Opening a UN forum in New York on the global impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, Bolivian President Evo Morales has said that capitalism must be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change. “If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system,” he said, adding that unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources. President Alan Garcia of Peru said using land for biofuels was putting food out of reach for the poor.

By contrast with these two leaders’ willingness to speak the hard truth clearly and controversially, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said ahead of the meeting that the UK should be “more selective in our support” for biofuels, which is typically woolly; he could have been saying anything at all, but chances are it means he’s trying to convey that he’s sitting on the fence. Since when was that a compelling stance for voters, especially now when we’re entering into a multi-faceted planetary crisis that demands action, not just talk, if we’re going to survive?

With the requirement that all UK diesel and petrol contain at least 2.5 per cent biofuels having come into force only last week, there’s no amount of fudge can mask the fact that the UK government has given a massive boost to the biofuels industry both financially and in terms of propaganda value.

Yet more government interference is on the way. The latest move to clamp down on personal choice and freedom aims to discriminate against followers of the second-most ridiculed religion after Scientology. Spiritualism began and peaked in popularity in the 19th Century, but many thousands of British citizens still regularly take part in its services and call themselves Spiritualists—and now mediums, psychics and healers face prosecution under a new law if they cannot justify their claims.

Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against, according to a BBC report. But what is genuine or false? Who decides? If—and only if—they’re arguing on the basis of being genuine, they’re mistaken. It’s entirely sufficient and appropriate to fight on the grounds that their religion is being discriminated against. Nobody has the right to judge them or their beliefs in such a way as to force them to desist. Personal opinions are what they are, but controlling and punitive legislation?

Excuse the deliberate pun, but for gods’ sake!

Pages: 1 2 3 4