photo: courtesy of the UN

There’s just not as much hoopla around Human Rights Day as there is around, say, Black Friday. Even though one could argue that human rights are more in the spirit of the Holiday Season than standing in line outside Target all night to fight your fellow man for a good bargain at the crack of dawn. But I’m not here to argue! I’m here to give you a virtual hug, and hope that you are not being oppressed.

Today is the 64^th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, enacted this day, December 10^th, by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Article One states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

There are 30 Articles in all, and it’s an inspirational read: freedom of expression, of religion, of assembly. Much like our own Bill of Rights. With this one exception that I must reproduce here given our current Congress, and what the leaders would like to do to the rest of us.

Article 25:

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Can I hear a “Right on!”

Lay participation in synodical government has always been subject to a religious qualification.  The qualification differs according to the degree of participation.  A distinction is drawn between

(1) a parish elector (a layperson whose name is on the electoral roll of a parish) and

(2) a lay member of a parochial church council (‘PCC’) or synod.

The present religious qualifications are stated in Rules 1(2) (for electors) and 54(1) (for PCC and synod members) of the Church Representation Rules.  The present Rules date from a statutory instrument of 1994 (no 3118(1)).

The original qualifications were first stated in the Rules for the Representation of the Laity 1(1) and 2(1) (Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, Schedule 1).  They were rather exclusive in character.  An elector had to be

(1) a baptised member of the Church of England or of another Anglican Church and

(2) not a member of any other religious body not in communion with the Church of England.

Thus the religious qualification was based on communion, and communion meant membership of the Anglican Church.  This had the effect of excluding Protestant non-conformists from participation in synodical government.

A PCC or synod member had to be a communicant member of the Church of England / Anglican Church, not just a baptised member, and thus eligible to be admitted to the Anglican Eucharist.

Within the Church of England / Anglican Church, admission to the Eucharist was conditional upon episcopal confirmation.  The rubric of the Book of Common Prayer provided that a communicant had to be either confirmed, or at least ‘ready and desirous’ to be confirmed, as well as baptised. 

Thus the two degrees of participation in synodical government followed the two degrees of communion in the Church.  An elector had to be ‘in communion’ to the extent of being a baptised member of the Church of England, but was not required to be confirmed.  However, a PCC or synod member, who participated in synodical government to a higher degree than a mere elector,  had to be confirmed or at least ‘ready and desirous’, and so eligible for the full communion of the Eucharist.

In the era of post-war ecumenism, the concept of communion was re-examined.  The result was a greater emphasis on baptism as a sacrament common to all Christian communities.  All baptised persons are ‘in communion’ to some extent. 

It was also thought that, if baptism is the basis of communion, then admission to the full communion of the Eucharist should not, or not always, be conditional upon episcopal confirmation.  This view is consistent with Article 25, which specifically denies that confirmation is a sacrament.  Canon 60 of 1603 describes confirmation as a ‘custom’, though also as a ‘holy action’.

The Admission to Holy Communion Measure 1972 empowered the General Synod to permit baptised members of non-episcopal Churches to be admitted to the Eucharist.  Canon B15A, which was promulged under the authority of the 1972 Measure, confers a right to be admitted to Holy Communion on all ‘baptised persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church’.

The religious qualifications for lay participation in synodical government were revised in accordance with Canon B15A.  The Church Representation Rules were revised by a statutory instrument of 1973 (no.1865).  That instrument noted that ‘The requirement that [an elector] is not a member of any religious body which is not in communion with the Church of England is abolished’.

Rule 54(1) provides that a PCC or synod member must still be a communicant in the Church of England.  However, the definition of a communicant now includes a person who receives Holy Communion in accordance with Canon B15A, as well as a person who has been confirmed.

Rule 1(2) lacks the clarity and simplicity of Rule 54(1).  It provides that an elector must be

‘(a) a [baptised] member of the Church of England or of a Church in communion therewith resident in the parish; or

(b) to be such a member and, not being resident in the parish, to have habitually attended public worship in the parish … or

(c) to be a member in good standing of a Church which subscribes to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (not being a Church in communion with the Church of England) and also prepared to declare himself to be a member of the Church of England having habitually attended public worship in the parish …’.

A note to the present Church Representation Rules states that ‘The only Churches at present in communion with the Church of England are other Anglican Churches and certain foreign Churches’.  Thus Protestant non-conformist Churches are still not regarded as being in communion with the Church of England, modern ecumenism notwithstanding.

The wording of Rule 1(2) is convoluted, and may also create an unnecessary ecumenical difficulty.  All baptised individuals may be  members of the Church of England, even though also members of non-episcopal Churches.  They may be in full communion with the Church of England by baptism and sharing in the Eucharist.  However, their Churches are still not in communion with the Church of England.

This does not make much sense of the concept of communion.  It may introduce a false distinction between Church membership and communion.  Surely Church membership is communion?

Rule 1(2) also contains a strange distinction between Church of England ‘members’ and members of other Churches.  A member of the Church of England is entitled to enrolment as an elector on the basis of residence alone, whereas a member of another Church must be an habitual attender of worship.

It is hard to see the justification for this distinction.  All baptised and resident persons in the parish are parishioners.  The parish church is the parish church of them all.  A distinction between residents and non-residents of the parish may be justified.  However, if baptised persons from outside the parish choose to worship in the parish church, it is also hard to see why any distinction should be drawn as between them.

The effect of Canon B15A is that Church membership is now relevant only to the question of episcopal confirmation.  Rule 54(1) makes clear that, if one has not been confirmed, one must be a member of another Christian Church in order to qualify for membership of a PCC or synod.

However, references to Church membership have no proper place in Rule 1(2), because parish electors do not (and never did) have to be confirmed or participate in the Eucharist.  It is therefore argued that such references should be removed.  Rule 1(2) should be read in conjunction with Rule 54(1), not in isolation from it.  It will then become clear that the three relevant qualifications for enrolment as a parish elector are

(1) baptism

(2) residence in the parish and / or

(3) regular attendance at worship.

(1) abolishing ecclesiastical jurisdiction over divorce and

(2) creating a secular court with the power to dissolve marriages as if one of the spouses had died. 

Before 1857, the secular state had formally accepted the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage.

Phillimore’s Ecclesiastical Law (2nd edition 1895) observed that the tension between Church and state on the subject of marriage that the 1857 Act created was not unprecedented:

‘It is remarkable that the [marriage] legislation of the Roman emperors, even after they had become Christians, was founded upon heathen principles, and … recognized the liberty of husband and wife to dissolve the [marriage] contract by mutual consent, and retained many provisions of the early Roman law which were incompatible with the Christian character of the contract.’ (p.549)

The Church’s response to secular authority’s adherence to pre-Christian Roman law was ‘to invest the marriage bond more and more with a religious character’ (p.549), in a word, to Christianise marriage.  This was a work of centuries.

The Contract and the Sacrament

Patrick Connolly has provided an illuminating account of the development of the Church’s doctrine of marriage, in an article ‘Contrasts in the Western and Eastern Approaches to Marriage’ (2001) Studia Canonica, p.357.

According to Connolly, the mediaeval Latin Church discerned the twofold character of marriage as

(1) a contract (contractus) between the parties and

(2) a sacrament.

In the early Church, marriage was more usually described as a covenant (foedus), a less precise term than contractus, and was not generally regarded as a sacrament.  However, from the high middle ages, the Latin Church held that, not only was marriage both contract and sacrament, but that the two were inseparable.  The marriage contract was the sacrament.

The corollaries of this doctrine of the inseparability of contract and sacrament were thus:

(1) the spouses themselves, being the parties to the contract, were also the ministers of the sacrament, not the officiating priest

(2) hence the marriage sacrament might validly be administered without the blessing of the Church, by the spouses themselves

(3) however, the Church claimed exclusive jurisdiction over marriage, against the secular authority.  If contract and sacrament were inseparable, it was not possible for the secular authority to have jurisdiction over the contract with the Church having jurisdiction only over the sacrament

(4) the woman was of equal status with the man, since her consent was necessary for the making of the contract, and she was co-minister of the sacrament with her husband.

The Greek Church’s concept of marriage is rather different from that of the Latin Church.  It is more liturgical and other-worldly.  For the Greek Church, marriage is made in Heaven, by God, not by the consent of the parties.  The need of consent is not denied.  However, it is God Who receives the consent and unites the couple.  The Latin Church understood the marriage contract to have been raised by God in Christ to a sacrament.  The Greek Church understood that the sacramental grace descends from God onto the contract. 

Thus the Greek Church attaches much greater importance to the marriage liturgy than does the Latin Church, even though there was no marriage service in the early Church.  The priest is the minister of the sacrament, not the couple.  A marriage without the blessing of the Church is invalid, or at least of doubtful validity. 

The Second Vatican Council slightly modified the legalistic Latin view of marriage, and revived the term foedus to describe the marriage bond.  However, the term contractus was not abandoned.  Both the Latin and the Oriental Codes of Canon Law (promulgated in 1983 and 1990 respectively) tend to reflect the Latin concept of marriage, though the Oriental Code places more emphasis on divine action in making a marriage and on the importance of the Church’s blessing to a marriage.

Despite its exalted view of marriage as made in Heaven, the Greek Church would seem to be less strict than the Latin Church in its attitude to divorce.  Phillimore remarked that ‘It is not very easy to ascertain what the practice of the Greek Church as to divorce a vinculo has been and is’ (p.549n).  This is not surprising, as the very terminology a vinculo is Latin, not Greek.  Classical canon law, which contributed so much to the Church’s doctrine of marriage, was very much a phenomenon of the Latin Church, and had little impact on the Greek Church.

Impediments and Indissolubility

The doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage was developed by the mediaeval Latin Church, under the influence of its canonists.  Gilbert Burnet, a Church of England bishop, noted that the early Church ‘had no other notion of a divorce but that it was the dissolution of the [marriage] bond: the late notion of a separation [with] the tie continuing not being known till the [Latin] canonists brought it in’ (An Exposition of the 39 Articles (1699), p.289).

It is sometimes glibly remarked that the modern Church of England is itself the result of divorce, an allusion to Henry VIII’s ‘great matter’, and therefore not in a position to be too strict about remarriage after divorce.

This jibe may be answered on its own level by pointing out that it was marriage, not divorce, that precipitated the break with Rome.  If divorce in the modern sense (i.e the legal dissolution of a valid but inconvenient marriage) had been available to Henry VIII, the break with Rome would not have been necessary.  It was precisely because the English and Roman Churches agreed that marriage was indissoluble that they were forced to split. 

The controversy over Henry VIII’s marriage concerned the validity of the marriage contract, that is, the impediments capable of preventing the contract from being validly made.  There was no dispute that the contract, once validly made, was indissoluble. 

The Act of Succession 1533 strongly affirmed the prohibition of marriage within the degrees prohibited by the Bible.  It denied any human power to dispense from the divine prohibition.  The later Marriage Act 1540, by contrast, denied the Pope’s, and the Church’s, power to forbid any marriage not forbidden by the Bible. 

Thus the conclusion of these two Acts was that

(1) all marriages not forbidden by Scripture were lawful and

(2) no marriage forbidden by Scripture could be made lawful.

Phillimore echoed the reformers’ complaint that ‘Before [the Marriage Act 1540], other prohibitions than God’s law admits were … invented by the court of Rome: the dispensation whereof they always reserved to themselves’ (p.570).

In contrast to the English legislation, and against the reformers’ protest, the Council of Trent asserted that

(1)  the prohibited degrees of marriage contained in the Bible are not the only impediments to marriage

(2) the Church has power to decree other impediments to marriage besides those in the Bible

(3) moreover, the Church can dispense from impediments to marriage, including at least some of the impediments contained in the Bible (the 24th session, 1563).

The Council also limited the freedom of parties to marry by providing that marriage would in future be invalid unless solemnised in facie ecclesiae by an authorised priest.  A comparable rule was not introduced into English law until Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753, nearly two centuries later.

In Lord Stowell’s words, English law emphasised the character of marriage as ‘a contract according to the law of nature antecedent to civil institutions’ (quoted by Phillimore, p.550), not requiring the intervention of a priest.  Hence a ‘common law marriage’ required only an exchange of promises by the couple to live together as man and wife. 

Thus the reformed English doctrine of marriage was in a certain sense more ‘liberal’ than the Catholic doctrine.  It strongly emphasized the freedom to marry, subject only to the prohibitions contained in the Bible.  Clandestine marriages were disapproved of, but were still accepted as valid marriages.

However, in another sense, the reformed doctrine was rather stricter.  The parties were allowed great freedom to marry but, having exercised this freedom, it was very difficult to escape the consequences of it.  A valid marriage could not be dissolved.  The ‘unscriptural’ Catholic system of impediments and dispensations at least made it easier to avoid a marriage that the parties now regretted.

Burnet even reproached the Church of Rome with being too lenient in the exercise of its matrimonial jurisdiction.  He wrote disparagingly of ‘a foundation laid down for breaking marriages … which is often practised at Rome, as often as the parties, or either of them, will solemnly swear that they gave no inward consent’ (op.cit, p.287).

A modern Anglo-Catholic commentary echoed this criticism, roundly asserting that ‘mediaeval canon law failed miserably as guardian of the holy estate’.  The complexity of the law concerning the various impediments to marriage, and dispensations from those impediments, made an immense number of marriages precarious, and led to ‘a general weakening of the sense of sanctity and indissolubility of the marriage bond’ (T.A Lacey and R.C Mortimer, Marriage in Church and State, 1912-47, pp.138-9).

As well as disagreeing with Rome over the impediments to the marriage contract, the Church of England, in common with other reformed Churches, came to deny the mediaeval doctrine of marriage as a sacrament.

Thus Article 25 asserts that matrimony is not a sacrament ‘ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel’.  This is because it ‘ha[s] not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God’.  In other words, there is no particular rite or ceremony of marriage prescribed in the Gospel, as there is of Baptism and the Eucharist. 

However, the Book of Common Prayer clearly affirms the divine origin of marriage as ‘instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency’.  The indissolubility of marriage could hardly be more clearly stated than it is in the Prayer Book marriage service.   

Ecclesiastical and Secular Jurisdiction

As Phillimore relates, the mediaeval canon law largely continued to regulate marriage in England (and Scotland) after the Reformation.  It was only in the late modern period that marriage started to be regulated by Act of Parliament (p.551).

The canons of 1603 empowered the ecclesiastical courts to grant decrees of ‘divorce’, but only in the limited sense of the permanent separation of husband and wife.  A divorce granted by the ecclesiastical courts was not sufficient to dissolve the marriage bond.  On the contrary, canon 107 provided that, following a decree of divorce ‘the parties so separated shall live chastely and continently; neither shall they, during each other’s life, contract matrimony with any person’.

Like the Roman Catholic courts today, the English ecclesiastical courts prior to 1857 could order the ‘annulling of pretended matrimony’ (canon 106), in which case the parties were at liberty to remarry.  However, the nullity of marriage on the ground of an impediment to the original solemnisation was the only instance in which parties to a marriage were permitted by ecclesiastical law to remarry during each other’s lifetimes.

Despite these post-Reformation canons, and all the other authority to the contrary, apologists for modern divorce legislation have seized on Article 25 as evidence that the Church of England abandoned the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage at the Reformation.

Indissolubility was first impugned in the parliamentary debate on the bill that became the Marriage Act 1753.  Indissolubility constituted an objection to the invalidity of irregular clandestine marriages, which the 1753 Act declared null and void. 

The then Attorney-General deprecated ‘a superstitious opinion … that when a marriage between two persons come to the age of consent was once solemnized by a man in holy orders, it was so firmly established by the divine law, that it could not be annulled and made void by any human law whatsoever’ (Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, volume 15, column 6). 

He confidently concluded ‘How came we to retain this Popish doctrine … after the Reformation, I shall not pretend to account for: but that it is not a Christian doctrine I have clearly shown’ (column 9).

The suggestion that indissolubility was a mediaeval superstition that the English Church had abandoned (or, at any rate, should have abandoned) at the Reformation was pursued a century later, in debates on the bill that became the 1857 Act. 

Lord Chancellor Cranworth asserted that, though ‘Before the Reformation … marriage was considered as being absolutely indissoluble … [but] The effect of the Reformation was totally to change the feelings of the community on this subject’ (Hansard (Lords), volume CXLV, column 484). 

After the Reformation, marriage, though still ‘under the sanction of religion’ was ‘a mere civil contract which ought to be dealt with the same way as other civil contracts … namely by considering what was most for the interests of the parties concerned’ (column 485).  On this view, the Acts of 1753 and 1857 were merely completing the work of the Reformation.

It is possible that the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor misunderstood the Roman Catholic doctrine of marriage.  The Roman Catholic Church does not regard all marriage as sacramental.  Only marriage between two baptised persons is a sacrament (1983 Code, canon 1055).  Other marriages are non-sacramental. 

However, marriage is not indissoluble only when it is sacramental.  All marriages, whether sacramental or not, are indissoluble.  Indissolubility is one of the essential properties of a valid marriage contract (canon 1056).  The sacrament adds only a ‘special firmness’ (peculiarem firmitatem) to the indissoluble character of marriage.  This Roman Catholic law further undermines the suggestion that the Church of England abandoned belief in the indissolubility of marriage by denying that marriage is a sacrament.

Connolly’s account makes clear that the sacramental character of marriage was relevant to ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the marriage contract, not to belief in the indissolubility of the contract.

Thus the effect of Article 25 was to repudiate, not the indissolubility of marriage, but the distinction between sacramental and non-sacramental marriage.  From the Reformation to the present day, English law, in contrast to Roman Catholic law, has held that all marriages are non-sacramental.

The distinction between sacramental and non-sacramental marriage may not have been important in an era when almost everybody was baptised.  The post-Reformation secular state still accepted that the marriage contract, even though no longer a sacrament,  ‘appertaineth to the spiritual jurisdiction of the realm’: Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532.

However, as state and society became secularised, Article 25 did ultimately prove fatal to ecclesiastical marriage jurisdiction.  If the marriage contract is not also a sacrament, the Church loses any religious claim to jurisdiction over the contract.  It has no religious basis on which to oppose the jurisdiction of the secular state.  It can still teach what the marriage contract truly is, and hope that the state will listen.  However, its only claim to jurisdiction over marriage must be limited to the regulation of its own marriage liturgy. 

Even before 1857 there was some tension between Church and state concerning the marriage contract.  The post-Reformation ecclesiastical courts sought to give effect to the Divine injunction, repeated in the marriage service, that ‘Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder’.  However, they were still subject to the secular authority of Parliament.  Divorce in the modern sense could be obtained by a private Act of Parliament. 

However, parliamentary divorces were very rare, and they overrode the ecclesiastical jurisdiction only in the individual case.  The 1857 Act went much further, by abolishing the ecclesiastical jurisdiction altogether. 

Modern secularisation has affected Roman Catholic marriage jurisdiction as well.  The Church only claims jurisdiction where at least one of the parties to a marriage is a Catholic (1983 Code, canon 1059).  Thus it no longer claims jurisdiction over a marriage between two baptised Protestants, even though such marriage is no less sacramental than a marriage between two Catholics.

The Faculties Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury notes that ‘The Church of England does not recognize nullity decrees made by Roman Catholic marriage tribunals’: Anglican Marriage in England and Wales (1998), p.31.  It does not explain the reason for this non-recognition, but its position is strictly consistent with the reformed doctrine concerning impediments to marriage.  Nullity decrees can hardly be recognised if they are based on impediments and dispensations that are rejected as unscriptural. 

However, a greater understanding of Roman Catholic marriage law on the part of English ecclesiastical lawyers might serve the ecumenical cause, and the cause of marriage.

Amritsar, September 4. Expressing satisfaction with actor-producer Ajay Devgn’s assurance on removing “objectionable parts” in his upcoming film “Son of Sardar”, the SGPC today demanded that Sikhs be given representation on the censor board so that such controversies don’t recur in future.

Talking to mediapersons here today, SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar said: “We’ve urged the Union Government to include a Sikh personality, who is also associated with the film industry, in the censor board so that such issues are addressed in advance.”

He said the government could also direct the censor board to seek the approval of the SGPC before releasing any film related to the Sikh community.

On “Son of Sardar”, he said the five-member panel constituted by him to probe the matter had submitted its report. “Devgan has assured us that he will remove the objectionable part in his film and will also send the final print to us,” he added. On SAD MP Rattan Singh Ajnala moving a private member Bill in Parliament for amendment in Article 25 of the Constitution, Makkar said the move would facilitate recognition to Sikhism as a separate religion, besides giving Sikhs a separate identity.

The SGPC president also constituted a three-member committee to take stock of the maintenance of gurdwaras located in Leh and Ladakh, including the historic shrines like Pathar Sahib and Datan Sahib. Makkar said the panel would look into the management aspect of the shrines, besides the condition of the structures.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120905/punjab.htm#3

Street Paper takes the viewer inside the lives of Nashville’s homeless population through street newspaper, The Contributor. This documentary offers a unique look into the lives of the founders, distributors and writers as the newspaper experiences exponential growth during September 2010.

The Contributor is a member of The North American Street Newspaper Association (NASNA), which has 31 members. Addressing the issues of poverty and homelessness, a street newspaper is distributed by homeless and formerly homeless distributors.

By sharing personal stories, street newspapers attach lives, faces and hearts to the idea of homelessness. These publications allow a bridge connecting the gap between the very poor and the rest of society by helping them understand the issues that concern homeless individuals. For many homeless people, this opportunity gives them a chance to get back on their feet and the real possibility of securing housing.

There’s a screening at the Clifton Cultural Arts Center for the Cincinnati Film Festival September 8th at 5:00pm. There will be a media advocacy discussion and post film Q&A including people from both Article 25 and Streetvibes after the screening. There’s another screening September 13th at 9:00pm at the Esquire Theater on Ludlow.

Comunidade, São Paulo Photograph Copyright Stephen Alderdice

The question has a fascinating ambiguity, which offered wide debate.  The Royal Institute of British Architects hosted in collaboration with ‘Article 25’ an evening event last week to consider the role of the Architect in International Development, in Portland Place, London.  This question does not only apply to my profession, but to all professions.

Article 25, according the The Guardian Newspaper, February 2010, is the UK’s leading Architectural Aid Charity, and its name adopts a section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948; “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including, food, clothing, housing and medical care including necessary social services.”

Architects have a natural tendency to try to build a solution to a problem, and in the case of disaster relief, rebuilding societies is not only a useful metaphor, it is an acute need.  The aspect of the question that interested me most was, not whether Architects currently apply their talents enough in disaster relief or in indeed whether or not their talents are useful in dealing with the issues facing those challenging situations, but in the long, slow process of real improvement in the daily conditions of people how may or may not be immediately affected by Tsumani’s, earthquakes or floods, but whose needs are just as great.  These challenges cannot be completed through the parachuting of people and supplies, or in any short term burst or focus by the international community.

This other aspect of International Development is concerned with a slow and incremental improvement of condition, and this area is indeed the Architect’s domain.  The Architect is concerned with the long game, and sees the vision and the objective in the long term, over the other challenges in the building process.  This is also the case in the long and challenging pursuit to real improvement and development in developing societies.  Building takes a long time, Change takes a long time, Development takes a long time.

Here is the ‘but’.  Real development in these societies comes from within and it is informal, often unskilled and cannot be achieved easily from a London office.  So on this basis, the question might usefully be put, not, “Do Architect’s Help?” but

“How”

or “Can?”

and then, “Shall?”

A really exciting day was scheduled by Article 25 more can be read about this here in Shoredicth Town Hall, this summer holiday.  We initially had talks by Craig Goldblatt CEO of the Giving Africa organisation. 

We then later on in the day were briefed on a quick design project of the Los Olivos, Columbia. heres the brief. The brief in short was to use the sheeting that is used to wrap the main temporary structure for the Olympic games in London 2012.

This is what we came up with.  A communal hub that incorporated a variety of different aspects in the current community at different times of the year.

History has also shown that socially conscious architecture often ends up being patronising and largely unsuccessful. The modern movement for example had a humanitarian agenda to begin with. Modernist architects truly believed that they were going to transform society altogether just through design and urban planning. Massive public housing projects were built with new materials and methods followed CIAM* doctrines to the letter in order to turn cities into functional units. Those dreams crashed all too soon as their products, the large-scale housing schemes, ended up deserted, sad or festering with crime for reasons too complicated to analyse here. However no matter the ‘good intentions’ social fragmentation was increased instead of reduced and problems were definitely accentuated instead of solved.

All photos taken at the Scott Brownrigg/Article 25 Exhibition

Coming across Article 25 and the work they do in underprivileged communities and areas which are struck by disaster I did wonder initially if this charity’s aim was to patronise them by providing temporary solutions and alleviate their problems in a short term basis. Looking closer into the way that the charity works I realised that they attempt to do the exact opposite. Article 25 experiment on increasing each community’s capacity to support themselves. They suggest solutions to building problems that involve local building materials and methods and educate the inhabitants on how to use them.

All photos taken at the Scott Brownrigg/Article 25 Exhibition

Areas that have been struck by earthquake need help in developing building systems resistant to additional seismic activity while keeping the budget low. This combination of high and low technology has been proven in many occasions to be the way of the future. Expert architectural knowledge encompasses traditional tools and methods in a way that can be assimilated by the local community in the future. Additionally by involving women (that traditionally have not been considered eligible for such tasks) in the building process some social problems are addressed as well. However it is necessity that dictates this ‘radical’ suggestion and not the god-complex of any architect that thinks that social problems are solved by design.

It is a fact that scarce resources and difficult circumstances have brought forth the most inspired solutions to practical problems, especially when the experts involved have their priorities straight as far as humanitarianism is concerned.

All photos taken at the Scott Brownrigg/Article 25 Exhibition

*International Congress of Modern Architecture. read about it here

Watch a video about Article 25 here

Article 25 website here

Exhibition at the lobby of International design practice Scott Brownrigg, who recently adopted Article 25 as their charity of the year. see more here

Map of USA showing states with no state income tax in red, and states that tax only interest and dividend income in yellow. No state income tax Tax only on interest and dividend income (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Okies want to eliminate state income tax.
But why do they need to find an alternative revenue stream?  Just cut down government! You expanded it in the fat years anyway!

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/27/how-cuts-to-state-taxes-could-hit-voters-in-the-wallet/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews

Asylum is in the best interests of the US even though not the bankers or the Fed regime:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/29/white-house-aide-mum-on-china-dissident-says-administration-will-strike-balance/?intcmp=obinsite

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Bad week for Obama:

What’s happening in America is no laughing matter:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/23/what-happening-in-america-is-no-laughing-matter-mr-obama/?intcmp=obnetwork

A story about a homeless mother who was arrested, and accepted a plea bargain, for the horrendous crime of putting her kids in the wrong school:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/08/connecticut-mom-to-plead-guilty-for-enrolling-son-in-wrong-district-says-lawyer/?intcmp=obinsite
Gwen Samuel, the chairwoman of the Connecticut Parents Union, told the paper that she was upset about McDowell’s decision to accept the plea bargain, saying, “You shouldn’t be arrested for stealing a free education.”

(Some people still argue that the government should have the power to indoctrinate our children as they see fit)

Lannie Davis tells what he learned from Chuck Colson about the word “hate”:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/26/what-chuck-colson-taught-me-about-using-word-hate/?intcmp=obnetwork

***  Brian Susskind challenges Gore to a debate again :
        http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/meteorologist-gore-profiteering-on-fear/

*** Diabetic writes about the foods he eats and experiences at  http://www.diabetes-warrior.net

It was in January when the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition told blogger Steve Cooksey, who writes at diabetes-warrior.net, that it was investigating him for providing nutrition care services without a license.

This is a violation of free speech, besides just being wrong-headed and wrong:

         http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/blogger-threatened-with-jail-for-writing-on-health/

        Cooksey was accused of violating Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes, which makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without state permission – a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.

In February 2009, after being hospitalized with diabetes and wanting to avoid the fate of his grandmother who eventually died from the disease, Cooksey decided to embrace the low-carb, high-protein Paleo, or “caveman,” diet. 

As a result of the diet, he was drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog in which he would write about his success. 

FDA even says bottled water is a “drug” when used to treat dehydration!!!!

Next up: Food will be an FDA “drug” when it’s used to ‘treat’ starvation!

NYC: barbers can’t charge women more than men:

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nyc-barbers-cant-charge-women-more-than-men.html

The Air Force is trying out airships again:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/01/military-airships-hot-air-or-soaring-promise/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews

Related articles

• ‘Paleo’ Nutrition Blogger Will Go to Jail if He Does Not Recant by Gary North (pointsofhype.wordpress.com)

After the celebrations of Vaisakhi (the birth of the Khalsa), it is well worthwhile to introspect on the meaning of Chardikala. Having heard translations like “soaring spirit” and “ever optimistic” etc, the one we’ve like the best is , ‘Chardikala is when if you’ve just lost a leg and someone asks, “How are you?”, you say Chardikala.’

This ability to remain positive even in the midst of ‘Calamity’ is Chardikala. Dhan Guru Gobind Singh ji writing an “Announcement of Victory” (Zafarnama) when he had just lost his four sons, his mother, his writings and also his Sikhs had been decimated, is Chardikala. The Nihung terminology of calling dried chappaties, “Sweet”, of saying sava lakh (1,250,000) when they mean one, is Chardikala.  And where does this Chardikala stem from? Well in its purest sense, it’s from Naam. When we enjoy the bliss and joy of knowing our inner and outer Beloved, there can be no question of being sad, it’s all Sweet Hukam, it’s all Chardikala.

If we apply this definition of Chardikala to the Sikh situation in India since 1947, then you’ll see why the real reason for our troubles is purely ourselves. Its not that the Panth doesn’t have enemies, of course, we could write a very long list, but these enemies have always been there and are nothing in front of the might of Guru Gobind Singh and Vaheguru. We all know and (now) lament the fact that Tara Singh didn’t have the gumption and nous to demand a Sikh state in 1946. And we all ought to know that the Sikhs never signed the Indian Constitution. However since then the Sikhs have continued to moan and groan about Article 25 and being ‘classified as Hindus’ and ‘demanded’ equal rights in a ‘democratic’ and ‘federal’ Indian ‘Republic’.

Could there have been a better approach? What would someone truly chardikala, ferociously independent have done about the fact that Sikhs were in India and classified as Hindus.

(1)    Forget arguing about semantics: The Chardikala way woud have been to see this as an opportunity, not a loss. Why bother arguing semantics with a bunch of colonial trained power hungry elitist upper castes. “Moorakhe naal na Lujhiye” don’t argue with idiots. Lets just do the job of the Sikhs and deliver justice and equality and spiritual nourishment and it doesn’t matter what you call us, our actions will speak for themselves.  Actually, from studying history you can see that its actually Hinduism that is a made up term, they are the ones who lack clear identity, not the Sikhs. The Sikhs are easily identified by singing Gurbani, Gurudwaras, Langar, and Guru Granth Sahib. The ‘Hindus on the other hand are so disparate and follow so many different paths, its impossible to categorise them. What is the opportunity I hear you ask? The opportunity is actually of Khalsa Raj. If we grasp the above, and had some real Chardiakala, we would have seen that every self respecting Hindu, especially the more intelligent type would surely have recognised the value of Sikhi and its simplicity. The opportunity is the two points below.

(2)    Emancipate the ‘Harijans’: India at that time was only 350 million or so, most of these were poor, downtrodden lower caste Indians who were always going to be scraping the bottom of the “fruits of success” barrel whilst simultaneously being the “driving force” of industrial growth. These are precisely the people who are most in need of Guru Gobind Singh jis revolutionary ideology of a armed populace that is able to defend its own rights and give itself royal surnames. Forget the ‘people of God’ we should make them the ‘Army of God’ the Akaal Purakh ki Fauj.  We all know that true freedom cannot be won for someone, they have to do it for themselves. If we truly believe Sikhi is freedom, then we’d have to give them Guru Nanaks message and show them the path of Sikhi.

(3)    Spread Sikhi outside Punjab: Any true follower of Guru Nanak, who faithfully sings “Kal Taran Guru Nanak Aaya” and “Suni Pukar Datar Prabh, Gur Nanak jag mahe pataiya” cannot think that the message of the Gurus is to be limited to Punjabis alone, let alone those deluded few who think its for Jats!  If we are to fully realise Guru Nanaks mission, then every person on the earth should know of Guru Nanaks message and have the choice to follow him as Satguru.

Here you have a large population of ‘Hindus’ who nearly all believe in:

a)      Reincarnation

b)      Atma (Soul) and Parmatma (Grand Soul)

c)       Meditation and the Holy power of Yogis and Sadhus

d)      The four yugs.

e)      Vishnu, Krishan and Raam

f)       Singing Bhajans in Sangat as a form of worship.

g)      The idea of Dharm, ie righteousness.

All the Sikhs had to focus on was telling them that

a)      We are now in Kalyug – accepted

b)      Kirtan/ Singing Praises in Sadh sangat  is the highest form of worship in Kalyug.

c)       Guru Nanak is the Satguru of Kalyug. The previous Satgurus worked in previous yugs but times have changed.

d)      Look at all the other bhagats that have been famous, have any of them done anything as amazing as the ten Gurus, did anyone of them build cities, write full Granths, fight tyranny, establish Dharma? No, in Kalyug it’s Satguru Nanak for you my friend.

e)      Satguru Nanak is now in Gurbani Kirtan sung in all Gurudwaras.

f)       Our Atma is part of parmatma and through kirtan and Guru’s grace, we can realise this.

Thats it, job done. The rest of the proof of Sikhi is simply in the amazing ethics and social structure it promotes and also the amazing lives of our Gurus and the behaviour of the Sikhs following this. Back in 1947 the respect for the Sikhs was at an all time high. They had just been at the forefront of fighting for Independence, they were hugely respected for their decency. The reality at that time was that if a Singh was sitting in a train carriage, everyone else was resting easy.  We can still access this respect, its just hidden under the surface of the recent bollywood propaganda.

The end result of all these three would have meant that in the 55 years since independence, Sikhs would have easily been the biggest religious group in India, with some Hindu Brahmins and Muslims. Effectively the demographic of Punjab would actually be all over India. Ask yourself, if that were the case if we would ever need anyone ‘shouting slogans’ and ‘demanding’ Khalistan.

If you think this is a little crazy, let us remind you of the situation prior to and after independence of 1947. Ambedkar, the writer of the Constitution and champion of the lower-caste hindus (himself a lower-caste) was fed up with Hinduism and its caste system. He saw no chance of reforming that system. He saw only two options, Sikhi and Buddhism and his initial preference was Sikhism. However, the prevailing Sikhs of that time dissuaded him, and he turned to Buddhism. The Punjabis didn’t want to have the SGPC and Gurudwaras dominated by lower-castes. They knew that if Ambedkar takes Amrit, then possibly about 60 million of his followers, (India’s population was around 350 million, out of which only 8 million were Sikhs) would also end up taking Amrit and then Sikhi would be truly huge and not just about Punjabis. What a shocker! This is not a story told to us often, no we prefer to focus on Article 25, and the massacres done by the Muslims, but not about what we ourselves turned down in India, the chance to be the dominant ideology. All the resources of India could have been gathered for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden. India could now be one of the most prosperous, female friendly and egalitarian countries, instead of the most unequal, least lawful, where women still fight for acceptance and where state and corporate governance is least ethical. Instead of harping on about not being Hindu, why not just spread Sikhi to all the Hindus. That would have been Chardikala!

So why don’t the Sikhs have the backbone for this type of thinking? Why do we instantly think of protesting and writing letters instead of thinking Chardikala. Why did the Akaal Takht not issue a hukamnama in 1948 that all Sikhs are now to register their marriage with the Akaal Takht and not the Indian Government. Why not set up an independent marriage record bureau and issue marriage licences? If a marriage was not recognised by the Indian government that Sri Akaal Takht had recognised, it would be an act of cultural war. Why is this idea so outlandish to some readers but not the idea that Sikhs spend 55 years trying to repeal a law in a constitution that they did not sign?

Who was it that told us that “Sikhs do not preach”, yes you guessed it, it was the British, who incidentally, first wiped out all the truly Charidkala Singhs in the Anglo Sikh wars and then systematically planned the downfall of Sikhi, making all their colonial servants into Singhs, but regimenting them into following the Sahib.  Yes, we have to respect the bravery of those British Indian Army (a misnomer if there ever was one) Singhs, but they were shadows of the type of Singhs that ruled over the Throne of Delhi and had issued coins in the Gurus name.  While the Singhs of old sang songs of the Khalsa ruling the world from the sun rising to the sun set (from east to west- ie all over the world), the non-Chardikala thinking that the British had fostered on the Sikhs resulted in us only thinking about Punjab. As mentioned before, what about Takht Hazoor sahib, Takht Patna Sahib?

Recently at a Sarbat Khalsa meeting in the UK, a Singh said that if we are to really follow Bhai Rajoana as our Jathedar then our ‘mang’ (want) cannot be the Anandpur sahib resolution. The Anandpur Sahib resolution did not ask for Khalistan, it merely asked for Punjab to live free from the exploitation of Delhi. Since it was not honoured at all, then now the ‘mang’ must be Khalistan. I respected his thought process, independent thinking! But take it one step further, why should Sikhs settle for a diminutive Punjab, a shadow of its past glory. Pakistan Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana etc had all stolen from Punjab. No, we say that there should be no ‘mang’, we should be thinking about India first, not Punjab. If we get India, then Punjab will automatically be free.

Previously people have misunderstood our main argument, which is that Sikhs should, as the first step, be thinking about a total takeover of India, from the political to spiritual sphere.  Aside from the point about freeing the poor Indians and ensuring the Khalsa Raaj includes the five takhts, lets also examine one other crucial argument for this.

India is now a nuclear power: This is unfortunately the key shashter of this age and if you don’t have this weapon at your disposal, then you are not one of the big boys and no one listens. Maharaj kirpa, even now Sikhs are part of India and able to take it over from the inside. Once we’ve achieved the Khalsa mission in India, the Khalsa would automatically nuclear armed, which is a good thing, not a bad thing! Dont think small, think big. If the true Khalsa ran India, would you really want a situation where China, Russia and the US had a weapon that it did not. If the Khalsa decided to intervene in an unjust situation where the US, Chinese or Russian interests were to prolong conflict, how could we accomplish the mission of Vaheguru when the others could simply threaten Nuclear attack. This is a blessing on the Khalsa, we don’t have to invent Nuclear Weapons (see Iran), we simply take over India.

If you think we are being a bit optimistic and should think smaller, ie a Punjabi Khalistan, please consider the implications of a small country located on the border of two very large nuclear powers with diametrically opposed belief systems, Pakistan and India, and that have previously gone to way over each other. Does anybody want to live in a place like Kashmir, where its just a no-mans land between India and Pakistan? Its far more viable to take over India than it will be to convince India to free Punjab and thereby give an opportunity for Pakistan to take over Punjab. If it ever looked like Pakistan would do this, India would surely just launch a pre-emptive invasion of Punjab, to protect its territorial interests and then guess where the war between Pakistan and India would be fought…in Punjab! Who wants this? Or perhaps you think that Pakistan is getting more stable and would never do this, in which case you need to read up on the failed Islamic state to-be that is Pakistan. No, the alternative does not bear thinking about, which is why its even more crucial that Sikhs in India  get it into their heads that they are Indian and they are here to Rule India. It’s already evident in the Indian flag that it also pledges orange! The colour that was of the Sikhs has been put first, then the Ghandi white and the Muslim green.

However, we feel that there is another stage that will be required. You see although by and large, Indians are the easiest group of people to agree with the Sikh philosophy, in the quest to make a Khalsa Raj in India, it may be hard to convince the downtrodden masses of the revolutionary power of Sikhi. Getting people to actually go inside and discover the Truth within themselves and live a fiercely independent life in accordance with that Truth is relatively easy in the independent thinking environment of the west, but In India, they always want to be a follower rather than a leader. Its the land of the babas, where simplistic tricks work wonders. They are not yet able to take up the mantle of freedom. Its going to take a long time to convince those who are slaves in the mind to become Khalsa. Its going to take a revolution in the West in order to affect that change. The Khalsa will have to become the dominant philosophy in one of the Western countries. India apes the west, having lost its self but not its confidence, it now is confident of beating the West in the question for the Western Ideal. It will be the Khalsa of the West that will remind India of its true spiritual self.  I don’t just refer to the 3Ho yogic Sikhs, which are spearheading the way and giving us the photogenic images of white and black people as Sikhs. I mean the thousands and hundreds of thousands of White, Black, Chinese Sikhs who are about to come into the Khalsa.  The Punjabis are not ready for them, the Gurudwaras are not ready for them, but Guru is preparing them.

When the Khalsa idealogy spreads in the West, it will not just be by simple preaching. No, the Sikhs will have to deliver the goods so to speak. They will not just be able to speak of Sikh bravery in WW1 and 2. No, it will have to be present day bravery, present day human rights work and present day spirituality that the revolution will begin.  We in the west are very cynical. However, when the day comes that Sikhs are building homeless shelters and providing medicine to those in need, when the day comes that Sikhs are being prosecuted for rescuing trafficked and slaved women and in the process killing Albanian mafia lords, when the day comes that walking into a Gurudwara becomes an enlightening experience, full of joy and bliss, on that day, will Sikhi truly prove its mettle and it will be adopted in legions.  The political conversation in Western countries will be dominated by activist Sikhs who are applying Guru’s principles to public policy.

This will initially simultaneously give the Punjabi Sikhs a sense of shame for abandoning Sikhi and a sense of pride in the actions of their religious brethren.  But after this will come a sense of revolution, that things must change in Punjab too and also a sense of confidence that Sikhi is a world philosophy and it deserves their full focus in emancipating India. The Hindu Indians will not be thinking of Sikhi as some Punjabi silly joke but as a serious meditative and socially just system. Much blood will be lost in trying to move into real democracy. India is not a country that wants its people to think or be independent. The 1% rule there and they have a lot of people whom have been sold the myth of ‘Incredible India’. These people will resist the advance of Sikhi, which is why the West will have to be place where Sikhi goes strong first. The stranglehold on Sikhi in India will tighten, but as is in all cases since time began, the Truth will prevail. The Sikhs are not scared of dying a hero’s death, the only comparison is the cowards death at home with family with lots of unfulfilled hopes. Death will come for us all, but the Sikhs, inspired by Guru’s will have to show the world what it is to truly live! The Khalsa will free Punjab and Sri Akaal Takht will be independent.

From this base, the Khalsa Ideology will come to dominate the world. The Khalsa will not need to run a country specifically, it will ensure all ethical principles are being followed and where they are not, it will intervene. The key thing is that the Khalsa can only rule when it actually does the job of Sikhi, to raise everyones awareness, to feed the hungry, fight the tyrants and meditate on the One. The raj is only assured to those in touch with the True Being.

Some may accuse us of thinking grand dreams. Sure, but ask yourself this, what did you think Guruji meant when he said Raaj Karega Khalsa? Why do you shout it now? Be honest with yourself O dear Khalsa, Is this not the secret dream in your heart? The dream that you did not wish to tell everyone in case it scares them?  Please do not worry about sounding like a Muslim and talking about Sharia law, we are very different. Why cannot the Khalsa share its vision for the world? If we do not define our objectives and vision, then someone else will define it for us. There are two points to consider here, firstly,, look at the fast growth of Islam in Western countries. It’s not at all unusual to see Western people adopt Islam, even though the Islamic ideal is well known to everybody, namely an Islamic World. Compare that to our ideal of a Khalsa Raj, where people are free to practice any belief and where basic food, education, housing and medicine are not subject to competition theory but available to all. This is an ideal that we should feel confident about spreading. The second point is regarding the 3HO Sikhs, the only large group of Western Sikhs. One of our favourite songs to come from 3HO is the Song of the Khalsa, if you haven’t heard it, we heartily recommend it. The last verse is amazing and goes something like this, “The Khalsa will rule the world and all will be safe in its fold, but if the Khalsa falls, there wont be a world at all”. When exhorting us to be strong as steel and steady as stone, the song also clearly gives the correct translation of Raj Karega Khalsa. This song is sung by nearly all the Sikhs in 3HO, their children grown up with it and their consciousness is imbued with it. Surely we can understand that no one wants to be a loser, everyone wants to join a winning team especially if you agree with them already. The Khalsa has been given this job, its here to accomplish Sat Jug on this earth. An age of Truth, where the Truth rules supreme. That is Chardikala.

So why are Punjabi Sikhs so shy of making this their founding mission statement? The answer is, because they lost their Chardikala and don’t even know it. That’s why we go around shouting slogans and signing petitions, because most of us are not thinking from first principles. What we need to do is simply organise ourselves to think big, bigger than we’ve thought before. Then we need to live Sikhi and breathe it, so the Naam fills our being and its what we are. Then when we’re thinking big and living Sikhi, we need to think like a sword, a great big flashing steel sword, hardened and tempered, sharp and decisive. When we do that and gather in numbers of five and above, around us the revolution will start as Guruji himself will give us strength to do so, its his promise to those who remain distinct and Chardikala. The Way of the True Bhagats is Distinct (see Anand Sahib) Then the Khalsa will rule the world and all will be safe in its fold.

Moving on from defining our vision about India and the Raaj, in our next post, we’ll be coming for the Gurudwaras abroad. Cause its been a long time coming and come it will. Stay tuned.

May the rider of the blue steed, of plumed turban and with hawks, who sacrificed his whole family willingly for the Khalsa, bless his children with the strength to carry though his mission. May the actions of the Khalsa lead to the world thanking Vaheguru for sending the ten Gurus that created the Khalsa. May the Khalsa give all glory to Vaheguru and live and die for Vaheguru.

Vaheguru.

“The convicts sentenced to death and languishing in the [Panjab] jails are Vikram Singh, Jasbir Singh, Balwant Singh Rajoana, Mohinder Singh, Suraj Ahluwalia, Resham Singh, Gurnayab Singh, Kulbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Saleem, Judge Singh and Gurwail Singh. While some were given the sentence in 2005 and 2006, others were awarded the penalty in 2007, 2011 and 2012.”
From an article by Aman Sood, Tribune News Service, April 3.

This list does not include Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, as he is not in a Panjabi jail.

What is needed is that groups concerned with Human Rights in Panjab come together, investigate these cases and decide on a strategy.

Whatever these convicts have been up to, whatever their crimes, nobody deserves to be condemned to death and then live for years between hope of life and fear of death. And I hope that most Sikhs will agree with me that the death penalty should be abolished altogether.

I think that we should make an inventory of those that are still in prison as a result of (alleged) crimes committed during the period from the late seventies till the early nineties, some of whom might never have been convicted of any crime.

It was good that we were present in Leuven (near Brussel) when Kamal Nath addressed a conference there. But also in this type of situations we run from incident to incident, there is no strategy.

We have been told that the Indian central government has passed an amendment of the Anand Marriage Act which would allow Sikhs to marry without having to register under the Hindu Marriage Act.

In most European countries Sikhs have no problem marrying according to the Anand Karaj ceremony as set out in the Sikh Rehat Maryada, while registering their marriage under a neutral general act.

This is not a feasible option in India as long as article 25 of the constitution throws Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs together on one messy heap !

We have to constantly hammer this point, not by denying the common roots of the four Dharmic religions, but by insisting that within that context all four have their own particular tradition.

Let us all stop saying that spiritual verses of Muslims and Hindus are included in the Guru Granth Sahib, but be specific and say that verses of Sufi Muslims and Bhakti Hindus are to be found in our Eternal Guru. That might also do away with this strange idea that Guru’s Sikhí is a cocktail of Islam and Hinduism.

BD Online reports that disaster charity Article 25 is looking for architects and contractors to give an “intelligent” response to the earthquakes and tsunami in Japan. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have supported this, reportedly saying that it will respond to requests for technical expertise in Japan.

The earthquake has ripped Japan apart, with 2,414 people confirmed dead so far (the figure is expected to exceed 10,000) and 550,000 people have been forced to abandon their homes. Three explosions have also happened at Japan’s nuclear power plants, sending a swarm of radiation across the country.

Article 25, who are a London-based charity, has said that there is “no one better placed to steer” the response than the Japanese. This is understandable, but UK contractors can play their part in helping out, just like the volunteer plumbers did in the city of Christchurch after the earthquake last month.

The UK government are looking at improving their new nuclear power stations in terms of safety and learning from the Japanese situation. The UK, as well as the whole European Union, are keen to improve the safety of their nuclear power stations and avoid any radiation leaks, like the ones which are happening right now, and the infamous Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

What do you think of the UK firms plan for Japan – do they go far enough? Let us know on the Train4TradeSkills Facebook and Twitter pages.

View Neil Young’s profile

MIPIM used to be an event in Cannes that lasted three days. Its no longer quite as simple as that – there are unofficial events occuring beforehand, MIPIM-related talk on twitter and interactive resources appearing online . Below is a quick rundown of some of the best content and events happening now to get you in the mood for Cannes.

Cycle to Cannes

This is the sixth annual bikeride to Cannes, that raises money for five different charities – LandAid, Tom’s Trust, The Duke of Edinburgh Award, The Multiple System Atrophy Trust and Article 25.

6 Days, 85 Riders, 1500 km. The Cycle2Cannes website provides more information about the history of the event and live tweets, commentary and photos as the riders cycle from London to the South of France. You can donate here.

Cycle to Cannes

MIPIM Preview Magazine

MIPIM Preview magazine is 92 pages long, and provides a mix of interesting features about property across the globe and finance, including a piece about Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the current financial state of play. There is also a rundown of some of the events happening in MIPIM itself next week.

Interactive Floorplan

This interactive MIPIM floorplan does exactly what it says on the tin. Search by either building or company name and receive very thorough results!

Estates Gazette

Estates Gazette have compiled an interactive MIPIM preview magazine. Featuring video content as well as text, its fun and informative. Main features include programme highlights and photos of real estate projects completed worldwide.

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being for himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and the necessary social services.” reads article 25 (1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is also clearly articulated in our constitution’s Bill of rights.

What a fallacy?

Since the African National Congress took over as the ruling party in 1994, there has been a consistent improvement in the delivery of the basic human rights to food, education and health but there remains an immense gulf between the haves and the have-nots.  In fact so many rights, agreed in principle continue to be denied. Some issues such as the individual’s right to life or the state’s right to use its money for armaments rather than on housing, health or education remain matters of controversy across and within societies.

I know I am going to be castigated for saying this, but truth be told, the actions by the striking public servants is inhuman, period! We live in a country where human rights are the pillars of the society, women, children, workers, individuals and even animals have rights. However I find it unpalatable that while some are out there exercising their rights, other human beings rights are being trampled upon.

It is the right of the employees to strike, but it is also the rights of the employers to lock out, however it seems as if the workers are the only ones who have rights.

I find it quite disheartening that while the poor and the sick people of the country are yearning for their basics needs such as health and education, the people who are supposed to provide that service saw it appropriate to deny them that service.  The striking hospital workers, in pursuit of a higher salary exercised their right to strike and in the process became violent which saw them barricading entrances to the hospitals, burning tyres and intimidating medical workers who chose to work throughout the industrial action, and patients that wanted to enter the facility to receive medication were also intimidated and turned back home.

The question is where are the rights of the poor patients, school kids who are hungry for education, teachers who are yearning to teach and the health workers who are ready to serve the ailing communities? How is it possible for our nurses to abandon premature babies in their incubators without feeding, medical care, change of nappies and bedding?

What type of a society are we that turns pregnant women away from hospital when they are about to give birth? I find it infuriating watching health workers blocking hospital gates, stopping ambulances from delivering seriously ill people and beating up some of their colleagues who want to care for patients.

We have to bring to mind that teachers control young and impressionable minds that in most cases adore them. The poor kids are likely to believe that what their teachers do is good and proper.

But if teachers on strike invade schools, beat up non-striking colleagues, tear up the learners’ books, terrorise the little ones, use foul language against the authorities and generally behave badly, they are planting these poisonous seeds in the minds of our young kids. And this is the future society we are breeding.

I am of the notion that in as much as they accept their right to strike, as enshrined in the Constitution and other relevant legislation, they should accept and respect the rights of other citizens to life, education and other related rights.

If our professionals do not understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it in pursuance of the 8.6% wage increment and a R1000 housing subsidy, then our country is indeed in a quandary.

It is similarly important that in a society where the cult of individualism is powerful, stress be placed on the obligations which arise from living in a human community and on the idea that there is an obligation on every individual and most especially on those whose positions of power is to show care and concern to those who are weak and vulnerable. The idea that the broader community is prepared to protect those who cannot always protect themselves is a key idea in any notion of human rights.  These are some of the powers that are vested in our teachers, nurses and the entire public service realm.

Yet these are the same people who kick us in our teeth when we question their modus operandi. These are the same people who continuously give us empty promises.

Who are we lying to when we organize various forms of merriment to celebrate human rights day on 21 March every year? Women are still being raped and beaten to bruises in their own homes, children are still being abused by those who are ordained to protect them, and they still die very silently from malnourishment and poor health services. And who’s right are we talking of? Whose rights are we celebrating year on year? Is it the right of those who have power to continue enriching themselves while the downtrodden masses are still living in abject poverty?

As George Orwell puts it in his classic novel, Animal Farm “All animals are equal but some are more equal than the others”.