« Sermon preparation | Main | The Tiger in the house .... »
August 16, 2004
The "reasonable" face of tyranny.
How do you recognise a tyrant? Show someone the names of Hitler, Stalin, or Himmler, and they would respond that they were tyrants, even photographs of them, Pol Pot, Kim il Jung, Mao Tse Tung, and one or two others and most would identify them as "tyrants". But, as I was reminded while watching a documentary the other day on the last days of Hitler, tyrants come in many shapes and sizes. Not all of them are instantly recognisable - our response to certain names or photographs is conditioned by our knowledge of their actions - and many go totally unnoticed until it is far too late. Show most people a photograph of Blair, Brown, Cook, or Prescott and they would laugh and dismiss them from the list of tyrants, but would that be right? By what evidence is the charge dismissed?
Almost every biography of Heinrich Himmler touches on the fact that this man was a loving husband and father. He was soft spoken and always appeared to be reasonable, presenting his arguments in such a way that you found yourself at a a loss as to how to disagree with his case. To his children and his wife, a hero, to the rest of the world a monster. This was explored very interestingly by J. Michael Straczynski in the epic sci-fi story Babylon 5, where he places one entire episode in a single room with just two people, the hero and the inquisitor. The episode, Number 18 of Season 4, explored the mind of the inquisitor, a man who goes home to his wife, his family, his grandchildren, yet during the day is engaged in destroying the mind of whoever is placed before him. There are no limits to the man's inhumanity as he tries to break the hero's will and coerce him into a false confession.
Terry Pratchett explores this theme in a number of his books, most notably and obviously in Small Gods, where he has the "exquisitors" swopping their family holiday "iconographs" and experiences while they inflict unspeakable pain on some poor wretch who has incurred the wrath of the leaders of the Church of Om.
Today's tyrants are even more subtle. They dress in smart suits and pose as democratic representatives. They present themselves on TV and Radio and in the press as the voices of reason. They have image makers and spin doctors whose task it is to ensure that the message concerning the latest restriction on liberty, the latest assault on parenting, or on freedom of speech, sounds and looks like a good idea. A Reasonable idea, one which will make this a "better", or "fairer" society. One which will ensure that children are free to "enjoy" their "rights" irrespective of what their parents think. Anyone spot the parallel here with Heinrich and Adolf? With Joe Stalin and a certain Mr Lenin? Yup, you got that one right, they all restricted arguments and allowed only the presentation of their concept of what was "reasonable".
Reasonableness is a very difficult thing to define. It is one of those "value" calls and what is perfectly reasonable in one set of circumstances may not be in another. Thus, what is reasonable under fire on a battlefield, sounds completely unreasonable in a court of law. Perspectives have changed. For one thing, the noble Judge, the Barristers, and the jury haven't got the crump of exploding mortars, the nasty zip of bullets, and the terrifying whine of richocets in their ears as they pass judgement on those who were on the field of battle. Even the dreadful Mrs Hodge with her "reasonable" change to the law which would enable her to force middle class and perfectly reasonable parents into "parenting classes" sounds reasonable when viewed through the peculiarly tinted (one almost says tainted!) spectacles worn by Whitehall, "to redress the balance and ensure that this group is equally represented in these classes".
In my own work I see the same thing, Whitehall targets are set by Bean Counters who have no concept of what the particular service or function actually is or does, they just pick a number based on the statstical information in front of them. As they do not understand the numbers anyway (most of them are just numbers, and have no actual meaning on anything), deciding that a 10, 20, or 30% reduction (or increase) on any given set of figures will show that some impact is being made on something. It may be altogether the wrong thing, but it shows someone is looking at it.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that consultation is now restricted by this new breed of tyrants (following close in the footsteps of the old type of tyrant!) and they only consult or take advice from those special interest groups or individuals who agree with whatever their agenda is to begin with. It is always presented as the "reasonable" response. This is why we now have more regulation than at any time in our history. We also have more agencies enforcing them than at any time in our history. Each little inspector sits clutching his precious "Code" or "Guide" or "Rule Book" and all zealously enforcing their version of whatever is this week's "target". One reason for this is that there are 654 MP's all desperately trying to justify their bloated salaries and perks, another is that arch bureaucracy - the EU.
Each of these individuals thinks they are being entirely reasonable, yet the fire service recently had to take a man to court for refusing to produce his "fire safety risk assessment". In court he produced it, and was asked why he had refused to do so when the inspector asked for it. Then he explained that he ran a small business. He employs just over 20 people and is the sole owner/manager. When the Fire safety Inspector called he had had a run of eight previous inspections by various agencies and had had enough. He felt it was worth being dragged into court by one of them to make his point and to hit back at what he saw as a petty tyranny. And there lies another problem, when is "petty" tyranny no longer "petty"?
It may be presented as reasonable, but remember that the British Constitution is written (or not written!) in such a way that it allows anything which is not forbidden. Ergo, if there is a law which forbids an action, then you may not do it. Until recently this worked well, then along came the Politically Correct brigade. The plethora of regulations, acts and other instruments of law which have descended upon us in the last 30 years have removed almost every "freedom". Now we are proscribed in almost every action. In fact we have reached the point where the legislation required by one agency is frequently in conflict with another's!
All tyranny starts with one person imposing upon another their concept of "fair" or "reasonable". All tyranny ends with the exclusion of fair and reasonable. This country seems to be teetering on the brink of tyranny, with increasing imposition of ruthlessly enforced 'politically correct' agendas.
Welcome to Orwell's world of 1984. He was only 20 years out.
Posted by The Gray Monk at August 16, 2004 11:28 AM