The new e-petition scheme will inevitably revive the great contentious issue. But to what end?
There are certain issues that just do not go away. It doesn't matter how definitively they appear to have been settled. They fester away beneath the surface of public life and every now and then burst through like boils. One is Britain's membership of the EU, which, though approved in a referendum of 1975, is still much resented by some. And another is the death penalty, which, though "permanently" abolished in 1969 by a large majority of the House of Commons, now looks likely to come before it again. This is thanks to a government initiative under which people are invited to petition parliament, via the internet, about subjects of their choice. Any subject of a petition with more than 100,000 supporters then has to be considered by the House of Commons for debate.
The scheme was officially launched yesterday, but already rightwing internet bloggers had been busy collecting signatures to demand a debate on the restoration of capital punishment in Britain, where the last hanging took place in 1964. They should have little difficulty in reaching the 100,000 mark. As in most countries of the world, there has always been a majority in Britain in favour of the death penalty. Those believing in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth have always outnumbered those who regard the death penalty as judicial murder, a descent by the state to the moral level of its least admirable citizens. And the popularity of capital punishment can only have grown in view of recent events, which have revealed that a Norwegian mass murderer cannot be sentenced to more than 21 years in prison, whereas someone like the American fraudster Bernie Madoff, who hasn't killed anybody, can be given more than 150 years.
Sir George Young, the Conservative MP charged with implementing the e-petition scheme, defended it yesterday as "a realistic way to revitalise public engagement in parliament". "This is a new era for the House of Commons," he said. "Two years ago, battered by scandal and with public confidence at an historic low, many wrote off parliament as irrelevant. Over the past 12 months, it has not only been more responsive to the public, it has been fighting for the public interest, for instance by leading the debate on the phone-hacking revelations . . . If politicians want to regain the trust of the public, then they need to trust the public. Giving people more power is the right place to start."
Well, I wonder. If the restoration of the death penalty goes to parliament for debate and is then rejected by it (as it is bound to be), will people feel they have got "more power" or will they feel even more let down by their politicians? Instead of responding to the expenses scandal with phoney displays of humility, thereby raising false hopes of people power, MPs should just go straight for a bit and then, over time, re-establish their dignity as the people's independent elected representatives.
The problems of old age
The truth is that most people are slightly repelled by the old, and this is even true of the old themselves. For this reason the young tend to disbelieve that they will ever be old, and the old are usually in some sort of denial about their age. I am 71, but I am often reassured that nowadays 70 is the "new" 60, or 50, or whatever, so I try to ignore the fact. It is sometimes difficult, as when people leap up to offer me their seat on the London Underground, but I generally manage to carry on pretending that I haven't really changed. And I think that's the way with lots of old people. We particularly dislike being lumped together as members of a group with wrinkly hands, bladder problems and spectacles on chains round our necks.
We hear a lot about the increasing problems and difficulties that old people face, but if there is campaigning to be done on our behalf, we would rather it were done by the young. For most of us don't want to "come out" as old. There are, of course, some brave souls who don't mind confessing to being victims of ageism – Anna Ford, Selina Scott, and so on – but most of us wouldn't want to admit to victimhood. It feels more dignified to take Sue Lawley's view that our careers are in the lap of the gods and that we should be grateful that we have had our "moments in the sun". Another alternative could be to follow Richard Ingrams and his Oldie magazine in regarding ourselves as superior to the young and cultivate an aggressive self-confidence.
However, all these options fall away when old age becomes seriously advanced, and it is now being predicted that in another half-century there will be more than 500,000 people living to over 100, more than 40 times as many as there are at present. This is attributable to better medical treatment and care, which are in themselves praiseworthy developments, but the prospect of hundreds of thousands of centenarians is hardly to be welcomed. Well before their 100th birthdays they would reach a point when they wouldn't be able to read the news on television even if they were allowed to, and they wouldn't be up to asserting or entertaining themselves in any other stimulating way. Instead, they would cause havoc to the state's welfare arrangements and bitter resentment among working people who would have to pay for the cost of their care. I fear that Dignitas won't be able to cope.
--
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/04/death-penalty-debate
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment