“Remember my words, green good, black evil”, the voice continued, (for a moment, I felt like a character in the Orwellian novel, Animal Farm and it was as if I was listening to the mantra of the sheep reciting the rote of ; “two legs good, four legs better”.

“Who are you”? I stammered in abject terror. I heard a rumble and a splash behind me and felt the silky caress of tentacles on my bare foot. “I am Paul, the octopus, the oracle of all oracles and sage of all sages. I am the harbinger of the future. Bide my words and you will be fine”. The terrible oily voice replied.

Suddenly, I shot up like a cork from my bed sweaty, confused and disorientated. It was a dream, a nasty dream. I was still lying in my darkened room in a remote corner of the world. The stars were cocooned in their tent of blue and the chirrups of the birds were like sweet music to my ears.

I spent the rest of the night tossing and turning on my sofa. I did not sleep a wink again that night. Then it occurred to me that I had just had an encounter with Paul, the Octopus, (the magic talisman of the German football team).

Who can escape the tentacles of Paul the Octopus? The fellow has an incredible record of predicting football results. During the FIFA World cup in South Africa held a few weeks ago, he was able to give the correct results to all the matches which the Germans participated in.

His verdict on the derby between England Vs Germany was spot on, 4-1 to the German machine. Paul even got the winner of the final right. Spain defeated Holland, 1-0. The octopus is English by birth, (although the Italians have adopted him as theirs and nicknamed him Paulo).

Paul has become cannon fodder for the tabloid press. American newspapers are reporting that he might have a shot for the post of Russian Presidency, (assuming that Putin and Medvedev choose not to run) and the National Enquirer Magazine(?) has offered him a guided tour of the White house and a photo-ops with Barack Obama.

The Spanish have offered a princely sum for Paul and have assured him a comfortable retirement in the Azores, (it is unclear whether the fellow will take them up on the tantalizing offer).

I doubt if Paul will live to see the next FIFA world cup tournament due to take place in Brazil in 2014. He is old, frail and in poor health. How then can a replacement be found for the juju and magic of the octopus? I have a suggestion. Why not build a replica of the Oracle of Delphi in the FIFA headquarters in Switzerland?

The ancients had a tradition of consulting the gods at the onset of battle. Before the Hot gates affair in 480 BC, (known to historians as the battle of Thermopylae), the Spartan king, Leonidas had asked of the gods whether it was wise to give battle to Xerxes, Lord of Persia. The answer had been negative. Leonidas died in the process.

At the height of the crises of the ‘Year of the five Emperors’, in 193, the Romans had consulted the Adelphi Oracle on whom to choose as the imperator of the Roman Empire. The oracle had given verse to an ancient Greek prophecy which went thus; “The black one is the best, the African good, the worst is the white one”.

The black one referred to Niger, the African was Septimius Severus, whilst the white one was Clodius Albinus. The African triumphed and the black and white ones were killed in the wars that followed.

After the conquest of Egypt and the defeat of Darius, king of Persia, Alexander the Great had paid a visit to the Temple of Ammon or Amon~Ra in the spring of 331 BC. The purpose was to ascertain his divinity as the son of Zeus and to find out whether the killers of his father, Philip 11 of Macedon had been identified and suitably punished.

The priests hidden in the caverns of the temple had given the imperious king the answers he desired. He was the son of Zeus and the murderers of Philip had paid the ultimate price, (a lie, because his mother, Olympias of Epirus was to be accused and put to death after the demise of Alexander).

What then are the secrets of Paul, the octopus? Is he invested with some hidden powers unseen and unknowable to man? Octopi are known to have well developed brains, eight arms with two rows of suckers each.

The common octopus is classified as Octopus vulgaris, the Atlantic pygmy octopus as Octopus joubini and the white spotted octopus is Octopus macropus, all of the family Octopodidae. I wonder, under what classification Paul falls into?

Paul has had a blemish free career of predicting football results. At the European championships held two years ago, he correctly stated that Spain would lift the cup. Pundits had put the chances of all predictions been true at an astronomical 128,000~1.

Cynics might sneer at the powers of Paul and argue that the matches were fixed in some way. But is that really plausible? It has to be a gigantic conspiracy to involve 32 football teams in the world and expect not a single morsel or whiff of information to leak out.

I listened to the Germany vs. Spain match on radio and there is no way you can convince me that that match was not to the death. Or the final between Spain vs. Holland, the Dutch have been to the finals twice, (in 1974 and 78 losing to Germany and Argentina respectively).

I would have thought that they would have wished to make it a third time lucky. I was never a believer in juju or magic but my encounter with Paul, the octopus on a starry night, a fortnight ago has made me change my mind.

The whole of mankind has become involved with Paul. Writing in the book, “Dear Octopus” the British novelist stated as follows; “The family, that dear octopus from whose tentacles we never quite escape, nor in our innermost heads never quite wish to”. I guess he knew what he was yapping about.

I remember writing a blog on the banning of the Burka and Niqab and the effect it will have on the Muslim population in France. The National Assembly has just approved the new laws and it is almost certain that with the support or abstention of the socialists, the UMP will be able to push the legislation through in the Senate.

There will be challenges to the new legislation in the European courts of Human rights. I wonder did the much vaunted French civil service consult the legal mandarins in Strasbourg before the enactment of the new laws? If so, what advice did the Law Lords bequeath to them?

It will be interesting to see what procedure the courts will follow in the interpretation of the new legislation vis a vis Art 9 of the European convention on Human rights.

Will it adopt a ‘narrow’ margin of appreciation in interpreting the new legislation and deem them to be; “necessary in a democratic society” and “in accordance with the laws of France” or hold them to be in contravention of the spirit of Art 9?

When Karl Von Savigny enunciated his theory of the Volksgeist, he had in mind a more complex and nuanced approach to the concept of the ‘spirit of the people’. It is not in doubt that the spirit of the French is republican and secular in nature, but does that exclude any references to or sympathies for religious totems and symbols?

If it does, the new legislation will be the most devastating blow to the tenets of religious freedom and the rights of the individual since the enactment of the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685 by the sun king, Louis XIV which led to the mass expulsion of the Huguenots from Paris to the foreign shores of England, Spain, Germania and the low countries of Holland.

This is not the first time that assaults have been launched on the rights of the individual in Europe. A while ago, the Swiss Parliament in a fit of pique, (it was embroiled in a diplomatic spat with the Libyans) had banned the use of minarets in summoning the faithful to prayers by the muezzin in the mosques of Berne.

The laws were passed because Minarets were deemed to be a form of alien culture which had no place under Swiss mores and traditions. The ECHR will almost have to make a ruling on this and I doubt if the new laws will pass the test of compatibility under Art 9 of the convention.

Minarets are a manifestation of the religion of Islam, just as church bells are of the Christian faith.

Will the garbs of the Orthodox Jews or the riotous celebrations of the Hare Krishna converts face similar actions? I would have thought that what was good for the goose would be excellent for the gander.

In the United Kingdom, a row recently ensued over the rights of women to cover their faces with Islamic veils. A woman lost her job in a public school for refusing to uncover face whilst teaching her students, despite entreaties from her employers. The matter went to an industrial tribunal for wrongful dismissal.

She lost and it is entirely possible that an appeal will be lodged at Strasbourg. The school will argue that her dismissal was not a violation of her rights under the convention, because she had signed an agreement with her employers to follow the rules of her contract and that by refusing to uncover her face she was in breach of the agreement.

A fortiori, the ban only ran within the writ of the school premises and did not extend outside. The other employees had also expressed some reservations about the veil because they could not effectively communicate with her and the kids had been frightened of the garb.

Is it not strange that double standards are been applied by various societies in Europe? Whilst it is illegal to wear an Islamic headgear in a public place in France, (punishable with a fine of €150 and a year in prison for a male accomplice), it is fashionable to don a crucifix or turban in England or Italy.

This is permissible under the margin of appreciation given to domestic states in the interpretation of their laws by the ECHR.

A British Airways staff who was fired for wearing a conspicuous crucifix under her uniform got her job back when the British tabloids got wind of the story and raised a rumpus about the whole affair. Would the Press have adopted a similar attitude, if the roles had been reversed and the woman had been Moslem?

The events of 9/11 in New York and the train bombings in Madrid and London has unwittingly turned every Moslem into a potential terrorist and jihadist capable of unleashing mayhem on innocent citizens and passers-by. Guilt by religion has become the norm of judgment and been Moslem has become a crime under the law.

I am of the opinion that the French have adopted the wrong approach to the policy of assimilation in France. Singling out Moslem women will backfire and create more problems than solutions. Banning the Burka and Niqab by an Act of Parliament is akin to using a sledgehammer in disposing of a fly.

Before the new laws were considered for legislation, a census was carried out on the number of women who wore the Islamic garbs in Marseilles, Toulouse and Paris. The number did not exceed more than 2,000 in total. Would it not have been wiser to ignore the offenders and focused on more pressing issues like social cohesion and race relations?

The French economy is in a dire condition, the recession is biting hard, unemployment is rising sharply, (more than 17%) and Nicholas Sarkozy’s popularity stands at 26%. Would it not have been preferable to have spent the mammoth amount used in drawing up the new laws in getting the unemployed back to work?

Now, there could be acts of civil disobedience on the streets of France and arresting offenders will make martyrs of them and draw attention to a non issue which no one cares or talks about. Nicholas Sarkozy has made much of the role that was played by the states of the Maghreb in the liberation of Paris during the 2nd world war.

He invited soldiers from the former colonies in Africa to participate in the celebration of the storming of the Bastille, (an event that occurred during the French revolution in 1789). He has also raised the pensions of former soldiers from these countries to be at par with their French counterparts

I wonder what they will make of the new laws? Will it be applicable to their spouses when they come to France on holidays or to reside? Opinion polls show that more than 70% of the French are in favor of the new legislation banning the Burka and Niqab. But then have the French not always been a fickle and emotional race?

More than two centuries ago, the French monarch, Louis XV1 and his wife, Marie Antoinette were the most hated couple in France and the Parisian mob had heckled them as they went to the guillotine at the height of the Reign of Terror.

Opinion polls conducted recently show that Louis Capet is one of the most admired figures in French History and many express remorse at his execution. Hmmm……How times change!

St Albans is well known to Historians as the scene of Boudicca’s finest triumph against the Romans. The Iceni Queen had raided Camulodunum, (Colchester) and London and had put 70,000 Roman Legionnaires to the sword. Nero panicked and had sought to evacuate Britain. Disaster was narrowly averted by the steely resolve of Suetonius Paulinus.

I am not a Bible quoting Christian, neither do I espouse to the doctrines of Jesus. I happen to be liberal in most aspects of life, but I am of the opinion that homosexuality is immoral and should be returned to the statute books of England and Wales as an offense under the law.

The church as the custodian of values and morals should set the highest examples for others to emulate. Is it not written in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination unto God? In Leviticus, Chapter 18, verses 22~25, it says as follows; “No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God abhors that”.

In 17th century England, homosexuality was a criminal offence punishable with death. Lord Byron, (who was once described by the writer, Caroline Lamb as mad, bad and dangerous to know) fled England to Greece because he was afraid of been arrested for his homosexual and depraved acts.

The Irish playwright and poet, Oscar Wilde was a guest of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria in Reading Jail for his dalliance with Lord Alfred Douglas. His trial in the criminal courts at the Old Bailey became a cause celebre in English jurisprudence. The Ballad of Reading Gaol and De Profundis were written in contemplation of daily life in an English jail.

A passage in his semi autobiography, De Profundis compares his immoral and abnormal behavior as akin to; “feasting with panthers” and in his first trial for sodomy in the criminal crown court, he had described homosexuality as follows;

“The ‘love that dare not speak its name’ in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan……and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare”.

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron has given his support to the consecration of openly gay clerics as Bishops in the Church of England.

He has adopted a Liberal approach to homosexuality in order to distance the Tories from the old accusation of been the “nasty” party and to show solidarity with his coalition partners, (The Liberal Democrats), many of whose members are openly homosexual.

Cameron has promoted gay candidates in the Conservative party and recently hosted a gay pride party at No 10 Downing Street.

Dr John is on a shortlist of candidates been considered for appointment to the position of Bishop of Southwark. If he is given the nod, the Monarch will be the last stumbling block to his appointment to the much revered post.

Jeffrey John was barred from becoming the Bishop of Reading in 2003 over his relationship with another man. At a meeting chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, he was approved as a candidate for the Bishop of Southwark.

John married another man, Rev Grant Holmes in 2006 in a civil partnership ceremony.

Homosexuality runs like a cancer through the pores of the Church of England. A former Archbishop of York, Dr Hope in the 1990’s once described his sexuality as “a grey area” whilst another compared the resurrection of Jesus to “a trick and the conjuring of bones”.

The clergyman, Christopher Bryant, now a Labor MP was defrocked for posing nude in a gay porn site. He was later made a minister for Europe during the Brown Administration.

In America, matters have followed a similar turn for the worse. In 2003, the Episcopal Church anointed the openly gay and non celibate Gene Robinson to a Bishopric and last year, Mary Glassport, a Lesbian who cohabits in sin with her partner was made an assistant Bishop to the diocese of Los Angeles.

The relaxation of morals and the appointment of homosexuals to important positions in the COE has created rifts and divisions in the ranks of the congregation and amongst 77 million Anglican followers around the world.

African members under the mercurial Bishop, Akinola of the Nigerian diocese have broken ranks and threatened to create a new church which respects the principles of marriage and family values as stipulated under the Bible. Rowan Williams had to summon a special synod of the COE to placate the situation.

The Catholic Church of Rome has not fared any better. The Vatican is been buffeted by lurid tales of pedophilia and corruption involving prominent bishops and priests. In Belgium, a Bishop was arrested and a summit summoned by the church to discuss sex abuse claims against priests was raided by the police.

The Bishops had their mobile phones seized and documents and memoranda were confiscated. The crypts of two dead cardinals were drilled into in search of incriminating materials. The Vatican issued a statement condemning the actions of the police and comparing them to events which occurred under communist countries.

Now the Belgian police has launched an investigation into allegations of threats to the lives of the witnesses and Magistrates investigating the whole affair.

I remember calling for the removal of Ratzinger in an earlier blog for incompetence and complicity in the child sex abuse scandals affecting the church in Rome. I still stand by that assertion. The chap should do the decent thing and fall on his sword.

It is quite striking that he has twice venerated an earlier predecessor, Celestine V who reigned for five months in 1294 and was removed for incompetence by Boniface V111 who held him prisoner in the castle of Monte Fumone where he died in 1296.

Ratzinger lacks the necessary gravitas to lead and command an army of more than 2 billion followers. He is old, (84) and lacks the reforming skills needed to put the church in good shape. I have the gnawing suspicion that he is in ‘office’ and not in ‘power’.

He can not move against the conservative and destructive wing of the Catholic power structure, because he is afraid of meeting the fate of Pope Paul VI, (who died in mysterious circumstances).

I feel dreadfully sorry for God, (although I doubt if he really exists at all). His Kingdom on Earth has been turned into a den of thieves, scoundrels, sodomites and pedophiles. The custodians of morals have become the corrupters and evil holds sway in all aspects and facets of life.

Morality has been turned askew, (to be good is to be bad and to be bad is to be good). Imagine the surreal scene of having to go to Confession to a priest who has just emerged from the Refectory after just having sexually abused an altar boy working for the church. Does it not make your stomach churn in disgust?

Even as I write this blog, the molestations continue unabated. I wipe the tears from my eyes, not out of compassion for the sex abuse victims, but at the cowardice of the world who by keeping silent are complicit in the whole affair of tyranny and evil.

Is it not written in the Bible that Christ will come again? I pray constantly for him to come, not because that I am a Christian, but for him to rescue the victims of the sex abuse scandals buffeting the church of the Messiah and to save man from himself. AMEN!

The reasons are not because of gremlins or computer viruses. My site is been hacked into. Please bear with me. I will return when it is safe to do so.

Charleyjk4.

Finland has one of the highest literacy levels in the world. The citizens are voracious consumers of news, (there are 1,626 radios per 1,000 people, 693 television units per 1,000 people, 500 telephones for 1,000 people and the daily circulation of newspapers per 1,000 people is 445, one of the highest in Europe).

The country has one of the most advanced Telecommunications systems in the world. Finland’s dense network of telephone lines is entirely digital. In 1998, Finland became the first nation in the world in which mobile cellular telephone subscription outnumbered fixed line telephone connection. Daily newspapers number about 60.

In the provisions of services and the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the individual, Finland is second to none. The Parliament is in the process of passing a law which will make broadband connections to the internet a fundamental right. Every individual will be entitled to at least 1 mega byte per second broadband connection.

This will apply to even the remotest corners of the country. I wonder what the European Union and Courts will make of the new laws. Finland will be one of the few European countries to equate internet access to human rights. Will they be enforceable under the European convention on human rights?

Article 10 of the convention provides as follows; “everyone has the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas.

Will the European courts extend the ambit of Art 10 to include a right to internet connection? Will the definition of the words; “To receive and impart information and ideas” be expanded to mean a compulsory right to a broadband connection?

I remember writing in an earlier blog that the articles and protocols contained in the convention are not cast in tablets of stones. The European convention is a living instrument, elastic in nature and adaptable to changes in the cultures and mores of contracting states.

What might be immoral or wrong now is almost certain to become the vogue and fashion in a few years time.

Expect the margin of appreciation applied by Judges at the moment to be different in a quarter of a century’s time regarding Article 12 and the definition of marriage as the union between a man and woman to the exclusion of others. The same principles could apply to the words; “To receive and impart information and ideas” under Article 10.

In a 100 years time, internet services are almost certain to be as common as the possession of newspapers, televisions and radios and will become the most important and quickest mode of communication and ideas in the world. To paraphrase the words of the Greek Philosopher, Diogenes, the internet has made us all citizens of the world.

Planet Earth has become a global village and super highway of internet and broadband connections and the search for faster and better ways of communication has become the obsession of man. We are no longer satisfied with the 24 hour news services of CNN, SKY and FOX News or the sleazy disclosures of the tabloid newspapers.

The courts have always adopted an approach favorable to the individual’s right under Art 10, see the cases of LINGENS vs. AUSTRIA, (1986) 8 EHRR 407, THE OBSERVER AND THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS vs. UK, (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the “spy catcher case”, BOWMAN vs. UNITED KINGDOM, (1998) 26 EHRR, 1.

In COMMUNIST PARTY vs. TURKEY, (1998) 26 EHRR 1211, the courts applied a narrow margin of appreciation in upholding the rights of the complainants under Art 10. Derogations will not be permitted under Art 10 unless in dire circumstances, i.e.; in the time of war or emergency.

South Korea remains the most connected country in the world. More than 90% of the citizens have some form of internet connection. The United Kingdom has set the target of lap top computers for all kids in every school in Britain, (a promise that Labor under Blair never fulfilled).

Whilst the rest of the world is moving on and enacting more progressive laws, North Korea, Venezuela and China seem to be imposing restrictions on the rights of the individual by curtailing internet services and banning service providers like Facebook, Twitter and Google.

North Korea as a communist and pariah state is not a signatory to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political rights and denies its citizens most, if not all of the basic rights available to man. Newspapers and television stations are censored or state owned and mobile phone services are scant or non existent.

The Middle kingdom of China has banned Google from making references to Falun Gong, Democracy and Tibet in its search engines and has to filter searches or divert users through a loop to Hong Kong. China is a signatory to the UN covenant on social and economic rights, (but has not signed the additional covenant on civil and political rights).

The government of Hugo Chavez has lurched to the left and has replaced the rights of the individual with that of the ‘socialist’ society and Venezuela has become like Cuba in the suppression of human rights, (I remain a firm supporter of socialism in Venezuela).

Chavez has accused Twitter of aiding the opposition and his administration has closed down independent newspapers and television stations, (Chavez has recently opened a Twitter account to counteract the negative publicity, his government has been receiving). Venezuela is a signatory to the American convention on human rights and its protocols.

The Middle East and Moslem states have adopted an ambiguous stance in the interpretation of the freedom of expression. Iran will not allow internet cafes which are not licensed by the state to operate.

At the height of the democracy riots last year, Iran jammed satellite receivers and closed newspapers and TV stations in order to disrupt the activities of the opposition.

Pakistan has banned the networking site, Facebook from Islamabad because of a caricature of Prophet Mohammed which it showed on its website and in Egypt, a blogger was beaten to death near an internet café by two policemen because he had posted some materials which had been perceived to be offensive to the sensibilities of the Mubarak Administration.

Most African countries pay lip service to idea of the right to the internet and a broadband connection, but in practice discourage the use of smart technology. Internet services are extremely expensive, (broadband services cost about $2 per hour) and Dial up services provided by conglomerates such as MTN, ECONET are slow and cumbersome to use.

It is almost certain that in the near future, most countries in Europe and around the world will in theory, promote the tenets and principles of the right to an access to the internet and a broadband connection, but in reality will do little or nothing to enforce them.

Writing in his masterpiece, Lives of the Philosophers, “Myson”; Diogenes Laertius, Greek Historian and biographer, who lived in the 4th century wrote as follows; “It was a common saying of Myson that men might not investigate things from words, but words from things, for that things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things”.

He was referring to words and the role it plays in the development of things. But why do I have the nagging suspicion that he was referring to computers and the internet and the encompassing effects they have on words and men?

In the interpretation of statutes and laws, the Judge has to employ the ingenious use of tools at his disposal to get to the reasoning behind most laws. The Literal, the Golden and Mischief rules of interpretation have become classic modes of breaking or decoding the draftsman’s cipher.

A few days ago, I was perusing the European Convention on Human Rights and suddenly suffered a Eureka moment. I had thought to myself; “This convention is a treasure trove and gold mine for the devious draftsman to make all the mischief in the world”.

Not only are the articles and protocols filled with provisos and caveats, it enables the most blatant abusers of the provisions contained therein to escape the wrath of the law skillfully. Has the device of the margin of appreciation become a tool for the subversion of the fundamental rights of the individual in Europe?

Now, what do I mean by the margin of appreciation? Some might suppose that it constitutes some form of legal speak which enables unscrupulous judges to give logic to their judgments to the detriment of truth and reason. It is more than that.

The margin of appreciation means the measure of interpretation which should be given by courts with regard to social, cultural and political values which are prevalent in the contracting states. Plainly speaking, the margin of appreciation will be determined by the laws in vogue or fashion in the contracting states at the time of the lodging of the action.

If the high contracting state’s laws are Liberal in form and attitude, then the European courts will be liberal in their interpretations of the laws before them. Consider the following examples; Ireland and Austria are conservative countries in values and attitudes, where abortion and homosexual acts are generally discouraged or frowned upon.

If an action for a breach of Art 12 was to be filed in the European courts of Human rights by an individual from either country asking for an enforcement of his fundamental right to marry his gay partner, the European courts of Human rights in Strasbourg will be immensely reluctant to rule in his favor.

Article 12 of the European convention of Human rights provides as follows; “every man and woman of marriageable age has the right to marry and establish a family”. In Ireland and Austria, marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, (no mention is made of gay or transsexual marriages).

Despite a spate of actions, the European courts have refused to extend the umbrella of protection afforded by Art 12 to same sex marriages. A few days back, two Austrian men had brought an action under Art 12, (the Austrian civil courts had refused to recognize their civil union as a form of marriage).

In ruling against them, the European courts of Human rights had argued that Art 12 applied only to different sex marriages and that a wide margin of appreciation will be granted only to parties in this area.

Would the ruling have been different if the action had originated from a country which favored gay marriages and had a predominantly large homosexual population? Assuming the Netherlands recognized gay unions as a form of marriage under Dutch law, would the European courts had applied a different and wider yardstick in its margin of appreciation?

It should not be forgotten that the European convention on Human rights is a living instrument, amorphous and adaptable in nature and the interpretation of laws before it. Art 12 does not specify that the marriage has to be between different sexes, it merely states that men and women of marriageable ages have the right to marry and establish a family.

It is interesting to note that the European courts have adopted a more favorable approach to transsexual marriages. In GOODWIN vs. UK, the court held that prohibiting a transsexual person from marrying somebody whose sex is different from that person’s affirmed gender is a breach of Article 12, (thus overruling REES vs. UNITED KINGDOM).

Consider a better example. Article Nine of the convention stipulates the right to freedom of conscience and religion. A few months back, the French National assembly passed a series of laws banning the wearing of the Burka or Niqab in public places. France is secular and republican in ethos.

The Burka and Niqab are seen as an affront to the tenets and principles of equality, liberty and fraternity and the freedom of women to choose. Now assuming an action was to be instituted in the European courts for a breach of Art 9 by a Moslem woman residing in France, what margin of appreciation will be applied by Strasbourg?

Will the yardstick be the same as those that will apply to the Republic of Turkey, (which is predominantly Moslem?). If Turkey were to ban the headscarf, (an idea it once toyed with) or the use of the Minarets in the summoning of the faithful to prayers, is it not inevitable that the European courts in their interpretation of Article 9 will take cognizance of the cultural and religious values of Turkey?

The provisos and caveats employed by the European courts in its margin of appreciation and interpretation of domestic laws are the following phrases; “in accordance with the law” and “necessary in a democratic society”.

If the domestic law in dispute is in accordance with the Laws and necessary in a democratic society, the European courts will not hold it to be in breach of the provisions of the Convention.

But a lacuna exists in these definitions. Will the test of “accordance” be subjective or objective? What if the laws are repugnant and contrary to common sense and morality, will the courts still hold that the disputed provisions are in accordance with the laws?

Before the Russian federation signed the Sixth protocol to the convention, (it has not ratified it), it exercised the death penalty. Now it observes a moratorium on the implementation of the death sentence, (although the decree still remains on the statute books). Will the decree be interpreted to be “necessary in a democratic society”?

The omnibus provisions of Articles 5 & 6 create the most problems for the European courts of human rights. Art 5 provides for the right to liberty and security of the person under the law. In interpreting Art 5, the courts have had to adopt different latitudes regarding different countries.

The UK and Spain have anti- terrorism laws on their statute books, (the Prevention of terrorism Act 2001 for the UK and Spain has domestic laws to combat the insurrection of the Basque nationalists). These laws provide for the detention of suspects beyond the 48 hour mark stipulated under the criminal laws and procedures of European countries.

In interpreting Art 5, the courts will adopt a “wider” margin of appreciation and will not automatically strike down the domestic laws for been incompatible with Art 5. A case by case analysis will be undertaken by the courts, (although most cases under Article 5 brought by Spanish defendants have led to harsh criticisms of the Spanish criminal laws).

The terrorist attacks on London, Madrid and New York by Al –Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden have not helped matters and many European countries have or are in the process of drawing up anti terrorism legislation as part of their arsenal in the War on Terror.

Art 5 provides for the right of the suspect to be informed in a language he understands of the reasons for the arrest and charge against them, the right to prompt access to judicial proceedings to determine the legality of the arrest and detention, trial within a reasonable time, Bail and the right to compensation in the case of arrest or detention in violation of the article.

The continental system of Justice is in favor of compulsory prosecution, a search for the truth and disregard for legal procedure. The adversarial system seeks truth and proof beyond reasonable doubt as the moral compasses for criminal trials.

In Spain and Germany, the Public prosecutor may seek the arrest and trial of a suspect based on “tainted” pieces of evidence. In France, the Juge d’ instruction may order the incarceration of a suspect on flimsy evidence, (as far as domestic laws permit).

In the UK, Ireland and other European countries which have the adversarial system of justice, the opposite is the case. How then can the European courts adopt a similar margin of appreciation in the interpretation of domestic legislations before them and applying them to the provisions of Arts 5 & 6 of the convention?

Article 6 of the convention provides as follows; “a detailed right to a fair trial including the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses and the right to the free assistance of interpreters”.

What margin of appreciation will be applied by the European courts in dealing with a complaint from a country like Turkey which uses military tribunals in the trial of criminal cases? Is this not a breach of Art 6 of the convention?

Or in Spain, France and Germany who conduct trials in the absence of the defendant and allow anonymous, absent and vulnerable witnesses to testify in criminal proceedings? There are certain provisions in the convention which do not permit for derogations even in the time of war or emergencies. Article 3 is one of them.

The European courts are not allowed to operate different margins of appreciation in their interpretation of domestic laws regarding the use of torture. Article 3 of the convention simply states that no one should be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.

In LAWLESS vs. UK, the courts held that the five techniques method which included the deprivation of sleep, food, water and water boarding though not torture amounted to a form of inhuman and degrading treatment,( see also the case of IRELAND vs. UK, which was instituted at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland and the IRA insurrection).

How can domestic states make the doctrine of the margin of appreciation a level playing field for all parties concerned? Would it not be feasible to incorporate the Articles and Protocols contained in the convention as part of Local laws?

The United Kingdom has embarked on that process, albeit on a limited scale by the promulgation of the Human Rights Act of 1998. The Law acts as a last filter mechanism of the laws of Great Britain.

Sections 3 &4 of the Act have the powers to declare as “incompatible”, Acts of Parliament, decisions of courts and tribunals which contravene the spirit and provisions of the European convention.

The Act was assented into Law in a blaze of publicity and fanfare by the government of Rt Honorable, Anthony Blair, but has since run into a gauntlet of criticisms. Some have described it as a Terrorist Charter, (Michael Howard), whilst the new Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron as Leader of the Opposition had vowed to do away with the Act.

The United Kingdom has started a legal revolution, though in a limited manner. Will the continental systems of France, Italy and Germany follow suit? Only time will tell.

I remember writing in an earlier blog that an alliance of the liberals and the Tories will be a disaster for Cameron. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. The Liberal party of Nick Clegg has become the weak link, the Achilles heel, the soft underbelly or the Trojan horse of this administration.

The Labor party will be cock a hoop over the scandals buffeting the coalition. I am a fervent supporter of David Cameron .I admire his tenacity of purpose and brilliance in the execution of policies. But mark my words, this alliance will not see out its tenure of five years and will collapse within the span of 12 months.

Why? The Liberals and the Tories are unlikely bed fellows. The conservatives are a fiscally disciplined party which believes in low taxes, family values, small government and individual enterprise. The Liberals on the other hand espouse the liberal values of high taxes for the middle income earner and the rich, gay marriages and the legalization of marijuana.

The Tories are Eurosceptic and will cede no additional powers to Brussels. The Maastricht and Lisbon treaties are viewed as anathema which should be discarded at the earliest opportunity and William Hague, the Foreign Secretary had expressly ruled out rejoining the Exchange rate mechanism, the Euro or ceding more powers to Brussels.

The Liberals will vote for the Euro and are enthusiastic about the exchange rate mechanism which it believes will stabilize the British pound and at the same time give it a European identity. The leader of the Liberals, Nick Clegg is married to the Spanish lawyer, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez and spends most of his holidays in exotic resorts in France and Spain.

The enemies of the Cameron administration aware of the fact that they can not win the war via a frontal assault against him have chosen the cowardly option of chipping away at his support and power base by exposing the scandals of his Liberal partners.

The first salvo came a few weeks ago with the exposure of the gay rent affair involving David Laws, (then Chief Secretary to the British Treasury). He had rented the premises of his partner and had passed the expenses to the British taxpayer.

Laws who was in charge of cutting public spending in the forthcoming austerity Budget was accused of hypocrisy,( asking the British taxpayers to endure swingeing cuts whilst he enjoyed a bohemian lifestyle). He resigned, but then the harm had been done and the administration now faces the accusation of double standards.

The Energy Secretary and the 10th most powerful man in the British Cabinet, Chris Huhne has been exposed as a philanderer and hypocrite who espouses the ideas of family values whilst cheating on his Greek born wife with his mistress, Miss Trimingham who is bisexual.

He has kept his job with the backing of his boss, Nick Clegg and No 10 Downing Street by ditching the ever loyal Vicky for the Doc Marten boots lover, Carina. The Liberals have five Cabinet seats in the new government and more than 20 junior ministers in departments all over Whitehall.

Expect a few more months of lurid and excruciating tales of sex, (extra marital and homosexual), drugs and corruption to be unearthed by the British tabloids and broadsheet newspapers,( it is quite striking that the Laws and Huhne scandals were broken by the Tory supporting newspapers of the Telegraph and News of the World).

The marriage of convenience between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats has been a disaster for everyone concerned. Yet Cameron can not obtain or seek a divorce until the expiration of five years, (these are terms stipulated in the pre nuptial agreement). He must abide by a shrewish wife who has broken all the rules of matrimony and decency.

Warning about the problems with coalition governments, Mr. Stone, a senior litigation partner in Mrs Clegg’s law firm had said as follows; “a hallmark feature of a coalition government is the sheer time it can take to achieve consensus”.

He goes on to say as follows; “ From a legal point of view, this often results in laws being passed that are of high quality and well scrutinized, but unfortunately are often watered down to the point of being anodyne as a result of endless rounds of reviews and complaints”.

He adds the following warning; “The main risk to UK legislation is from the perverse results which can arise when the extreme agendas of minority fringe, or single issue parties, actually gain a disproportionate ability to influence policy in return for keeping a minority government in power”.

“In such a situation, the silent majority may well find itself being forced to bend to the will of the hard line minority, such situation can result not only in “bad” laws but laws which are clearly outside the scope of what the silent majority of a voting population would be prepared to support”.

I guess he was well on the mark. Expect the Court of Appeal decision in HYDE Vs HYDE, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman to be overturned by new legislation proposed by the liberal partners in this coalition government.

If the palace of Westminster were to succumb to these blandishments, it will the biggest blow to the tenets of family and conservative values so cherished and promoted by the party of Margaret Thatcher. The Liberal Democrats will also push for the liberalization of laws on Class C drugs and the decriminalization of the use of cannabis.

What will the end results be? Ecstasy and Marijuana will become readily available in the nightspots of Birmingham, Manchester and London and an increase in National Health Service and A&E cases from the use of these dangerous and harmful substances.

In coalition governments, there is the tyranny of the ‘vocal’ minority who impose their views on the ‘silent’ majority who are coerced into accepting unpopular choices or in the alternative, face the risk of the breakdown of the political arrangement.

The austerity budget just announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne is been promoted as a defining moment for the Con- Lib administration in the United Kingdom. The press has lauded the contents as been full of “common sense” and “progressive messages”. I doubt if they are right.

The budget is a recipe for disaster which will come back to haunt this administration. It will create more problems than solutions and will result in a double dip recession. High street shoppers fearful of losing their jobs will save in Banks and Mortgage societies and not purchase goods and services.

There will be an increase in the unemployment figures, (some department may lay off up to 25% of the work force). There will be deep cuts in government spending (Public transport, the NHS and the Education sectors will bear the brunt).

Taxes are to go up with value added tax, (VAT) increasing by a whopping 2.5%. It means that a buggy purchased in a Marks and Spencer shop previously for 18 pounds will now cost an extra 45 pence and a Tweed coat obtained from Harrods a year ago for a princely sum of 200 pounds will have an extra five quid added to the price.

There will be a reform of the pensions system, (John Hutton, a former labor Pensions Secretary of State has been invested with this unenviable task). Expect an increase in the retirement age to 68 and a lowering of the NI threshold. There will also be swingeing taxes on persons with double pensions and egg nest pensions will be raided.

In an earlier blog, I remember quoting the Greek philosopher, Euripides and saying that a bad beginning makes a bad ending. I may yet be proven wrong by events. Was Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia not immensely popular a few months ago?

Has he not been booted out of office by his party just recently? Politics is a funny business. The only thing certain is that anything can happen.

All my life, I have been made to believe that English was the standard of communication between peoples and countries of the world. No other Language would do. How wrong I was. Have you ever tried seducing your girlfriend or wife in French? It is the most exquisite experience open to a man.

I read in the newspapers the other day, a comment attributed to a former Foreign Minister of the UK who described French as a “useless modern language” which does not serve any purpose whatsoever.

Chris Bryant who has been the Labor MP for Rhondda since 2001 was quoted as saying that Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic were more important in the conduct of international relations. These are his words ippissima verba; “I ve said this to the French. I think they realize there is a problem”.

He defended his comments saying that French had ceased to be the diplomatic language of communication between countries for the past 30-40 years. French was one of the most popular languages taught in British schools, but in recent years, the education system has shunned it, Spanish and German for more fashionable languages.

The British Royal family is Hanoverian and multi lingual. The heir to the British throne, HRH, Prince Charles is fluent in Italian, French and German. Some years back, he was observed engaging in a conversation with his friend and former German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl in German.

The former Prime Minister, Blair speaks French quite well and once addressed the Legislature in Paris in exquisite French.

According to the Daily Mail newspaper, in 2003, 83.3 % of students took one of the three, (Spanish, German and French) at GCSE. But by 2007, the figure had dropped to 48.3 %. The exotic languages of Mandarin Chinese, Russian and Italian have taken center stage.

In a recent recruitment drive some years back, British Intelligence, (M16) had placed adverts in newspapers asking for spies who were conversant in Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. Even the politically correct James Bond, (007) understands a smattering of Chinese.

M15 has taken on Hindi and Urdu speakers for the very first time in its existence. The revered CIA has Farsi and Korean linguists in its secret Ops department, (America has dubbed North Korea, part of the ‘axis of evil’ and the UNSC has imposed sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program).

To obtain a job as an Au- pair in Manhattan, you must be able to speak Mandarin Chinese fluently and the high brow society set in New York seem to have cottoned on to the fact that China is the future and to be able to get along with the Middle Kingdom, you have to understand the customs and languages of its people.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese speakers in the world; 1 billion speakers of English, 417 million speakers of Spanish, 230 million Portuguese speakers, and 220 million people speak the Semitic language of Arabic, whilst only 138 million people hold a conversation in French. Why is L’ Français a dying institution?

French is the most musical language in the world. The vowels resemble the chimes and tintinnabulations of bells. To speak and understand French is the equivalent of been suave and self assured.

It is not in dispute that French men make the best lovers, (ask Carla Bruni of Italy) and Paris has been voted the most romantic city in the world, beating off competition from the likes of Prague and Belgrade.

Consider the following phrases in French, Spanish and Italian and judge them accordingly; (make love) – Faire L’amour, (make love) – Hacer el amor, (make love)-Fare L’amore. Does the first recital not sound more exciting?

How about the greetings of the morning? Bonjour Monsieur, ( French), Buenos Dias Sr,( Spanish) and Buongiorno Signor, ( Italian). Does the first not sound more pleasing to the ears?. When Frantz Fanon wrote that to speak a language was to take on a world and culture, was he referring to the French way of life?.

The great Talleyrand of France once said that speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts. How right he was. When the Sun king, Louis XIV postulated the assertion that he was the state,( L’etat cest moi), he meant it figuratively and literally. He was to adopt the symbol of the sun as his emblem in his dealings with the affairs of the state.

How I wish I was a French man. I wake up everyday with moroseness and the nagging regret of not having experienced the dreams and pride of Napoleon, Camus and Sartre and the excitement of the French revolution.

Oh!. To have witnessed Desmoulins, Danton and Robespierre in charge of the Directory, the storming of the Bastille, the overthrow of the ancien regime and the zenith of the Reign of Terror. To paraphrase the words of Strauss, the anthropologist, French is a form of human reason and has its reasons which are unknown to man.

Bryant who is gay and was once a clergyman in the Church of England is unrepentant about the rumpus he has created and in an interview with the BBC has described French as an anachronism which should no longer be an official language of the UN, (Bryant was involved in a scandal, he posed nude for a gay porn site).

I intend to be French in all my dealings and affairs with the world. I will adopt the Gallic shrug when pushed to the wall or mutter the famous phrases of; “Mon Dieu” or “cest la vie” when I feel the whole world is pitted against me. Is that not after all the enchantment of the French?. Je ne sais quoi?

Labor has fallen on hard times. I remember the party under the leadership of Neil Kinnock and the late John Smith in the 80’s and early 90’s. Forget the fact that it had lost three general elections in a row; it was still a force to be reckoned with. All the members of the shadow cabinet were first class brains.

You had Robin Cook, who was the spokesman on health matters, (despite his garden gnome appearance). He was also the most feared and respected politician in Westminster. Tory Central Office lived in dread of him and the former Conservative leader and Prime Minister; John Major once confessed that Cook was the most formidable foe that he had ever encountered in politics.

During the ’92 elections and at the height of the row over Jennifer’s ear, (the little girl had been denied NHS treatment for a perforated ear drum for a long time), Cook had made not less than ten appearances at the BBC and ITV studios. Subsequent campaign adverts had featured him denouncing the state of the health services under the Tories.

Opinion polls taken after the event had the Tories losing ground. A Cook watch was established at Tory headquarters to monitor and contradict the fellow. Under the stewardship of John Smith, the diminutive Scot went on to greater heights and would have gotten the top job after the death of Smith had Blair not made a successful bid for the vacant post.

Cook was respected for his forensic skills and mastery of the detail. His resignation speech at the House of Commons after Blair decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003 moved many MPs to tears and got him a standing ovation, (a feat never replicated in Parliament). He was to die of a heart attack whilst mountaineering in Scotland.

Then you had Blair and Brown, (the Kennedys of the Labor party). Tony Blair was an exceptional chap. No one thought that he would ever be leader of his party and Prime Minister of the UK, considering the ambitions of his friend and mentor, Gordon Brown.

But in a Machiavellian move worthy of the great Cesare Borgia himself, Blair had snatched the mantle from the very nose of the Fife MP. Blair as shadow Home Secretary had given the party the mantra; “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”.

When he became leader, he tamed the unions and removed their right to strike or choose the leaders of the party over beers and sandwiches.

He moved Labor to the centre left of politics and dumped socialism as the apotheosis of reason. The party became New Labor and the party managers dumped their socialist sack clothes for smart Calvin Klein gears and Gucci shoes.

The Beelzebub of Spin, Peter Mandelson was recruited to burnish the image of the party and sell it high. Others like Alistair Campbell and David Hill came aboard and Labor was streets ahead of the Tories, (for the first time) in the opinion polls.

Brown as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer vowed to give the Bank of England monetary independence and the right to fix interest rates, (a promise he kept when Labor came to power).

He also focused on the principle of fiscal discipline which had been discarded by the recklessness of Major and his sidekick, Norman Lamont which resulted in the Black Wednesday affair which wiped billions from the reserves of the British Treasury and forced the UK out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Then there was the enforcer in Jack Cunningham and the forensic brilliance of Jack Straw. Harriet Harman and Margaret Beckett held the fort for the feminine cause and in a daring move; Beckett had challenged the male orthodoxy prevalent in Labor circles by making a pitch for the top position. She lost out to Blair, though.

Boateng became the first black member of the British cabinet, (as Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and the disabled cause was represented by Blunkett and his ever loyal watch dog, Offa. Then there was Donald Dewar, chief architect of Scottish devolution and prime mover for the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh.

With the routing of New Labor in the 2010 elections and the resignation of Gordon Brown, the party has slunk into anarchy and disunity. The age of the big beasts has ended and the reign of the midgets has begun. Consider the dramatis personae in the Labor leadership elections.

You have the no hoper, Diane Abbott who barely managed the 33 votes needed to ensure that her candidacy went through. I almost suffered a hemorrhage laughing when I read an article in the Daily Mail newspaper in the United Kingdom which tipped her to win the top job.

Abbott has as much chance of winning the leadership slot as a three legged horse has of winning the Grand National. If she does, I intend to shave my head and become a Trappist monk and devote myself to the rigors of Buddhist meditations. The lass is also a hypocrite who does not practice what she preaches.

She speaks out against private education in posh schools, yet sends her son, James to a $15,000 dollars a year private school, (the same charges were leveled against Harriet Harman and Blair for sending their kids to the Catholic Oratory School in England). Ladbrokes makes her 33-1 to upset the apple cart.

Andy Burnham is a relatively unknown quantity outside Labor circles and is not expected to do well or go far in the elections. He will drop out in the second round and his supporters may switch their votes either to the Miliband Brothers or Ed Balls. Ladbrokes makes him 14-1 to snatch the Labor crown.

David Miliband is the favorite to win the Labor leadership race despite his inadequacies and shortcomings. The chap is politically bland and does not stand for anything. Making David the leader of the Labor party is akin to putting Attila the Hun in charge of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

He will strip the party bare of its political furnishings and sell them for a farthing. His patriotism is suspect and he may not be the right man to bat for Britain PLC considering his decision to import his kids from the foreign shores of America. Ladbrokes makes him odds on favorite at 4-7.

His brother, Ed is a tad better, (although I can not see how he would be able to promote the tenets of family values, when he cohabits in sin with his female partner who is expecting a baby for him). He is 7-1 on the Ladbrokes scale.

Ed Balls would have made a fantastic leader for the Labor party, but his role in the ousting of Brown and his razor thin majority in his Morley Constituency will count against him. It will be a disaster if he were to win the Labor leadership and then lose his seat at the next elections.

How about a compromise? A safe seat somewhere in the suburbs of England could be secured for him thus ensuring that he devotes his time and resources to the running of the affairs of the Labor party and does not have to worry about keeping his seat at the next elections.

A pyrrhic victory seems inevitable for David Miliband and the Labor party. I remember writing in an earlier blog that David Miliband will be a disaster for New Labor. I still stand by that assertion. He will consign his party to opposition for decades to come and lead it to political oblivion.

The Conservatives would have won the 2015 elections without a single vote having been cast at the ballot box. Can the dry bones of Labor rise to reclaim the glories of the 80’s and 90′s? I doubt that very much.

Archaeologists had first assumed that the decapitated bodies, (Eighty in number) were victims of a massacre or ritual sacrifice, but closer examination found that they had strongly developed muscles in their limbs which was evidence of combat or hand to hand fighting within close quarters and one had a bite on his hand from an animal, (probably, a tiger or lion).

Eboracum which lies in the north of England is also identified as the scene of the final triumph and death of the Roman Emperor, Septimius Severus in AD 211. In the early 1900’s, remains were unearthed in Pompeii. The city had been destroyed during the reign of Emperor Titus by the Vesuvius eruption of AD79.

They were of gladiators who had died in their quarters chained to the ground to prevent them from escaping or committing suicide. Gladiatorial entertainment played a special role in the lives of the ordinary Roman citizen.

The Gladiator, (Latin, gladius, “sword”) was the ultimate fighting machine in the Roman Empire. He was the equivalent of the modern rock star. He was praised by poets, his paintings appeared on gems and vases, women named their kids after him and he was pampered by aristocratic ladies who flocked to the Colosseum to watch his performances.

Examine the markings and etchings on the walls of the Roman forum or the crannies of the arenas in the far flung areas of the Empire and you will see gushing tributes to the best gladiators of the day. Words like “I love Helvetius” or “Claudius is my man” were common and the Roman hoi polloi used to place bets on fights and their results.

There are lurid tales of patrician women who had torrid affairs with their favorite gladiators, (it was rumored that the Empress Faustina had enjoyed a tryst with a gladiator on a sea resort in Rome and that Commodus was the result of the union)

The first gladiatorial exhibition in Rome was in 264 BC when three pairs of gladiators fought as part of a funeral celebration. By 174 BC, at a 3 day spectacle, 37 pairs participated. Julius Caesar’s grand exhibition (300 pairs at one occasion) prompted the Roman senate to limit the number of contestants.

Trajan outdid all with his pageantry of AD 107 which included 5,000 pairs of fighters. The emperor, Domitian in AD 90 included the novelty of combats between women and dwarfs. Most gladiators were men who had been captured in war, slaves, POW’s and sometimes Christians.

They were trained in schools called Ludi and special measures were taken to discipline them and prevent them from committing suicide. Spartacus was to avenge his captivity by leading an insurrection against Rome from 73-71 BC.

Gladiators were divided into various light and heavy armored classes. For example, the retiarius, (net man) clad in a short tunic attempted to entangle his fully armed opponent, the secutor, (pursuer).with a net and then to kill or maim him with a Trident. Other classes fought with different weapons or from horseback or chariots.

Successful gladiators who survived the rigors of the arena were allowed to retire to private lives or form their own gladiatorial schools. Some even held important positions of state, (like Narcissus who was a special adviser to Commodus and no appointment could be made without his approval).

Elagabalus took for a husband the celebrated charioteer, Hierocles and had all documents of state endorsed by him. After the murder and overthrow of Emperor Elagabalus by the praetorian guards, Hierocles and his colleagues were put to death.

Gladiatorial fights were the stuff of legend. Some Emperors took to the arena to entertain the Roman public. The Historian, Dio Cassius had written of an incident in the Colosseum where Commodus had decapitated an Ostrich in full flight with an arrow.

He had shown the severed head to the Roman senators as a warning of what fate lay in wait for them. In the Ridley Scott epic, The Gladiator, General Maximus Decius Meridius (Russell Crowe) who is a war hero having led the Roman legions to victory over the German tribes in AD 180, is confronted in the arena by the demented Commodus.

A duel ensues which sees Maximus kill Commodus, (the reality though is that Commodus was strangled in his bath by the wrestler, Narcissus) who was thrown to the lions by Septimius Severus as punishment for his regicide.

Before the beginning of combat, the gladiators were obliged to greet the emperor with these words in Latin; “ Ave Caesar, morituri te salutante” which translated into English meant as follows; “ Hail Caesar, those who are about to die salute you”.

When a gladiator is vanquished, the victor turns to the emperor for permission to dispatch the wounded opponent. If the emperor wished to spare his life, he dropped his handkerchief. A thumbs down gesture meant death.

Gladiatorial combats went out of vogue with the advent of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The precepts of “turning the other cheek” and “it is a sin to kill” became fashionable in the land of the Caesars. Constantine the Great proscribed gladiatorial fights in AD 325, although the event continued until 500.

Even the humane Symmachus gave an exhibition of this kind during his consulate, (391) and was enraged that 29 Saxon prisoners of war escaped the public spectacle by committing suicide.

While the Vestal virgins existed, it was their special prerogative to cheer on the combatants in the amphitheatre to the bloody work and to give the signal for the deadly stroke.

St Augustine in his Confessions wrote of taking his friend, Alypius, afterwards Bishop of Tagaste in 385 to visit the amphitheatre in Rome; “when they reached the spot says Augustine and took their places on the hired seats, everything already foamed with bloodthirsty delight.

But Alypius with closed eyes forbade his soul to yield to this sin. He opened his eyes and he was smitten with a more grievous wound in the soul, then the combatant in the body, and fell more lamentably …..For when he saw the blood, he imbibed at once the love of it…….and fascinated with the murderous game, became drunk with bloodthirsty joy…..”

Although the act of gladiatorial combats have been abolished, they still exist in different forms till date. Boxers and wrestlers are the modern equivalent of that ancient ritual, (even though the fight is no longer to the death).

Whenever I switch on the television and witness the savagery of Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield or see the likes of Jericho, Nash and the Undertaker pummel each other to smithereens; I am transported to the klieg lights of the colloseum.

A friend once commented to me that had I been a Roman citizen during the reign of Nero, I would have paid to watch the Christians been torn to pieces by the lions in the arena. I think he was right.