paradox

Professor Stephen Hawking recently launched the Breakthrough Listen project which will be conducted to find intelligent alien life on another planet in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, or even in another Galaxy altogether.
http://www.space.com/29990-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-initiative.html

In my view this is a fantastic project. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that any form of life exists in the Universe other than on Earth or its near environment.

The project involves scanning the skies to detect electro-magnetic radiation in the form of radio signals or laser beams which would have been transmitted by an alien and intelligent living being or a robot of such a being.

It is quite possible that the ten year project will pick up such a signal and be able to decode it. Picking up an alien radio signal may be our best chance to confirm that life exists elsewhere in the Milky Way. It is unlikely that a telescope such as Kepler will be able to resolve the signs of life on planets many light years away. It is equally unlikely that a satellite probe will find life on another planet or moon of our solar system within 10 years. However, Mars could be a candidate for such a discovery.

Yuri Milner who is financing the project has rightly pointed out that even if we do not discover alien life with the Breakthrough project then it does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere.

I am hoping that the project will be successful but I have my doubts that intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy.

The renowned physicist Enrico Fermi surmised "our galaxy should be teeming with civilizations, but where are they? Why are they not here visiting us already? Why can't we see them? The Galaxy has been been in existence for billions of years surely we cannot be the only form of life that is intelligent? This is the Fermi paradox.

http://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html

So far we can only speculate that life exists in the rest of the Galaxy. It is quite possible, however, that some planets are teeming with life - just like the Earth. There are about 400 billion stars in our Galaxy so millions of them could support life on a planet or moon within their alien "solar system".

However, what are the chances of a life form on another planet evolving both the intelligence and the dexterity to make tools which can communicate across interstellar space and make space probes. Out of the millions of species that have ever survived on Earth only a small number would qualify as tool makers intelligent enough to make a radio set if they had survived. Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are two but they went extinct. Neanderthal Man also had the potential but he could be part of our own species. Only one surviving species has been thrown up on Earth which has the intelligence and physical ability to design and build a radio set. Dolphins, Whales and other non-human primates display some form of intelligence but they do not have the manual dexterity to create complex tools. The chance of an intelligent species such as man evolving are probably millions to one against. Intelligence does not confer a particular ability to survive as a species. Cockroaches have survived for millions of years without any form of intelligence. The human genus has only existed for a couple of million or so years.

Planets which support life elsewhere in the Galaxy could face the same evolutionary predicament. Thousands or millions of species survive on a planet but none of them have both the intelligence and the dexterity to create tools. There may be billions of planets which can support life but only thousands which support intelligent life that can communicate across the Galaxy.

It will be interesting to note how human beings fare when they travel to Mars.  Whilst it may be physically possible to survive a trip it might be mentally very difficult. We cannot know how humans will deal with the isolation of both time and distance. Experiments have been done by isolating humans in submarines and laboratories for months on end and humans can survive on the international space station for similar periods. All of these humans have had an escape route and know that their isolation can be ended if it becomes too much of an ordeal. A trip to Mars is of a different order of isolation of even a trip to the Moon. Inter-planetary and inter-stellar space travel may not be possible for humans because of the isolation factor. The same could apply to intelligent aliens. Some of the stars which harbour intelligent life could be hundreds if not thousands of light years away; the magnitude of the isolation is daunting and a more advanced species than ours may have already given up  the idea of travelling to another star and may have resigned itself to just listening out for other forms of intelligent life. This does not mean that we should not try to find a distant radio signal across inter-stellar space even if we cannot visit the source.

The difficulty of communicating with other being is also a daunting task. The latest extra solar planet discovery, Kepler 452b, is 1,400 light years away. This planet is similar in size to Earth and it revolves  around a  star similar to our own in the "habitable zone". If there are intelligent beings on this planet and they are listening out for us then they will have to wait a long time to pick up the BBC news - more than a 1,000 years. If they send us a message back then they would have to wait 2,800 years for an answer, and that would be if we were confident enough and feel safe enough to reply. Communication with even a near stellar neighbour may be almost impossible because of the time difference, isolation and social difference.

This could be the resolution of the Fermi Paradox. There are too few fellow intelligent beings out there and they are too far away in terms of time and distance to maintain contact.

This does not mean that we should not satisfy our curiosity; it would be good to know that we are not alone and that life is not a single event limited to our own planet and star. If we do pick up a radio or laser signal from  an alien civilisation it would probably mean that our Galaxy has millions of planets and moons  that support life and that we should redouble our efforts to find it on Mars or a moon of  Jupiter or Saturn.

Let's hope Stephen Hawkings and Yuri Milner meet with success.

Countering Extremist Ideologies

Naturally, I agree with the British Prime Minister that the government and the public in general must do all they can to counter extremism and terrorism. However, I do not agree that " historic injustices and grievances" and " recent wars" should not be included as part of the solution.

We only have to look to the United Kingdom to look at the effect of "historic injustices and grievances" and "recent wars" to see graphically and tragically their effect.

The "troubles" in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998 involved the deaths of 3,600 people. They were the result of hatred between the IRA and the UVF and UDA.  Combatants from both sides of the Roman Catholic and Protestant divide were responsible for most of the deaths and casualties. The conflict was only resolved by negotiation.

Some of the animosity in Northern Ireland remained from the 1690 Battle of The Boyne. The Protestant victory is still celebrated today by Protestant extremists, even though some of this extremism no longer expresses itself through terrorism and violence.

There has been animosity between Irish Catholics and  Protestants for centuries and this culminated in the War for Irish independence between 1919 and 1921 and the subsequent civil war after the formation of the Irish Free State. The civilian population of Ireland and the UK has got plenty of blood on its hands. Irish and UK governments have also got blood on their hands with relation to Ireland.

Thousands of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want to be British and do not want to adhere to British values, whatever they are, and they would vote to join the Republic of Ireland if there were a plebiscite tomorrow. Luckily there is no longer any terrorism  to achieve this but the whole of our society needs to be careful. The situation could easily slide back into violence if the politicians from both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland do not remain watchful.

British politicians should therefore have a full understanding of how historical injustices can play on the mind of potential terrorists; and they ignore this aspect of why people become violent to achieve political means at their peril and at the peril of the British community at large.

We do not have to look to Northern Ireland to find the causes of why young people choose violence to achieve political aims. During the Spanish Civil War hundreds of Britons went to fight in the International Brigade against fascism. Some of them were members of the British establishment and were fully imbued in British values.

To persuade British people not to join guerrilla groups such as Daesh or ISIL we must start a dialogue with all of our young people and encourage them to think for themselves rather than blindly follow an extremist or violent ideology.

We could begin this dialogue by becoming a secular state which defends the rights of  all of our citizens to become believers or non-believers. We should also withdraw state funds from faith schools including Church of England ones. If parents want to give their children a religious education then they should send them to private schools. State funded schools should teach our children to think rationally about all aspects of our society including religion and our history and to face the truth.
Why not let our children mix and why not do our best to integrate the sons and daughters of immigrants into British society rather than condemn them for having "Un-British" ideas?

We should not traduce immigrants or their children; we should welcome them  to play a full part in our community and nation.

To ignore history or to have a prejudiced view of it invites trouble. Equally, we have to tackle the grievances caused by injustice and war: these are other sources of animosity that we ignore to the detriment of harmony within our nation.

Citizen's Duty

The British government has described non-violent extremism thus: "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". On this basis schools, universities, NHS trusts, local authorities and prisons will be placed under a statutory duty to prevent extremist radicalisation taking place within their walls. In the current climate of our society, you are what you say as well as what you do.

On the face of it I agree with the opinion that citizens should not indulge in extremism and that secular values should be encouraged. However, will it not be counterproductive to censor or "blacklist" individuals who express opinions which fall within the definition? We all have a duty to promote non-violent political activity and those who deliberately provoke others to behave violently towards political or religious opponents or commit treason should be sanctioned. However, we cannot challenge "extremist" ideas if such ideas are only held or expressed in private. Those who are potentially violent will simply keep their mouths shut with the aim of not arousing suspicion.

Some proponents of religious or political change could feel resentment that they cannot express their views in public and may turn to violent organisations to vent their anger.

We live in a free society and open debate is necessary to defend our values of liberty, openness and free thinking.

Of course there is a fine line between expressing "extremist" views and inciting others to violence or even being violent but we must be careful not to sanction those who have not crossed that line.

We really should be able to recognise the difference between the expression of an opinion and taking violent action or inciting violence.

I find the extreme views of  some of our fellow citizens abhorrent especially with regard to proposing violence. There is, however, a difference between actually taking action or inciting someone rather than just talking and being offensive.

Some politicians have proposed taking military action without consent from the United Nations should their views be considered as extremist? Should they be put on a blacklist?

You have the right to openly propose changes to the law that go against the grain of British values , if you so wish. You have this right but you do not have the right to impose extra-judicial punishments on those who do not agree with your moral or ethical standards.

You have the right to oppose a secular democracy and the right to express the view that Britain should become a theocracy or a republic. However, you do not have the right to impose any of this  without the democratic consent of the majority of the British people.

We would live in a better society if everyone recognised democracy and secular values and we were allowed to express non-violent opinions freely.