Brexit And Burkinis

Brexit

The Huffingon Post, a rare example of a reasonable and responsible press publication in the UK, even if online only, recently published an article on the best response to Brexit for the UK. As a criterion it took the words of Jeremy Bentham, an 18^th century philosopher and social reformer who said that the best distinction between what was morally right and wrong was the test of what brought the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. It applied this test to Brexit and measured known voter preferences and found, essentially, that a “hard” Brexit (absolute control of borders and no trade agreement with EU) would please only a minority of the population, a “soft” Brexit (minor control of borders and an EU trade agreement) would please virtually no one and that the status quo, no Brexit, would please all but a small majority and would make of PM Theresa May the most popular PM in decades. So what is the UK going to do? Probably the first of these, according to PM Theresa May herself. So, economic suicide, political suicide (and don't ask about the morality); a death wish or what?

As a footnote, Jeremy Bentham advocated (in the 18^th century) individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce and decriminalisation of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights.

Burkinis Etc

There has been a recent brouhaha in the press in France over the fact that various notable holiday resorts alomg the Mediterranean riviera and Corsica have banned on beaches the so-called burkini, a garb that covers most of the body.  Personally I don't care what, if anything, people wear when on beaches but, being male, am all in favour of attractive exposure of female form. But that is incidental and purely a personal preference. The French justification for the ban has been overt public display of religious affiliation, which is against French law, and thereby justified. But, the argument rages, is it anti-Islamic? It turns out that the Burkini is also banned, in public swimming pools, in no less an anti-Islamic(?) state as Morocco, for hygienic reasons, and bikinis are specifically allowed. I think that if you want to argue on what is anti- this or that religion you can argue forever and will probably never arrive at any point on which most people agree. If that is the death of political correctness, I'm all in favour.

On a humourous note I caught some footage on the Internet of purported coverage of the Olympics on strict Islamic TV channels. I've no idea whether the images were in fact taken from some nations official TV channels or not but the results were hilarious. Since sight of most of the female form is banned, womens' races consisted of black blobs with hands and feet flaying rushing in a line; and how anyone made sense of the gymnastics I'm at a loss to know. How can one black blob be seen as more precise, elegant or artistic than another identical black blob? It was hilarious viewing if true but I have a strong suspicion that any channel operating under such constraints would simply not broadcast these events at all. That in turn raises an interesting point: if these events are not broadcast in some countries, does this mean that for citizens of those countries such events don't exist? What happens if one of the country's participants wins a medal….? Alice in Wonderland territory.

As a further footnote, an Islamic extremist in the UK has now been convicted of inciting terrorism, with the incriminating evidence accumulating over many years. The Islamic hierarchy in the UK has reacted to this by saying they have been arguing for this conviction for a decade. So why did it take so long for the UK authorities to act? Political correctness again.