Home | Join CESJ | info@nokians.net

Lofty Matters The Age Of Transparency

The one good thing about a glass ceiling is that you can see through it, you know what is on the other side so therefore you can see what you are missing out on. This perception comes from the school of positive thinking and that is a curriculum which should really be in demand right here, right now.

The twenty-first century has opened the Age of Transparency in my opinion and that is an era common humanity has long been awaiting. This quality of transparency is an obvious result of the cultural change which was and is the global digital information age. An example of this incoming age, and it is definitely not the only example, is the work fronted by Julian Assange. Wikileaks argues that the world can be governed transparently and that is a condition of government not previously entertained.

As such this approach is not a threat to the future, it is a threat to the past and the ways of the past. Our problem is that the ways of government and social administration are concretised in their own rigid mythological methodologies; those who run societies are not intellectually equipped for rapid response or fluid change. In the past, new styles of government had to be ripped torn and bleeding from the womb of human consciousness. Once the new born could stand the arteries of its powers immediately began to calcify with age until with unerring certainty it became that which it originally opposed.

This reflects the well known cycle of human intellectual activity: heresy, theology, dogma, heresy, theology, dogma, heresy....and so on. In our past this process, whilst costly in human lives, has never been too much of a problem for periods of stability could last for hundreds of years in any one specific geographic location. However, as communications and logistics improved in efficiency and distribution the periods of stability became shorter lived. New born models began to birth more quickly in response to the dogmatic establishment of the previous "generation".

In our twenty-first century, in this Age of Transparency, the speed of change is such that if the old generations of the past try to maintain their fading power rather than adapt they will be strongly and robustly challenged by those who believe in the future. The current wave of social resistance in the Middle East clearly demonstrates this point. Whilst the most concrete of institutions, those built in what we quaintly describe as the "West" or the "Developed World" may look on and feel they are immune from such change, nothing could be further from the truth. If the lesson of the Middle East is considered then it tells us that where change is embraced, even if reluctantly, even if with the use of smoke and mirrors, then its birth is less bloody.

Where the old decaying body resists with physical violence and suppression then change takes longer to achieve, is more costly in every single meaning of that word but remains absolutely inevitable in this Age of Transparency. Fundamentally then this is a management problem. To put this another way the management of change is a problem because the managers don't have the knowledge, wit or insight to manage change, their souls are made of concrete. For those who have served stability based on secrecy and the maintenance of a two tier system of laws and privilege, one system for the poor and another system for the wealthy, their intellectual ability is dreadfully out of date.

Of course many in the UK would argue "But we have the finest minds from Oxford and Cambridge managing our society." and I would respond, to paraphrase the great Gore Vidal:

"Yes, well of course we all have a lot to thank the Dons of Oxford and Cambridge for but may I ask you, have you ever learnt to think for yourself?"

Those who cannot think for themselves will read my words here and froth with splutterings of "rebellion", "revolution" or even "socialism", all of which terms actually demonstrate how far past the sell by date their minds are. As a problem this simply cannot be underestimated because these dense minds will lead us into bloody confrontation and social disaster, always blaming the messenger and not their own social firing squads, and that, to all who believe in and can see the future is absolutely transparent.

Emerging from this transparency is one very clear challenge and it is constructed like this: If the rule of law is the bedrock of stability and civilisation in any culture then a change in culture demands a change in the rule of law. This challenge is immense because nowhere in our social management is there more deeply embedded resistance to change and social justice than in the administration of the law in the UK. I would also add, not just in the UK but in that quaint "Western Developed World".

This should not be a matter of any debate for anyone who lives in The Age of Transparency yet it will be a heresy for those who would maintain the dogmatic inhumanity of an outdated administration of the rule of law. Fortunately the evidence is strongly against those dreadful threshold guardians who hold back the aspirations and hopes of humanity and that evidence is even more powerful because it is of their own manufacture.

I was present in the Royal Courts of Justice in London when the Lord Chief Justice no less pronounced his verdict in the appeal on behalf of Simon Hall. Simply from the aesthetic I was deeply shocked by the dreadful 18th century farce being performed in dusty wig and tattered gown by practised actors reliving a very old script. That the Lord Chief Justice chose to speak in a whisper hardly audible in the court left me with the impression of an unrelenting authority devoid of the manners of respect for those before him. If we could not hear him he apparently had no care about that and certainly was not willing to go to the effort of raising his voice for the benefit of those whose son was imprisoned.

I am talking about the theatre and the performance which in my opinion I witnessed. Where in the twenty-first century, where in the emergent Global Human Identity, where in the administration of justice does this charade actually have any merit whatsoever? Surely it is the intimidation of the present by the past. Surely those who buy into the roles and draw huge salaries for their wanton performances are manifestly obstacles to social justice. Surely this is a style of administration of the rule of law which should be swiftly consigned to the dustbin of history before it does any more damage to our society. So far I am only citing evidence of form but there is evidence in substance as well.

In the Age of Transparency how is it possible for the Lord Chief Justice to deliberate over a detailed scientific challenge to the evidence on which Simon Hall's conviction is solely based and conclude that whilst that evidence is flawed it is compelling? Assuming the weeks of deliberation resulted in the whispered word "compelling" as defined; Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction., then any transparent assessment would have to disagree unreservedly with the inability to refute and conclude that something in this case is certainly not clear or understood.

The lack of understanding stems from the case that fibre evidence has never ever before been the sole basis for conviction in the history of the UK jurisdiction. The lack of clarity stems from the case that there is a mass of unexamined, unconsidered evidence at the scene of crime which does not connect Simon Hall to the murder committed there and at the very least, the very, very least, indicates that people other than Simon Hall were present at the time of the murder. In the face of all of this cloudy, dark, unexplained absence of true scrutiny of evidence which overwhelmingly points to the possibility of a most dreadful miscarriage of justice, The Lord Chief Justice provides us only with a wig, a whisper and the idea that discredited evidence is compelling.