When we say we have the right to something, what exactly are we meaning? What is a right?
Apparently I have the right to life…ahm…thanks…I think? Who decided that? LOL
I suppose a right is something granted to you by something or someone more powerful than yourself. A right is a granted action, pre-permitted so as not to cause paperwork? Where am I going with this you might add?
Well, I got into a discussion today (well yesterday but its 7am and ive not slept yet so who knows when today starts) about fertility treatment. I spoke with someone who knew someone who had been placed on the NHS waiting list for fertility treatment. Quite the wait apparently, hence why so many people go private and pay a small fortune.
I found this rather annoying. I asked why it was that this person was seeking fertility treatment and it was apparently a straightforward blank firing situation. I told the person that I did not agree that the NHS should offer this treatment to which they replied “this person has the right to have a child just like you or me”
When is our society going to learn to say “sorry about that, unlucky, better luck with something else eh”, instead we pour countless money into various things to accomodate pre-supposed “rights”. For the NHS to pay for this treatment purely because this person cannot have a child is ludicrous. No, they DO NOT have the “right” to have a child made for them by the NHS. They have the right to try for a child. If you fail, if you are unable…unlucky! There are countless children looking to be fostered or adopted yet this option is often cast away in the light of fertility treatment…exposing the selfish nature of these peoples intent. It has to be “their ” child. Well, sorry,. but if you are going to place condition on your aquisition of a child, to turn down social services offer of adoption/fostering and insist on fertility treatment, bloody well pay for it.
Fertility treatment is merely the example, but this applies to countless other supposed “rights” that cause a drain on society. The immigration “excuse” of “they have a right live without fear of oppresive regimes” – oh come on…thats the lamest excuse for throwing open the doors iv’e heard for some time. The rest of europe is closing the doors and we are pinned in a corner of acceptance from brussels, with our supposed rights to veto stunted due to partial inclusion…ha! The irony is comical. They have the right to live without fear of oppresion, but to do so they have to pass through 7 other countries that CAN take them and instead stay here…I suppose the fact we are the only country of them all that is throwing out free money has nothing to do with it….
Oh yeah…I have the right to whinge about it in a blog…yay…I think?
Wow, i whinge a lot? im a whinger hehe – yay me. Might have to do something about that.
Tags: Fertility Treatment, Rights, society
You’ve raised a question or two there – the first one being, “What is a right?” You’re pretty much bang-on with your definition of an action granted from above. Basically a group of highly-educated people get together on a periodic basis on behalf of a country’s government (or several countries in the case of the EC) and decide what should and shouldn’t be basic human rights. The countries involved would then enshrine these rights in law with the implicit assumption that the population as a whole agrees.
That’s the theory anyway, and (disregarding evidence to the contrary) let’s assume that the system works. I’ve even used such legislation to declare my right o religious freedom.
Next question: is it basic human right to produce a child?
According to Dame Mary Warnock, you can’t have a right to something impossible (no womb = no baby), but you could have a right to something which may be possible (IVF).
There’s a lot of fuss about IVF at the moment but the fact is that if you live in the right area (and only the right area) you can get ONE cycle of IVF on the National Health. One cycle doesn’t work – it takes three goes normally. In other words, one incredibly depressing failure (if you’re lucky) then you’ve got to pay some evil bastard who doesn’t need the money anyway!
But is there a right to this treatment? Well, the jury’s still out – but it’s not just one issue, there are genetic and cultural imperatives to consider as well. It’s not simply about a right to do something, it’s about a right to be something, such as fulfilled as a human being.
Having said that, I look around and sometimes think that the right to produce a child should be dependent on some sort of suitability test!
Now for the annoying opinion – if a country decides that it is a basic human right (note the word “human” here)to live without an oppressive regime then it would be both unethical and illegal to refuse the right of immigration to any human being from any other country which is judged to have an oppressive regime (say, Zimbabwe).
That would apply regardless of who else refuses and regardless of overcrowding or ability to cope with the influx. Think about it, if you lived in Burma and had the chance to get out right now, would you? I would.
My own opinions on immigration are pretty simple and straightforward – Let ‘em in, let ‘em all in!
The ones who don’t like it here will leave, the ones who do will stay. They will enrich the culture, they will eventually enrich the economy and in 3 generations they will be British – the land makes the people, not the other way around.
Even considering all that, here’s the real truth.
National borders are obsolete, and have been for a long time. It is the selfish nation-based economic mindset, rather than the human-global-based economy which has caused the environmental and economic disaster through which we’re living.
Have a look at this, they explain it better than I do:
http://www.alternet.org/story/84960/
Human rights for human beings – all of them!
Love,
Seán
You see, when you touch on the word global you open a whole can of worms. ANY form of global mindset is nothing but detrimental to the whole.
Let action speak louder than words.
Multiculturalism does not work, no matter which way it is enforced. There is absolutely zero evidence for it enrichment of a society or its culture. Pretty much any current sociologist would tell you the same.
The damage caused by having an attempted global community far far far outweighs the benfits that the small, rich minority countries such as ours reap from it. Incentives such as fairtrade, to be quite honest are 40 years to late – great work but can the damage already done be repaired? Lets hope so.
To answer, would I flee Burma or some similar hostile environment – course I would. I think you are being a little naieve in thinking that those who like here will stay and those who dont will leave though. The current status quo is transplantation – we dont like it – lets band together, get people in positions of power and try to change it.
Often i’ve heard “enrichment” mentioned as a pro-immigration incentive, but personally fail to see it in application.
Just a quick thought on cultural enrichment because I’m really, really tired and a bit short of time.
A survey taken a couple of years ago (by the BBC, I believe) asked what the British public’s favourite meal was.
The answer? Chicken Korma!
Happy Birthday by the way. See you on Saturday (assuming I suvive the next few evenings).
Love,
Seán
Hehe, thanks – it’s been a great day so far and i’m looking forward to Saturday.
As for enrichment. Maybe thats a blog unto itself. I don’t see that as enrichment, more filling the void. Why do we have a void? Well…i’m gonna ponder for a while before I tackle that one.
Keep on plodding!!!
Well, here’s a spanner in the works:
I’m a product of multi-culturalism. My Jewish family came over off the boat from Poland in the 1920s. Their’s a standard rags to riches story. They had nothing, made enough money selling paired-up reject socks on a market in the East End and built that up into a clothing empire which they sold when my great-Grandparents died. Since then, as well as a host of lawyers and businessmen, they have included two university professors, sharing over ten published books between them, two theatre directors (one of whom is me), one actress, one actor, on theatre producer and one of the first pioneers at the BBC…
On the Gentile side of my family we have a mix of French immigrants intermarrying with Irish, Scots and English. They count among their number a Lord and a Lady, the commander of one of the main British Tank Regiments (my Grandpa), General Wingate’s second-in-command (General Lentaine), a theatre designer and the Head of Fine Arts department at Sussex University…
On balance, I would say that is a pretty enriching contribution to the UK, wouldn’t you say? I for one would like to think that my presence here is a little enriching, at least?
Aye, it is indeed an enriching contribution. A major “issue” in itself with multi-culturalism is the actual definition and understanding of it. Quite simply Jewish culture integrates well enough that it is not considered in the multi-cultural sense.
Within a sociological perspective it is the point where a culture impacts on it’s “hosts” culture on a variety of levels, these levels often in contention within various sociological groups.
For example, in the 2001 census England reported 0.5% of the population as Jewish in comparison to 2.97% muslim population. Culturally the picture is slightly different as muslim culture is encompassed by a huge spectrum of sub-cultures (pakistani, indian, a variety of black cultures, phillipine to name a few). This large spread of sub-cultures across multiple ethnicities within one religion is the cause of the “multi-cultural” debate. Going purely from what i’ve studied so far (my studies are by no means complete!) Jewish culture has not impacted enough to enter the multi-cultural arena. This being from a religious and economic perspective.
Muslim culture comes into the arena though as their religious practice requires the reworking of some of our social structures i.e financial institutions providing non interest mortgages etc due to the enforcement of Sharia law. Factors such as these ultimately lead to the need for political intervention and distinct representation. This often is part of the backdrop cause of social banding where communities secularize themselves geographically. As the specific cultures population increases, all the other factors increase with it and that is where the tensions of multi-culturalism start to show.
At the end of the day, not all cultures integrate well together. Islams social and religious needs do not smoothly integrate into western society and need a lot of work. When I state that multi-culturalism doesn;t work I am speaking purely in the sense of those cultures whose social, economic and religious structures are SO different to our own that they never truly “integrate”. In your case, I do not find this true with Jewish culture. Integration within British society occured and continues to occur very well, and in so doing is the cause of much less social tension.
I forgot to add in there as well. Every individual is who they are. We all, regardless of ethnicity or social background be taken on our own merits. What I am talking about here is purely on a large scale cultural level. There was a muslim author whose name I can’t remember for the life of me who wrote that the current problem within the muslim world is that anyone with any incentive to make a difference, advance themselves educationaly or work for a better future are leaving the muslim states and moving to the west. Its kind of a catch 22 situation really.
Knowing now what is being defined as multi-culturalism, if you look into the past, look through history where this has occured there has not been one single case of long term success, only social upheaval and often conflict.
Ah – well that’s definitely a more finely-nuanced definition of multi-culturalism… Fair dinkum…
The problem here is so complex is amazing though. Do we opt for the French model of ‘one size fits all’ which defines secularism as a standard everyone must go with? In theory, that’s a laudable aim. In practise, it doesn’t work like that as all that happens is white French people surreptitiously sit on everyone else while saying its in the interest of secularism. French racism is much more discrete than British, but in fact in terms of legislation, visibility of other cultures and an ongoing debate we are way ahead of them.
And anyway the French system, ultimately, works as badly as ours if the riots that keep breaking out are anything to go by!
Subjectively speaking, I don’t agree that multi-culturalism hasn’t encriched us – or maybe I mean immigration… On a superficial level, Afro-Caribbean culture has contributed massively to our music, arts and general vibrancy in performance, the Asian community has made a massive contribution to the NHS and so on and so on… I think we are a richer and more vibrant nation for other cultures living among us. 50s England was pretty grey!
Naturally mass immigration brings with it huge problems of identity, conflict, racism, fear and hostility from all cultures – guest and host nations (dicussion of multi-culturalism tends to forget that immigrant communities face hostility and incomprehension from each other as much as from white British). What we are facing is a new historical phenomena. Non-imperialist or non-forced migration/immigration is pretty new. Population changes are not coming out of invasions any more. All the boundaries are being mixed and this makes for huge tensions and problems…
But quite apart from the fact that there are also successes and bonuses from it, its also all part of a global phenomena which is confusing everyone at the moment – the collapse of the nation state. Globalisation, business, telecommunications etc have made the world a claustrophobic place of a sudden. Its no longer possible to live in isolation any more. We are being forced to recognise that the old ways of thinking are no longer applicable. Defining oneself by race, nation, language, religion etc is getting increasingly unhelpful/impossible, particularly now we are facing a crisis which we have to face as a species and not individually…
And in the end, we are people… As you say, we are as we are, individuals, as above other markers. The sooner we see this the better. At the same time, I agree that we need to take a stand on certain issues, such as the issue for Sharia Law and British Law. In the end, for the fabric of a society to hold together (a good thing for everyone) some kind of golden standard has to be maintained.
How do we do it? I don’t know. Perhaps through some meeting ground between our model and the French model. We don’t want racism while at the same time we don’t want to give way on everything we think of as valuable.
Perhaps the bottom line is more dialogue between communities so as to build understanding and break down fear. Those of us from the host countries do have to learn what immigrants face while at the same time immigrants need to learn about the culture they are becoming part of… My Jewish family benefited hugely from British generosity and so should everyone…
Perhaps it boils down to the correlation between Rights and Obligations. An Egyptian friend of mine told me that I should stop moaning about the UK because we allowed our citizens rights they didn’t have elsewhere. And, he pointed out, with those Rights came Obligations. In his country, he said, no-one has any Obligations and life is easy, but the downside is they have no Rights. He argued that to live in England and benefit from the Rights you got you had to recognise that you have Obligations too.
Its classic Individual and Group stuff. Individuals need to be nourished by the Group and not be oppressed by it, but at the same time they have to recognise that there IS a Group… Its a very subtle, two-way relationship…
I very much agree with the idea of accepting obligation with rights – something I think many have forgotten, host and guest alike. At my daughters school they have started to have classes on citizenship and when I was told of this i was very curious to find out what the lessons involved. It seems that they are teaching this very concept. About retaining your individual identity but being astutely aware that you are part of a whole, a group in which certain consensus has to be followed to allow for growth and understanding. Her school is a very mixed race school and so these lessons have taken apositive step towards bridging some of the huge gaps that are there (althoughthe board of governors would never admit to these gaps lol).