Silencing First Nations / Indigenous Peoples

I can't believe that in 2025 we still refuse to respect indigenous peoples/First Nation and give them the same human rights as those who stole their land from them. 

A recent news article¹ read today is one of the most dreadful and shocking news items I've read for some time! It's available to read here. 

Politically and ethically this unconscionable. What's the point of calling yourself a democratic country while being undemocratic. Every human being must be given the same human rights. There's no such thing as one person being more important than another. Because then you'd be arguing that some humans are less human than others and that is ethically corrupt.

As for Australia. After Evonne Goolagong became such a successful tennis player you'd thing things would change for the better for the indigenous people in Australia. Well, yes, there have been some feeble attempts with some success. But the 2023 Referendum caused more harm than good. 

Obviously referendums are counterproductive because should the result be disadvantageous to a particular group in society it unleashes chaos, violence and racism. It divides a nation and harms it but it's difficult to do anything about it because the referendum result cannot be reversed without holding another one and they seem to cost a lot of money so that's a disincentive. Referendums don't work because the cost is too high so the debate is curtailed as it was before the Brexit vote. Hence, the British population made uninformed decisions when it came to voting on whether to leave the EU.

In Australia, the 2023 Referendum vote went against giving a Political Voice and a seat at the table in Parliament to the First Nation Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. So laws are made about them without them. 

This sounds like the recent 'trans are not women' debate in England. There was no trans Voice allowed in the decision making about their lives. This is undemocratic and, therefore, discriminatory, therefore, should be scrapped on that basis alone. It's a no-brainer unless you fail to understand the term democracy.

We can map this onto Israel. Jews are, without a doubt, the indigenous people/First Nation of the land of Israel and further afield, which could be the problem. Just like the Aborigines suffer racism, discrimination, gaslighting and 'silencing' so do Jews in Israel, and in the diaspora. What happens in Israel has a knock-on effect on Jews elsewhere. It's illogical but people are chronically illogical. Now since the West tries to eradicate indigenous peoples/First Nations it affects any group that has indigenous roots, such as, Jews. And that's before you introduce Westernised interpretation of Christianity which sees itself as superior to indigenous Jews and Judaism.

We can further map this onto LGBTQ+ people who have always had a respected and useful place in indigenous cultures. 

Therefore, it's not that being LGBTQ+ is a recent trend but rather the opposite. It's linked to being indigenous. 

The real 'trend' is this Western, white, Christian, cis, gender binary promotion of heterosexual relationships and their subsequent nuclear families with a biological mother and father. This is what's unnatural. And a relatively recent phenomenon, historically speaking.

¹BBC News. ‘Australia’s Last Vote Was All about Indigenous People - Now They Say It’s “Silence”’, 29 April 2025. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2v6zy2nyvo.

Should We Keep Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords?

There's a Bill making the rounds, currently under consultation in the House of Lords, to remove hereditary peers. But the Bishops and all clergy from all religions and denominations should have been removed first. Surely! 

Besides, in 1999, the House of Lords Act meant most hereditary peers could not automatically 'sit' and vote in the House of Lords. Hence, the majority of hereditary Peers that are there now have been elected by fellow hereditary Peers. So they are somewhat elected. This Act restricts hereditary Peers from 'sitting' in the House of Lords as a birthright but no longer disqualifies these Peers from 'sitting' and voting in the House of Commons, providing they're not also sitting in the House of Lords, which prior to this Act was disallowed.

The 1999 Act makes clear:

"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."

So what's the point of this current Bill? To override the 1999 Act?

Come on, hereditary Peers, fight this Bill!

Hereditary Peers are aristocratic and, therefore, relevant and unique in the British political system and should be represented just as much as anyone else. 

They're also a group that the government can't use power over and can't introduce through bias selection. For instance, Evgeny Lebedev was made a life Peer in the House of Lords in 2020 and is referred to as 'Lord Lebedev'. He is the Moscow-born son of a Russian Oligarch and KGB Officer. They moved to England when Evgeny was eight years old but he didn't bother to acquire British citizenship until 2010. So when he was elected to the House of Lords he was only a British Citizen for around 10 years. His is a dual Citizenship because he has retained his Russian Citizenship alongside his British Citizenship, which is surely politically problematic in itself in the House of Lords because he could introduce either personal bias or he could be prone to outside pressure from the President of Russia, Putin, which could negatively impact on his voting patterns and thus, British democracy. If someone is 'sitting' in the House of Lords, they should either only hold a British Citizenship, or be a dual citizen of Britain and another commonwealth country, so they don't introduce foreign political influence/bias, undermining British democracy from the inside. 

Explain this: How is a British hereditary Peer worse for our democracy than someone like Lord Lebedev? 🤔 

Yes, on the simplistic, hypothetical level of elected/not elected level. And, I agree with the principle that having only elected representatives is the most truly democratic system. But, in practice, the contemporary problem is that there's a good deal of corruption undermining this ideal and, as far as I can see, we won't live happily ever after if we go down this route. If we look across the pond, we see that the American President is elected by the people but elections are deceptively difficult to conduct democratically, the voting doesn't always add up and who has been declared the winner? An unpopular, dictatorial oligarch, Donald Trump! 

So frankly, in practice, I'd rather have Kirsty Allsopp's father than a Russian oligarch and son of a KGB Officer impacting on the laws of our country! And, at least if its 'by birth' it introduces an element of random selection, as opposed to a biased selection of choosing whoever can buy their way in, which introduces corruption and bias into the political system. How's that fair and democratic!? And in terms of wealth, oligarchs are far wealthier than aristocrats. So why are people more resentful of an aristocrat's inherited wealth? This, despite their contribution to our British heritage eg in the preservation of our architecture, artworks, land, and stately homes that we can all visit and enjoy.

It's also in danger of tipping the balance of British democracy towards an undemocratic Oligarchy, especially given how incredibly wealthy Prime Ministers can be these days. Sunak is a very recent example of this. Even when they are not oligarchs, PMs are still invariably among the ridiculously wealthy who don't have an aristocratic background so they haven't simply accumulated it over generations, they've somehow acquired vast amounts in a short space of time. 🤔 Small wonder PMs don't identify with us. And can even look down on us. They have become part of the ruling class in virtue of their powerful leadership role as Prime Minister.

Having hereditary Peers in the House of Lords is in itself of great value and keeps the system democratic. The hereditary Peers give a different perspective from the religious clergy and the elected Peers in the House of Lords, and they provide an excellent contrast to the (elected) House of Commons. 

The hereditary Peers also provide a very British perspective and value system. Is it not strange how British Nationalists who claim they love everything 'very British' and 'traditional', nevertheless, don't support British hereditary Peers? So what do they really mean by 'British'? What's their ideology? Because simply being far-right/Nazi-like is actually anti-British, isn't it? 🤔 

With the hereditary Peers coming into every debate, we are able to see different sides to every argument, different perspectives on every issue, instead of just the one ideology set out by a particular government with its own agenda that it wants to force into law through, 'come hell or high water'. 

We can't have everyone singing from the same hymn sheet! That's not democracy that's totalitarianism.

In Britain, we have a three tier political structure to give balance of power: The Monarchy; the House of Lords, which should consist of hereditary Peers who are aristocratic; bishops/clergy 😡 (why these?) and elected Peers; and the all elected House of Commons.

If you rid yourself of hereditary Peers you might never quite get round to ridding yourself of the religious representatives who, frankly, have nothing extra to offer just backward medieval religious prejudices we can well do without.😡 

I thought Starmer was an atheist.🤔 Doesn't look like it from where I'm standing. An atheist would have sent the clergy packing. But then his mother was an Anglican Church goer. And mothers are often more influential than fathers.

However, Starmer has no problem rushing through a ban on puberty blockers which is an anti-trans move. 

And he's happy to ride roughshod over the environment and build on a grey belt, green belt and just about any other belt that I'm not aware of, labelling anyone who objects as NIMBY and other such-like pejorative name-calling. A Labour PM wouldn't think or talk like this. Even ex PM Cameron thought empathy was important in politics, and he's a Conservative! 🤯 

I'm not sure Theresa May would agree with Starmer's attitude either. She was positive towards trans people and studied Geography at uni so understands environmental issues. All Starmer seems to have caught off her, by working with her while being a Crown Prosecutor for a few years (which is something he keeps reminding us about) was the less appealing side of how to be a Tory. 

Why people don't vote LibDem in elections defeats me. Their leader, Ed Davey has had a much tougher life than other party leaders. So he is more empathetic with those who have a life full of challenges. He's more one of us.

If people had voted LibDem back in July this year we'd be better off right now instead of moaning about the present government - again! 

And all people come up with as a Labour /Tory alternative is the Reform Party. 😱 Just go even more right, why don't you. No wonder Hitler was elected. People are remarkably ignorant and blinkered when it comes to politics which is why the will of the people isn't always a helpful barometer. 

I think British Politics is a subject that needs to be taught at school to A Level students but in an objective, unbiased way. Otherwise, how do you navigate politics ethically and understand who to vote for and why? 

Too much negative politics! But the good news is the British monarchy lives on!

Negative Politics:

I've rather neglected this blog partly because there's been so much to do and partly because there's been so much politics going on that where does one begin? In my first post I was going to discuss how is it that a Conservative government is happy to have an active member of the Communist party in SAGE (a British Government body)? But, us liberal-minded people are somehow the enemy. That makes no sense at all. Well, until you discover that the Conservative Party is cosying up to Russia and being funded by Russians who are not, in actual fact, communists but fascists invading the Ukraine to rid them of fascists. If that all makes complete sense then we've all been 😴 for decades, politically speaking. The invasion of the Ukraine is a huge talking point as far as politics is concerned, as is leaving the EU. Both raise enormously difficult issues and that's before we look at some Eastern European countries and their worrying anti-LGBT+ trends. The Pandemic throws up the political concern of autocratic rule coming all too easily on the back of a perceived emergency, despite, this time, it being largely an health issue. So there's been far too much political upheaval and concerns since 2016 and they don't seem to be going away any time soon especially since Truss is already threatening to erode human rights. It's the 21st Century or hasn't someone told her yet?

Monarchy:

This leads neatly onto our recent momentous historical occasion and that is the passing of our much loved Queen Elizabeth II and the smooth transfer of the monarchy to her eldest son and heir, Prince Charles now King Charles III. I'm looking forward to his soon-to-be coronation! 

For my part, I would like to see a more active monarch who does have their say and moderate the government's policies whenever necessary. Parliament was set up to moderate a tyrannical monarch. In much the same way, the monarch should moderate a tyrannical government. We do want to know what King Charles III thinks about issues and policies. The monarch is not just a figurehead but a political figure who is taken seriously on the world stage, whether people like it or not. The UK has two heads of state which share power: the Monarch, who is sovereign and who confers sovereignty on Parliament but can also dissolve Parliament and appoint a Prime Minister they prefer; and the Government (although not well-known or lightly used, a British monarch does have some obscure but extensive set of Royal Prerogative Powers, on the understanding that they don't misuse them, e.g. the monarch does not have to go along with the PM's advice). However, it's PM Truss who has to swear allegiance to King Charles III not King Charles III to PM Truss! This tells us quite clearly that the monarch is higher than the Prime Minister! A monarch is roughly on par with a president, for want of a better comparison, who is above their Prime Minister. This is also clear when the government wishes to pass something they need to go to the monarch for Royal Assent, which need not be a given! 

The Danish monarchy, for instance, does not have to give Royal Assent to anything they don't agree with or think is not in keeping with their constitution. They can even dismiss their Prime Minister! And the Danish monarchy is not progressive, the same is true of the Spanish monarchy. Why? It wasn't until 1953 that the Danish monarchy changed a 19th century rule that essentially banned any woman from being a queen who rules in her own right (termed queen regnant) as opposed to a queen who is the wife of a king (queen consort). This was not a modernizing move. It only happened out of convenience when the then king realised that he and his queen consort could no longer try to have a baby boy. His only offspring were three daughters, therefore, his brother would have to be king instead of his eldest daughter. This would have meant that, when the time came in 1972, instead of Queen Margrethe II ascending the throne and becoming colonel-in-chief of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (British Army) it would have been her uncle, Prince Knud. As far as I can remember, it has never been the case in British history that a woman couldn't be an heir to the throne.

Nevertheless, both the Danish and Spanish monarchy still favour the male line, so, for instance, a younger brother will always take precedence over his older sisters, jumping over them to take the crown and be monarch. This is termed male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So the Spanish King's eldest daughter, Leonor, Princess of Asturias, is merely lucky that she doesn't have any younger brothers, otherwise she wouldn't be able to become queen despite being the first born.

However, in the UK, Queen Elizabeth II changed this in The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) so Princess Charlotte (and any other girl born after 28th October 2011) keeps her place in the line of succession. Thus she takes precedence over Prince Louis, her younger brother, so she would become queen if her older brother, Prince George died without children as his heirs. The Act also would allow Princess Charlotte or any other heir to the throne to marry a Roman Catholic although she or other heirs cannot themselves become Catholic. Interestingy, only Roman Catholics are specified possibly because they were excluded before that date.

Hence, the argument that Boris Johnson married a Catholic in Carrie while PM (2021) and so should step down was irrelevant. He himself didn't convert back again to becoming a Catholic, as far as we know. 

As a British citizen, I must acknowledge the monarch and be loyal/have allegiance to him/her. To do otherwise is treason-like in that it's similar to the treason fellony of imagining how to deprive the monarch of his kingship and the concept of High Treason is disloyalty to the Crown. Nevertheless, in practice, the crime of treason is only applied to extreme cases and acts, such as physically harming and plotting against the monarch. The monarchy debate is too framed as merely boiling down to whether you are a Monarchist or not, as though we're discussing a preference for strawberry or lemon cheesecake. The survival of the British monarchy is a wider, complex political issue, not a trivial one or even only a social equality one, because there are many different factors to consider, including general political stability; autocratic and/or military power grabs; and civil or foreign wars. 

Whereas, I do not have to show any allegiance or loyalty to the government. We are all free to, and should, scrutinise the way it runs our country. The government is accountable to the country. If we don't like the way the government is conducting itself we are at liberty to get rid of it. After all, have we not been criticising the Russians for not getting rid of Putin ages ago?

Political Allegiance:

There's always been the problem that Roman Catholics are in two minds, when push comes to shove: support the monarch or the Pope? The Pope is not just some religious leader, he is political because he is a monarch who is a head of state, the Vatican. So there's a conflict of interest. This is not a problem for members of any other faith. For instance, Jews have no such conflict. They will, of course, hold complete allegiance to the monarch, unless he/she be a tyrant, but then no-one is expected to put up with a tyrannical monarch or government. This is why the Prime Minister should not be a Roman Catholic. Indeed, Tony Blair didn't convert to Catholicism until after he was no longer Prime Minister. However, it begs the question: To what extent did Blair hold Catholic views while PM? As a political lobbyist now do his Catholic views influence what he advocates? Catholicism through the back door? Lobbyists can exert a great deal of pressure on MPs. Blair also keeps commenting on what the Labour party should do. Does this mean that Catholic views are favoured within the Labour Party?

In view of this, I would go further and say no-one in the Cabinet or Privy Council should be a Roman Catholic if they are still active Catholic church goers and believe in the infallibility of the Pope seeing him as their leader. Sounds illiberal? Maybe. But not entirely because, when you think about it objectively, the historical concern remains over foreign interference, not just in terms of anonymous political party donors and general attempts to impact on British politics, but also through the Subjects themselves in the UK. There is still the not so hypothetical possibility that, once people have undertaken Catholic Confirmation or Converted (and legitimately in accordance with the complex Catholic procedures), an active Catholic British Subject/Citizen could choose to have an allegiance to and to obey the Pope (in his full capacity as a foreign monarch) over the British King when it comes to political and social matters. And indeed, this usually arises when religious/moral doctrine impacts on social and political decisions e.g. abortion laws. We have seen this recently in the US where the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly Catholic and has overturned Roe v Wade. This problem multiples if that Subject/Citizen is also a politician with powers to impact on policy, laws and our political stability. Bear in mind, that the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England and, therefore, all those close in line to the throne must also be members of the Church of England. Even Meghan Markle was expected to convert to C of E, on marrying Prince Harry in 2018, which she did in March of that year, despite already being a type of Protestant (albeit attending Catholic schools) and despite the previous changes for Catholic spouses in the Succession to the Crown Act. 

Conclusion: A Smooth Transition

Furthermore, the stark truth is that the British monarchy must be protected and maintained because without it there will be immense instability, as Spinoza writes in his TP, especially when considering the dangers of changing from one form of state to another e.g. Monarchy to Republic or vice versa. 

On the death of a monarch, the heir is immediately declared the new king or queen: 'The Queen is dead. Long live the King'. This is to ensure continuity. However, Parliament has to approve the new monarch by statute and, in the case of Charles III, he was proclaimed King on Saturday 10th September when the Accession Council met at St James's Palace. It's vital that there's no break in succession, that there's a smooth transition and that the monarch does not flee the country at any time, leaving the throne vacant which could be a problem because it would give the government too much power to decide the future of the monarchy. 

As we can see from the past few days, a smooth transition from Queen to King has helped enormously. Prince Charles can slip into his mother's shoes very easily, which is not automatic since Spinoza points out how sometimes people don't adjust well when the new monarch is of a different sex to the previous one. But, across the generations, we are already used to seeing Charles doing numerous royal engagements, we have been anticipating him as the future King for decades, and he has vast experience and knowledge of what it means to be a monarch. This is the advantage of an hereditary monarchy. The heir is trained to take over when the time comes! And Charles, as the new monarch, has already taken the reins firmly in hand and will, I'm sure, make an excellent king! 

What took so long to scrap Section 28 in the UK, 18 years ago today?

UK Politics: Conservative Party 1979 - Present Day

Thatcher was no longer PM from 28 Nov 1990 after eleven and a half years in power (1979-1990). In 1980, only one year after Thatcher took office, the highest opposition to the EU membership was recorded. After Thatcher, came Major, who was PM for a further six and a half years (1990 [Dec] - 1997 [May]) taking the number of years of Tory power to eighteen and a half years continuously.

Section 28 was introduced by Thatcher's government. Why didn't her successor, John Major, strike off section 28 on becoming PM himself? 

Now Conservatives have again been in power for eleven and a half years 2010 (May) - 2021 (present day) with 3 PM's in that time (Cameron, a Thatcherite, who  teamed up with LibDem's which is possibly why things were better under Cameron;  Theresa May, who teamed up with the ultra-conservative DUP; and Johnson) rather than just the one so it may feel as though we've had different parties governing when we haven't! 

UK Politics: Labour Party: 1997-2010

In between the two eras of continuous Conservative power, we had '3rd Way' New Labour, Blair (1997-2007) and then Brown (2007-2010). Yet despite Labour being the main opposition party to the Conservatives, it took Blair 6 years into his premiership (until November 18, 2003) to scrap Section 28 so it was no longer on the statute books. Why? The UK was a longstanding member of the EU (EC) during the time when both the Netherlands (2001) and Belgium (2003) already had same-sex marriage. So advancing gay rights would hardly have been radical for the UK during this time! Indeed, it was Ed Davey (LibDem Deputy Leader at that time) who introduced the clause which would lead to burying Section 28.

So what was the impact of Section 28 on UK children and youth?

Section 28 meant not 'promoting' (whatever that means) homosexuality, essentially in all instances because it covered not only schools but also local councils, who control everything in a particular borough. Schools couldn't teach about same-sex relationships without disciplinary, legal repercussions. Foucault would have had a field day with that one! It also meant there was no gay representation, especially of gay relationships in mainstream media, literature, film, theatre, art, books and even information pamphlets. Sex education was purely heterosexual which no gay person can identify with. Even bisexuals were affected because everything was skewed towards reinforcing ideas about them being with the 'opposite' sex not same sex. More generally, LGBTQIAPD+ education didn't exist. For instance, biology textbooks only taught (and probably still do) that there are only two binary sex categories, female and male, with accompanying drawings of only one way each sex physically should look like. That leaves out not only natural biological variations, but also completely erases intersex people who are very much part of the LGBT+ community. The I in LGBTQIA represents all intersex people, regardless of their gender or sexual identity/identities! As for trans people, they were never discussed or represented anywhere in society either. So fundamentally, Thatcher tried to completely erase the existence of the LGBT+ community and render them some taboo subject. 

To put it in perspective, I was already an 'out' gay (lesbian) teenager (just 14) since late 2000. So Section 28 doesn't end until I turn 17 years old and have been 'out' for 3 years! 🌈 

Teaching LGBTQ+ inclusivity has been very recently introduced into UK schools, but it hasn't been without opposition and protest demonstrations outside schools. However, despite correcting this blot on UK history, society and politics, the Conservatives are committing other LGBT+ blunders. Although same-sex marriage came into effect in March 2014, nevertheless, there is this contradiction that, despite this, the UK is still allowing the abusive practice of Conversion 'Therapy' for gays, bisexuals, pansexuals, trans, non-binary. This includes intersex people who do not purely identify with the sex they were non-consensually assigned at birth. Thus, the UK still legally allows individuals, groups, religions, the medical profession, psychologists, educational institutions, workplaces and anyone else who feels like it, to harass gay people and gender non-conforming people to change who they are. This is totally illogical and insane and goes against their international human rights and self-determination. 

Concluding Remarks:

We need to ensure that history does not repeat itself. Section 28 was introduced on the back of hysteria over the HIV/AIDS pandemic which ended up discriminating against gay people, and especially gay men. It's taken decades (until Summer this year, 2021) for gay and bisexual men to be able to donate blood under the same rules as everybody else. So, we don't want a roll back of LGBTQIA+ rights, or a continuation of LGBTQIA+ discriminatory laws, post C19! Especially since there has simultaneously been a sharp rise in anti-LGBT+ hate crimes, rhetoric and bullying. Or a rollback of any other human rights and freedoms for that matter! 

Source:

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/18-november-2003-section-28-bites-dust

The misunderstood word 'Woke' and its Social and Political Importance

Below is my response to one of TalkRadio's debates which I viewed in Facebook today. I found my comment becoming wordy yet leaving out a lot of interesting points. So, as on many other occasions, I felt I should start a blog so I can expand on my thoughts. I have considered starting a political philosophy blog for ages so here it is and I've coupled it with my longstanding interest in Sociology, which I also thoroughly enjoyed studying at A Level, arguably, my favourite subject out of all my A Levels. Hence, I have called it Philosophy of Sociology rather than Social Philosophy because I shall be philosophically examining pure Sociology together with an analysis of empirical research within that discipline. 

Here's the point I made on Facebook: https://fb.watch/v/2e1nkaVp1/ 

'Woke' is an African American phrase from the 1930s and I have noticed it is a very misunderstood word despite its long history. 'Woke' simply means being sensitive to, raising awareness of and being well-informed about social justice and equality e.g. racial, gender (women) and LGBT+ issues. Both social justice and equality of opportunity are the bedrock of socialist (not communist!) values. The Republican Party in the US started using the word 'woke' as an abusive term directed at the Democratic Party. In the UK, politically right - leaning media sources have carried on this pejorative use of the word instead of appreciating its true meaning and its roots which are simply making people aware of discrimination and prejudice without making them walk on egg shells at the same time.

Which bit of 'woke' can any reasonable person disagree with?

Therefore, by definition, to be anti-woke is to be pro discrimination, pro prejudice, pro inequality and pro social injustice. So you can't say I'm anti - racism yet at the same time say I'm also anti - woke. That's illogical and self contradictory! 

Anti-woke is also anti - liberal which is anti a strong British tradition dating centuries back when the Tories (centre right) and the Whigs (1678-1859) thereafter the Liberal Party (centre left) were political opponents. The Whigs advocated putting an end to slavery and wanted to expand the right to vote and supported women's suffrage! All laudable aims.

The Labour Party was a latecomer. It didn't emerge until 1900.