The apology is in order, but how much will it cost.

Australia recently got something off its chest, an apology for acts perpetrated on its indigenous people, removing aboriginal children from their families and placing them with 'white' Australians or creating them state wards. Many feel the apology it is certainly a step in the right direction, and ends a period where a government flatly denied apologising for something that was not directly doing. Kevin Rudd put it this way:

"We have to remove the great stain on this nation's sould. It's time for fresh ideas for Australia's future."

A change of tack from where John Howard had previously stated:

Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control

It would to unwise suggest that he had no care for the aboriginal people, the draconian intervention in the Northern Territory, to protect many from dangers within their own communities, has started to bear fruit:

Cynthia Watson is one of 100 people who live in the Mount Nancy aboriginal township on the fringe of Alice Springs, one of the towns covered in the legislation. Police and soldiers have replaced town drunks, and Watson, 25, spends her welfare on feeding her four children, aged 2 to 11.

"No more grog means we have fewer fights,'' said Watson, who is camping with her children in Canberra.

There is a place for acknowledging mistakes in politics, and the concensus was heartening, many in Australia and around the world feel that Australia has matured a little after the apology has been given.

When I was younger, I remember listening to a speech in legalese from a QC, who explained that governments are much the same as private companies when it comes to the continuity of its legal form. A change of government does not equate to a dissolution of partnership, but moreso to a change of directors. Hence an admission of past liability does open a government up to legal preceedings. That QC is likely to be offering his services pro-bono to pursue the case: I remember him saying in particular nothing can be done until the governments makes some sort of admission. You'll forgive me for not remembering the the case law he was relying on.

The West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service has already started preparing a test case, which in the case of it suceeding, would today's twenty-somethings paying towards something that did not occur in their generation. The sums being bandied about vary.

Swept up in their goodwill they may have forgotten the consequences of such an admission. Howard surely saw this, and maybe his reasoning for not offering an apology was not only based on his sense of egalitarianism, but also on the future impact of apoligies on the nations' finances. I'm not saying it would be the only reason though.

French Air Controllers in their ivory towers

If there was ever a strike that was completely self-serving and foolish in equal parts, then it would be the French Air Traffic controllers. Not all of them, just those responsible for the Orly airspace. Charles de Gaulles, Beauvais and others are now operating with minimum disruption, but the downstream costs to airlines having to cancel, reschedule flights and breach curfew is costing them big, the passengers finding alternate routes no doubt delighting train operator SNCF.

The dispute centers around Air Traffic Centers of the greater Parisian area being bundled into a single larger operation, eliminating the costly and complex process of switching planes as they pass through the airspace of several towers. Hence, it would be in the interests of passengers being safer and having to pay less through ticket prices for the process. The union at Orly tower is the only one protesting the decision (it is more unionised), but the four other unions involved in representing the other airports have signed off on the amalgamation, after some extensive consultation. The outcome of the plan would be to bring Paris into line with aviation standard practice in large cities worldwide.

Imagine if you were flying from Dulles International (DC) to Logan International (Boston), and be cleared through the airspace of Reagan, Baltimore, Philadephia, Newark,Teterboro, JFK, and La Guardia in turn. Crazy considering the amount of traffic. That's what one union is all for in and around Paris.

Unions can believe in the greater good, a bit of give and take, can't they? Well, the reason the Orly CGT objects to the proposal is nothing to do with job cuts, working conditions or evil corporate bosses: They would not control the union in the new workplace.

School holidays are begginning for many French families, and this will be a further reminder that much power still remains in the hands of few. Often in these cases, the travelling public has an amount of sympathy for employees in the travel industry who exercise their right to strike; they also work.

However, when the puerile reason for the strike is revealed, the goodwill will evaporate quicker than a New Years' resolution. The government would have all the support it needs to legislate the changes forcefully, potentially and ironically putting all of the traffic controllers into a worse position that previously, despite the agreements reached between all the other parties.

So as the inconveniences mount to the travellers, the costs to the airlines, and the risk to passengers, I would urge the Air Traffic controllers to see what's approaching on the radar.

The Archbishop and the Sharia

I thought that I'd go back to first principles when looking at exactly what Dr. Rowan Williams has said with regard to the possibility of sharia law existing within the body of British Law.

The integral speech is available here, and I guess that he is due some credit for raising the issue of Sharia law, and the large numbers of British Muslims. But is the Archbishop straying from his brief if making comment on this? Surely very few in his flock are also Muslims: so why is he advocating on their behalf? The splashes across UK papers, including one headline "What a burkha" have universally panned the speech, reporting and editorialising that the speech was divisive rather than uniting of Britons.

A couple of quotes:

'In The West', writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, 'the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam...It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word'.

So if Muslims don't raise it for that very reason, why did the Archbishop wish to inject himself into this debate?

There is a risk of assuming that 'mainstreram' (sic) jurisprudence should routinely and unquestioningly bypass the variety of ways in which actions are as a matter of fact understood by agents in the light of the diverse sorts of communal belonging they are involved in.

This is where the ire would probably have begun to be raised. Williams posits that a separate body of law, or procedure, should be put together to judge those based on those very communal belongings. It smells of tokenism, and pandering to minorities. Looking specifically at an Islamic example, this can be taken to mean that certain actions would be excusable purely because of a person's identification with the Muslim religion.

Certainly there is a place for leniency, and taking into account all the relevant factors before a judgment is rendered by a judge. They're called pre-sentencing reports, and are compiled after a verdict has been given. These do not defer the progress of a trial from the application of transparent and consistent justice. This is not to mention that many Muslims have immigrated quite legally to the UK in search of a better life. There are sacrifices and benefits from that, and one is to faithfully obey British law.

There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with.

So what the Archbishop is asking for is a devolution of decision making away from appointed judges, and into the hands of religious advisory bodies, who would (apparently) be able to make better decisions with regards to questions with regard to religious contexts. I don't suggest the bodies should be banned, far from it. Many seek answers on matters of religion from their own clerics, elders and priests and that right should extend to Imams (and others). I would just as much object that the Synod of the Church of England have to deal with any 'vexatious' issue, with legally binding results. Not surprisingly, the decisions of the Islamic Shari'a Council relating to marriage are not recognised by UK courts.

The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court [...] would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens.

So here's the rub. Where would the establishment of these courts be recognised within the court hierarchy? Are they at the very bottom, along with the magistrates' courts, or do they become an alternate court of last appeal, if the subject matter is dealing with Muslim business. My firm belief is that the current system is able to deal with all sorts of different instances. The precedents established are conservative enough to be understood, and argued, but flexible enough to change with the times, and the influx of a Muslim population is just another event to be adapted to. This should not be done through the introduction of a two religion system in the country. The Catholics of the United Kingdom, the Orthodox Jewish population and the Hindu population would all be entitled then to their own 'special' courts, that would only tear further at the social fabric.

I could go on quoting Williams, his speech runs for quite some length. He does not have the same faith I have in the transparency and supremacy of law in this country. I am going to give the final word to Peter Costello, a former Treasurer of Australia, who in 2006 had some advice for those asking for Sharia law to be incorporated alongside Australian law.

The radical Muslim Cleric Ben Brika was asked in an interview in August 2005:-
But don't you think Australian Muslims living in Australia also have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?

To which he answered:- This is a big problem.
There are two laws there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.

No this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society.

The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature. There are countries that apply religious or sharia law Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to
live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don't enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don't come to Australia.

Keating pops up again...speaking ill of the dead.

As an Australian Prime Minister, I hold Paul Keating in reasonably high regard. He was a treasurer who prepared Australia for the 90s and 00s by deregulating vast swathes of the economy and floating the dollar inter alia. He was also highly eloquent, and was not afraid to trade barbs in Parliament and out, dressed in his Zegna suits.

"All tip and no iceberg", "desiccated coconut araldyted to the seat", "I want to do you slowly" are all phrases that have entered the public consciousness thanks to him. Keating's failing, and there's a little bit of it in each of us, is to think himself invincible. His prompt exit from public life after his defeat to Howard in 1996 has made him bitter, and the only time Keating seems to appear is when his own legacy is attacked, or he is attacking someone else's: even if they are on his side of politics. The pithy soundbite became his tool, and he cannot point to any great achievements on his own behalf, or in assisting Australia and Australians since leaving. I always wondered whether he would be proud being remembered, post-politics, as a walking soundbite.

Keating has served up a septic cocktail of old age, vitriol and grudge in flaming Padraic McGuinness. Padraic was certainly an eccentric character, who is difficult to tag with any specific political tag. He's edited the AFR and Quadrant as well as being an economist for a Soviet Bank. Peter Coleman, a former editor of The Bulletin remembers:

You would find him at the anarchist meetings in Whitechapel, probably heckling the speakers, or in Hampstead giving blood for the Vietcong while getting stuck into the communists, or in the pages of Oz magazine ridiculing prohibitionist drug laws and moronic druggies.

I've met 'Paddy' on a couple of occasions, and despite his penchant for black dressing, which I recall had something to do with combining the roles of priest, satanist and confessor, as well as not showing dirt (according to him), found him fascinating. I have to confess that some of the subject matter flew right over my head, and I was forced into the awkward 'smiling and nodding' routine hoping the line of conversation would progress no further.

With some of Quadrant now being online, and widely distributed, it's growing as a literary journal of note. Padraic made sure that there were no sacred cows, whether they were the sacred belief of the left or right, as long as the debate was cooly academic. The material is often inaccessible, and the subject matter obscure. Keith Windshuttle truly came to prominence when he was published by McGuinness, on an alternate interpretation of early Australian settlement and the 'Stolen Generation'. So despite being labeled 'right-wing' like its editor, it was more difficult to classify, as it promoted debate on topics important to the Nation.

Keating of course is a master of timing, and has waited to have the last say before Padraic's funeral. He rants:

In a long public life I have made it a rule never to speak ill of the dead; to not criticise someone who can no longer respond to the criticism.I am going to break that rule in the case of Paddy McGuinness.

I do so for this reason: in the last two decades of his life, McGuinness heaped more vitriol and contumely on me than anyone in public life."Working on the notion that 'the dogs may bark but the caravan moves on', I rarely responded to his unreasonable and unceasing tirades.

So, in that piggy bank of reasonableness, I have a massive store of credits that, in all fairness, I am in a moral position to draw on."

Paul, how childish. Just because you can't defame the dead, doesn't mean you should. You have had the chance to resolve your differences with him for the last two decades of his life, and you've never complained or expressed concern about Padraic's actions in the public domain. Could it be that the complaints you make are unreasonable, and that bravado exterior is concealing a cowardly runt? You've just admitted that your own moral are lacking, by confessing you made an exception in his case.

It's ironic he should talk about banking and pigs. Does he not forget how his personal bank account was allegedly credited from a Darling Downs piggery?

Vale Padraic.

Sarkozy clips Ryanair's left and right wings....Sues for breach of privacy

Ryanair, a highly entrepreneurial airline, has always sailed a little close to the wind with some of its advertising and branding. Like a Costco or WalMart, Ryanair has stacked it high and sold it cheap, amassing the scalps of airlines along the way, such as Buzz, or severely dinting the profits of the so-called 'national flagship' airlines (Aer Lingus, BA, Lufthansa, Air France).
Most famously was Ryanair taking on the BA/Lingus duopoly on travel between London and Dublin. They broke it, and Lingus is now forced to fly small aircraft out of Stansted, while Ryan flies 15 times a day to Dublin.

The airline realises that if you're going to cover your costs (and maybe make a profit!) flying people around, you can have a half full cabin paying high fares or a chock-full paying little. Ryanair has inversed that traveler's addage of "it's not about the destination, it's the journey".

The fact that these cheap fares are available means that air-travel is within reach of everyone, not just those using other people's money to fly. This is not flying to enjoy, but flying to smell the camembert of a true French fromagerie, to taste Guinness at its source or to feel the sand between toes on a Tenerife beach.

Now, there are a few groundings to this seemingly perfect scenario. Critics of the airline (often the scorned full-fare competitors) say: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys". The critics are correct to some degree. Let's take an example:

If I booked a flight today from London Stansted to Belfast International for Travel on June 2 returning June 16 the fare is 2 pence. Fine but; this does NOT include:

• Taxes of £22.48 and £26.20 for each leg of the trip, which includes government, airport and assorted such as a wheelchair levy (even if you don't use one!): £48.68



• Have a bag to check in? Double whammy! You pay for the privilege of the check-in attendant's time and expertise (£3 per leg) as well as the transport of the bag (£6 per leg): £18



• I won't include Priority Boarding and Travel Insurance in the cost as they are optional extras, but they are available for £3 and £7 a leg respectively.



• Visa? MasterCard? £3 per passenger per leg, Debit £1 per passenger per leg. For a single passenger, negligible, but booking for a family of 5 would make this an extra £30! £6
  Total Taxes and Extras £72.68
  

So you can understand the poor passenger's gripe when a fare is advertised at £0.02, but ends up being £72.70 (taxes included). Nor does Ryanair necessarily fly to mainstream airports. Beauvais is an hour's bus outside Paris, Prestwick is down by the Troon golf course, and Torp is well out of Oslo past snow covered fields, transfers are an extra cost. Nor does the airline offer refunds of any kinds. Nor does the airline offer large baggage allowances.

But, despite the pledges of many travelers to give up the airline because of these differences, money talks. Ryanair is often the cheapeast way to see some destinations, despite the so called 'stealth taxes' imposed by the airline. Ultimately, the customer has everything laid out in front of them, and a final price to pay to their airline. They can still choose to proceed.
Update: After putting this up, I checked the EasyJet equivalent for the same day, approx same flight times, 1 pax with 1 bag, and they came to £51.96, a good £20 cheaper than Ryanair. Competition exists at the low cost end market also, and EasyJet's baggage allowance is 20kgs, to RyanAir's 15kgs.

But ultimately, Ryanair is not competing with full fare airlines. Ryanair is competing with train and shipping lines. Part of a European holiday involving a crossing of either the English Channel or the Irish Sea usually meant bringing along the family car in the hope of saving the (often exorbitant) cost of rental, especially in pre-Schengen days. Now the money saved on flights can be used to rent.

Advertising: Sharp but risky
The longer than expected background brings me to today's news that Carla Bruni and Nicholas will be suing for invasion of privacy. They are seeking €500,000 and €1 respectively, with Bruni's picture used for commercial purposes without payment commanding the largest sum.
Carla's speech bubble says:
With Ryanair, all my family can come to my wedding.
The smart advertising makes the connection between the size of Ms Bruni's Italian family and her imminent wedding to President Sarkozy.

UPDATE 2
Sarkozy has decided to settle for a euro, but Carla Bruni is carrying on the action. Ryanair has offered to donate 5000 Euros. A spokesman for Sarkozy said:

"For the President of the Republic it is a question of principle. As for Carla Bruni, it's her profession, it's her image. She has suffered a financial loss,"he told a regular weekly news briefing.

Francis Taitgen, the Ryanair lawyer has claimed free speech when defending the company's actions. Taitgen said Ryanair agreed to publish the judgment in three newspapers and to make a 5,000 euro donation to charity but he said Bruni should accept that she was in a special position.

"She declares that she comes before you as a model and singer who earns a great deal of money. But this is not the photo of a singer! It is the photo of a woman with the man she loves!," he told the court."When one has the immense good fortune to have glory and fame, one should accept the inconvenient aspects," he said.

But this isn't the first time Ryanair has found itself in hot water over its tack on advertising. Just a couple of months ago, it released a glamour charity calendar with its female staff strutting their stuff in various airside locales.

But that's not all, the airline was also rapped over the knuckles by the British Ads agency over the "Hottest Back to School Fares" newspaper ad featuring a skirt clad young woman exposing quite a bit of skin.

I feel Ryan's biggest faux pas was when they charged a man 18 pounds for use of a wheelchair. The UK Court of Appeal found that Ryanair and Stansted had discriminated against disabled people.

Update 3

Its flamboyant CEO Michael O'Leary, has a few quotable quotes with regards to regulation, the environment and the state of the travel industry:

• On the right to fly: "For years flying has been the preserve of rich fuckers. Now everyone can afford to fly."



• Travel agents: "Screw the travel agent. Take the fuckers out and shoot them. What have they done for passengers over the years?"



• On Ryanair's strict no-refund policy: "We don't fall all over ourselves if they... say my granny fell ill. What part of no refund don't you understand? You are not getting a refund so fuck off."



• On Jurgen Weber, Lufthansa CEO: "Weber says Germans don't like low fares. How the fuck does he know? He's never offered them any. The Germans will crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to get them."



• On co-existence with British Airways: "There is too much: 'we really admire our competitors'. All bollocks. Everyone wants to kick the shit out of everyone else. We want to beat the crap out of BA. They mean to kick the crap out of us."
  

Tidnup has flown Ryanair on a dozen occasions, to Destinations such as Glasgow (Prestwick), Dublin, Edinburgh, Paris (Beauvais) and Oslo (Torp).