The right to roam

Posted by on

“In Sweden, they call it allemansrätt,” says Ken Ilgunas. In Finland, it’s jokamiehenoikeus; in Scotland, “the right to roam”. In these countries, you’re free to walk almost anywhere you want. Not so in America. In rural areas of the US you see “no trespassing” signs everywhere. It wasn’t always thus. When the US began, everyone was free to walk or hunt where they liked – a right “cherished by early Americans because it distinguished them from the English, whose aristocracy held exclusive hunting rights”. But this freedom started being curtailed in the late 19th century. “In the South, states passed trespassing laws for racial reasons, seeking to keep blacks from hunting and fishing so as to starve them into submission.” Elsewhere, rich landowners simply sought to exclude outsiders. Modern laws making landowners responsible if someone gets hurt on their property have made things worse. Hikers can still head to national parks, of course, but that’s no good for “people longing for a stroll from their front door”. The US needs to change the law to address this. Its citizens might become less sedentary if they could amble over fields rather than having to stick to dangerous roads. “Walking across the so-called freest country on Earth should be everyone’s right.” (The New York Times)

Back in Anglo-Saxon and Danish times it was the law that established footpaths between villages, towns, etc would be open to everyone in England. Even with the Elizabethan enclosures the Courts upheld the right to walk across private land on paths that had been there for centuries. This is part of the Common Law that crossed the Atlantic with the early settlers.

But you are very lucky if you can walk in the American countryside at all. Years ago we took a break in a pretty part of Maryland. The hotel was nice, but when we decided to go for a walk the only option was beside a very dangerous road. The result is that, aside from some specific walking route, such as along the top of the Appalachians and in the National Parks, there are few countryside paths. When the American Continent was divided up into blocks of land for settlers, no allowance was made for footpaths. Thus, we, avid walkers who this summer walked in Brittany and Umbria, have very restricted ability to walk in America and confine walking mostly bto the gym. Shame that. Americans miss a lot, not just exercise.

Young teenage girls and unhappiness, No. 2

Posted by on

I recently posted a piece on working mothers and unhappy children. Here are some further facts, published by The Guardian:

A study of data from 674 GP practices across the UK has found that instances of girls aged 13-16 self-harming rose 68% in just three years. The figures, which chime with separate NHS data, also revealed it to be more common in deprived areas. Youngsters who self-harmed were found to be about 17 times more likely to die from suicide, and 34 times more likely to die from acute alcohol or drug poisoning. (The Guardian)

A whole collection of things can account for this shocking trend: poverty, lousy schools, overworked and stressed out mothers, divorce, the dismal influence of Facebook and the “ popularity race”, the sexualisation of young girls and bad upbringing that fails to imbue young teenage men with respect for the opposite sex, the constant publicity about joblessness of young people and the consequent despair of those unable to access higher education……well, be my guest and add your favourite reasons. Whichever you prioritise, the sitution is grim. Does the whole capitalist, neo-liberlal system share the blame? In any event, this all looks reminiscent of situation of the working classes in 19th Century Britain. We should be ashamed.

Lexit: further update on Brexit

Posted by on

Only by leaving the EU will Britain be free to become a “social democratic nirvana”. So claim prominent left-wing advocates of “Lexit”. They argue that EU laws stand in the way of us reforming our economy along more Corbynist, that is, very left-wing, lines.

But you only have to look at Europe to see this is nonsense. In France, university tuition is negligible; in Belgium, zero-hour contracts are banned; in Portugal, domestic energy consumers benefit from regulatory price caps; in Hamburg, people voted to return their power grid from private firms to municipal hands. Did the “neo-liberal jackboots of Brussels” try to block any of this? No. The Lexiters talk of a post-Brexit UK finally being able to stand up to the multinationals. “But who fined Google and Microsoft billions of dollars for anticompetitive behaviour? Who has ordered Apple to repay €13bn in avoided corporation tax?” The European Commission. The EU may be flawed, but the idea that it’s some kind of right-wing project represents “a combination of wilful ignorance and ideologically induced blindness”. (Ben Chu, The Independent)

There is no doubt that the EU is incredibly bureaucratic.  It has made the crucial error of expanding too far, including countries with few West European leanings, and in the process it has really annoyed the Russians.  It conducts a very unfair fisheries policy and an agricultural subsidy policy that not even the experts understand.

Having said that, as the excerpt above by Ben Chu points out, it has been a stalwart supporter of human rights and has, in comparison to the US, tamed the worst excesses of hyper-capitalism. It has avoided a European war for decades, and, owing to free trade policies, has been responsible for a huge rise in the living standards of most Europeans.  Leaving it is a self-inflicted wound.

Working mothers

Posted by on

Almost three quarters of women with dependent children in England are in full or part-time employment. The number of working mothers has risen from 3.7 million in 1996 to 4.9 million. (Office for National Statistics/The Guardian.)

May I, liberal in tooth and claw, a closet “feminist” in many ways, be allowed to ask a question that I know will cause an uproar, but needs to be asked? After two generations of mothers having full time jobs (I don’t count part-time) is there any consensus about the effect on children, in terms of discipline, manners and behaviour, in having mothers working full time, probably doing the shopping, cooking and housework, and still overcoming tiredness sufficiently to give the kids adequate attention?

What seems to have happened is that prices and cost of living has been edged up by employers so that actually families are no better off in real terms with two incomes, and maybe worse off, than with the husband’s income alone, in the 1950s and 1960s. Meanwhile, both parents are working harder, competition for jobs has increased, and job security itself is disappearing, partly because companies have a bigger pool of people to choose from.

While parents become more fraught and exhausted, and divorce pops up everywhere, the children seem unhappy. Depression is now a major problem. One could go on about the general impression of unhappiness, but what I want to know is whether the outcome is what the most vocal feminists expected, or are they keeping mum, aghast at what they have wrought. I enjoyed being greeted by my relaxed mother when I was at my first school. My grandchildren, I’m glad to say, are likewise greeted by their mother when they get home from school.

Is it really worth policing hate diatribes on the internet?

Posted by on

The UK Crown Prosecution Service announced recently that online hate crimes are to be treated just as seriously as crimes committed face-to-face. It’s a crazy idea, says Clare Foges in The Times. For an offence to be classed as a hate crime, it is necessary only that the victim or someone else perceives it as one. Given that half of social media is “a carnival of bile”, how is this policy remotely practical? Will the police have to pursue people over the use of an “offensive emoji”?

At a time when crime in England and Wales has risen by 10% in a year, knife crime by 20%, gun crime by 23%, the police can ill afford to waste time chasing online bigots. Trolls should of course feel the full force of the law when their online abuse threatens real-life harm to an individual, but the law already provides for that. The threshold for action should remain at genuine threats or a clear incitement to violence, and we should ignore “the whole world of mud-slinging below this level”. The great thing about the internet, after all, is that “you can always switch it off”. (Clare Foges, The Times, London)

From time to time one gets hate or other disruptive comments. But you can block the sender and zap the comment. If you are trying to promote the thoughts of Epicurus, which include moderation, thoughtfulness, good manners and consideration for others, it is a shock to encounter these nasty, anonymous people, but one gets over it after a beer or two. What you cannot switch off is the dangerous driving (both in the UK and the US) on roads and streets. The police have disappeared everywhere from day-to-day traffic monitoring, but it is becoming physically dangerous to cross a road, as drivers gaze at their phones and pay little attention to pedestrians. You won’t be killed by an internet troll (I hope!), but sloppy driving is another matter. At least in the UK you are banned driving if you fail to stop for pedestrians on a zebra crossing; in America these crossings are routinely ignored. This is where we need more police attention. Roll on the automatic car!