A long overdue clarification of a fundamental human right

Today heralded an important step for many of the UK’s terminally ill and their relatives with a new set of legal criteria published by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).  The announcement by Keir Starmer QC has signalled that any future police investigation into those who assist a loved one in ending their lives, will be governed by key ”factors” such as financial implications and capacity for decision making. Although the move does not represent a change to the law, it has been welcomed by people such as MS sufferer Debbie Purdy who has previously called for a greater clarification on the legal position surrounding assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and assisted death remain divisive and emotive issues for many people, balancing on the one hand the rights of an individual wishing to end their life (unassisted suicide itself is no longer considered a crime) and the responsibilities of those close to them. There is also the issue of physician-assisted-suicide: euthanasia administered and supervised by doctors. For many the Hippocratic Oath presents a moral (and legal) obstacle to medical professionals helping to prematurely end the life of a patient. Whether this stance can be applied in all circumstances- even where continued quality of life for the patient is impossible- is also highly debateable. 

The announcement has been both praised and criticised in different quarters and is likely to produce further fall-out over the coming days and weeks. What is clear however is that a sensible national debate over the morality and legality of assisted suicide is both needed and long overdue in this country. Not since 1957 and the ruling made during the trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams on the use of euthanasia in alleviating pain, has Britain assessed its position on forms of assisted-suicide. A number of EU states such as Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg have already sanctioned physician-assisted-suicide, as has Switzerland, Thailand and parts of the U.S. 

Clearly, human intervention in ending someone’s life is never going to be a straight forward issue, but surely taking control in deciding one’s own life and death is as fundamental a human right as that of free speech or fair trial.  For those whose lives have become unbearable through debilitating and terminal illness it is a debate we need to have as soon as possible.

The price of free speech?

The BBC has revealed it may allow the BNP to participate in future broadcasts of Question Time.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. These defiant words first uttered by the 18th century French philosopher and polemic Voltaire, have long served as a moral buttress to the exponents of liberal democracy. The maxim has long helped square the unfortunate circle faced by left-leaning liberals and enlightened intelligentsia regarding the views of political and religious extremists, put simply: tolerating the intolerant. With Britain long priding itself on being a free and democratic nation, one could argue that the BBC’s recent decision to potentially allow the BNP to feature on future panels of Question Time, is merely the logical conclusion of this philosophy. It is a decision however that will undoubtedly be interpreted by many as foolhardy rather than brave, reprehensible as opposed to just. In a previous post I highlighted the Daily Telegraph’s decision to allow BNP councillor Richard Barnbrook to register and host a blog on its website, and examined the moral conundrum this provoked. The possibility of Nick Griffin appearing on BBC One prime time to discuss such topics as immigration, foreign policy, equality and civil rights will most definitely up the freedom of expression ante. For their part the BBC have defended the decision on the grounds that (quite rightly) they favour no particular political party, and show “due impartiality” to all. What will be most interesting however are how other members of the panel and the audience will respond to the move. One school of thought suggests that the best way to deal with extremists is to provide them a platform upon which their values and beliefs will be duly eviscerated by audience scorn. The other side of the coin however insists that such exposure often does little to undermine such views. Indeed invitation on to a nationally broadcast political debate lends an unavoidable “legitimacy” to all those taking part. As an advocate of freedom of expression I myself am divided as to how best to respond to such fringe parties. Will the oxygen of publicity extinguish or inflame the BNP’s standing? Will Nick Griffin simply elect to repeat the decision he took over his invitation to a garden party at Buckingham Palace? Time will tell. Until then my view remains the same: those who adhere to and support the tenets of a free and equal society, and who do not seek to incite fear or hatred, have every right to contribute to reasoned debate. Whether or not the BNP falls into this category (and should thus be able to engage in a televised debate) will ultimately depend on ones own moral and political values.

Film Review: Au Revoir Les Enfants

Dir: Louis Malle

Starring: Gaspard Manesse, Raphaël Fejtö, François Berléand.

WARNING: Contains plot spoilers!

Second World War saga “Au Revoir, Les Enfants” recounts the childhood experiences of director Louis Malle during the latter stages of the German occupation of France. After the defeat of 1940, French society was forced to endure foreign occupation, domestic collaboration and a radically new way of life. Within this context we meet Julien (Manesse), a young boy coming to terms with his own personal traumas namely, the absence of his parents and the monotonous routine of his boarding school life.

The arrival of a number of new pupils to the school disrupts the status quo and distracts Julien from his torments. One boy in particular, Jean Bonnet (Fejtö) stands out and attracts ostracism and (secret) admiration in almost equal measure from his cohorts. Gradually, Julien and Jean are drawn closer together, but simultaneously Julien begins to have increasing suspicions about his new friend who claims to be a Protestant whilst not having, as Julien puts it, “a Protestant surname”.

Ultimately it transpires that Jean and a number of other boys are in fact Jewish orphans sheltering within the confines of a strict Catholic School from the seemingly ubiquitous Gestapo. After a number of near misses (including apprehension by a German military Patrol) and with the Nazi war effort floundering on all fronts, it appears as though Jean and his compatriots may evade capture and survive the war. Tragically however, they are betrayed by a hitherto unassuming character in the film. The film ends with Jean being led away to his fate with his school friends looking on mournfully.

Overall “Au Revoir” is a beautiful and haunting tale pitting the innocence of childhood against the cruelty of war. Although some have criticised the film for its lack of substantial action, this is in a certain sense is one of its main strengths. Typically, films concerning war prefer to concentrate on the blood and “glory” of the frontline. By contrast “Au Revoir Les Enfants” portrays the war through civilian rather than combative eyes resulting in an unorthodox but no less relevant depiction.

At its core, and perhaps in keeping with the stark Catholic context, the film’s underlying message is one of atonement and the possibility of redemption. Throughout the film we witness examples of both the best and worst of human nature: the bravery of the school’s priests matched with the callous selfishness of a wronged individual. An important film particularly for French audiences, illuminating as it does both the courageous and cowardly attitudes of a society under occupation.

Rating 4/5

Why we cannot afford to short-change our armed forces

British Royal Marines in Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan is starting to receive the public attention it has for so long merited. The recent spate of front-line casualties among British troops, and the subsequent front-page images of grief-stricken relatives and flag-draped coffins, has finally brought the gravity of the conflict home to civilians and politicians alike. After years of prosecuting military campaigns “on a shoe string“, the MOD and the government are facing stern criticism for deficiencies in basic equipment and, above all, the availability of aerial transport. A cross party report published yesterday by the Commons defence committee, attributed the hampering of operations and increased danger faced by British troops to insufficient numbers of helicopters . The criticisms of the report however have come too late for the nearly 200 British soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.

The logical question many will now be asking is why did these deficiencies go apparently ignored for so long? Since the 2001 invasion by US/ UK forces, Afghanistan has been a slow burning conflict, one that was all too readily overshadowed by the war in Iraq and one that is now viewed as lacking clear or even attainable objectives. It has and continues to be however a costly campaign both for western military forces and for Afghan civilians. As of July this year there have been over 1,000 deaths among Coalition forces, with British casualties accounting for 184 of the total figure (By contrast there are no reliable records of civilian casualties, although some analysts have put the figure as high as 20,000.)

So where do these harsh home truths leave the British mission in Afghanistan? A recent Guardian poll suggested that opinion and support for the war was fairly evenly divided, a somewhat surprising revelation considering the huge levels of discontent generated by the Iraq war. Opinion is also divided among the “experts”; military analysts and politicians, who appear to base their views on personal experience as much as on political agendas and the lessons of history. Learned figures such as Rory Stewart  have painted a  bleak outlook as to what western governments can expect to achieve in Afghanistan.

Indeed, if we have learnt anything from Iraq it is that the seed of western democratic values cannot simply be planted by force and be expected to flourish within a few short years, a view boldly asserted by Stewart during a recent Newsnight special on Afghanistan. Does this mean however that Britain should simply withdraw its troops from Helmand and pull out of Afghanistan altogether? The short answer in my view is no.

Although I never supported the war in Iraq and was vehemently opposed to the 2003 invasion, I have always held the view that nations should finish what they start. When a country participates in invading and country and deposing the ruling regime, there is a moral duty to remain until enough stability exists in that country for it to stand on its own two feet. Sadly this means that military personnel and civilians will ultimately have to pay the price for the foreign policy decisions of political leaders. If this is to be the case the very least a government can do is provide its military with the equipment it requires to do its best in an unenviable yet important role.

Foods to die for…

Photo courtesy of Shardan

Humanity’s relationship with food has always appeared to be a relatively simplistic one: “We eat to live” or, as some cultures would have it, “we live to eat”. Whatever position one takes there remains one constant; that food is a source of nourishment. There is however a darker side to cuisine, one completely at odds with the perception already mentioned. Western diets have long been criticised for their high calorific content, not to mention the presence of preservatives, trans fats and high levels of sugar and salt, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, have led to spiralling obesity and other health problems such as type 2 diabetes.

Allergic reactions and food poisoning have also been a persistent thorn in the side of mankind for thousands with human physiology rather perversely dictating that both sustenance and harmful pathogens share the method of ingestion as their main route into our bodies. Modern medicine and a greater understanding of food hygiene has helped minimise the threats posed by contaminated foods, at least in the developed world. Or so you would have thought. As it turns out there are a number of developed countries where culinary tradition has yet to be supplanted by basic scientific common sense.

A couple of weeks ago while trawling “the fount of knowledge” that is Wikipedia, I somehow came across a delightful Sardinian delicacy known as Casu Marzu or “rotten cheese”. Also cheerfully referred to as “maggot cheese”, Casu Marzu has been produced by Sardinians for centuries following a strict process. Essentially cheese makers take a standard Pecorino cheese made from sheep’s milk, slice the top off and let the flies go at it for a couple of weeks. After a while eggs laid in the cheese by the marauding flies hatch into larvae, which proceed to munch through the cheese producing enzymes that eventually give the Casu Marzu its legendary texture and flavour (not dissimilar to a strong Stilton according to Tom Parker Bowles).

Aside from the obviously nauseating aspects of consuming maggot-ridden fromage, Casu Marzu presents potentially serious health risks to any would be cheese connoisseur. The maggots can reportedly “leap” to heights of up to 6 inches thus requiring Casu Marzu eaters to shield their eyes as they lift the cheese to their mouths. Moreover, the larvae and unhatched eggs are able to survive the acidic environment of the human stomach and pass into the intestines alive. In a worst case scenario these larvae can gnaw their way through the lining of your guts leading to internal bleeding and an infestation that can prove rather difficult to clear even with modern medicines.

Casu Marzu is not alone however in the world of potentially harmful foods. Although perhaps most famous for its oil reserves and failed vice-presidential candidates, Alaska is also home to the “Stink Head”, a native dish in which a fish head (typically salmon) is buried and left to ferment before being dug up and consumed. Aside from its inherently unappetizing form of preparation, Stink Heads carry a significant risk of food poisoning and account for a large percentage of botulism cases in Alaska.

Sticking with pescaterian cuisines we come to Fugu: a delicious albeit potentially lethal Japanese delicacy consisting of very carefully sliced pufferfish. Pufferfish possess a self-defence mechanism in the form of Tetrodotoxin- a neurotoxin 100 times more lethal than cyanide. If consumed Tetrodotoxin gradually shuts down the victim’s nervous system leading to conscious paralysis and asphyxia. It should be said that where Fugu is prepared by an expert, licenced chef the risks are minimal. That said a number of people, predominantly amateur chefs who attempt to prepare Fugu at home, still die each year as a result of Fugu poisoning.

As far as food intake and its effect on our health goes, we all reluctantly know that that extra portion of fried bread, or third helping of ice cream is doing our bodies no favours in the long-term. But maybe we should put things into perspective; after all, how would you feel about chowing down on jumping larvae-ridden dairy products or rotting fish heads every other day?

Bon Appétit!

The knives are out and soon the party will be over

Let’s not be under any illusions. Gordon Brown’s tempestuous reign at No 10 is nearly at an end. All that remains to be seen is whether he will fall on his own sword or let his “party comrades” nonchalantly do the job for him. Any resulting leadership election will of course be somewhat an exercise in futility. Quite apart from the fact that there are few “Big Beasts” brave or foolhardy enough to take up the poisoned chalice of leadership, anyone who does decide to step up will merely serve as a meek caretaker to the end of New Labour’s 13-year tenure in political office. Labour will, bar some kind of political miracle, be lambs to the slaughter come next May, and although it’s unlikely they will be superseded by Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats as the official opposition party, the Conservatives will almost certainly form the next government and David Cameron will be our next Prime Minister.

Anyone unfamiliar with my political leanings may be forgiven for assuming I am a triumphant Tory, gleefully penning these assumptions as I eagerly await the downfall of Labour and the return of the “natural party of government” to office. While I am certainly no Conservative, and although I’d be happy to see the back of New Labour for a number of reasons, I certainly don’t relish the inevitability that is a country led by Cameron and George Osborne. In fact I actually pity Gordon Brown and his failure to succeed in office because, in many ways, the strengths he held over his predecessor have ultimately led to his downfall. Where Blair dealt in histrionics and amateur dramatics, Brown represented stolid solidity. Where every syllable uttered by Blair was more spun than the contents of a tumble drier, Brown was refreshingly cumbersome and straightforward in his oration. Where Blair embodied a presidential leadership style of a kind not seen since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, Brown, on paper at least, appeared to be a consensus leader.

Where did it all go wrong? 

Gordon Brown certainly inherited his Prime Ministerial mantle at one of the worst possible moments in recent history. Entering office in 2007, Brown took over at a time when the long dormant seeds of global financial meltdown were beginning to bud in the UK in the form of Northern Rock. By late 2008 flabbergasted governments across the world were reaping the crop of toxic assets and liquidations: the product of two decades worth of financial deregulation and unaccountability. None of this was of course directly the fault of Gordon Brown, but trying telling that to a disgruntled electorate already fed up with foreign wars, rising unemployment and a government which has outstayed its welcome in office. Could it be that the position of Prime Minister was simply a case of the right job at the wrong time for Gordon Brown?

Alas, if only it were that simple.

If truth be told, although Brown has long been under fire for problems beyond his control, he has also incurred too many mistakes of his own making: The failure to call a general election and cement his mandate, dithering over the Lisbon Treaty, the numerous lapses in competence regarding public data protection, the Gurkha debacle and most recently the MPs’ expenses scandal.  Labour’s flensing in the recent local elections and the humiliating rash of ministerial resignations may prove to be the final nails in the Labour government’s political coffin.  

Sadly and unfairly, Brown will be made to carry the can for all of Labour’s failings. In this respect perhaps Labour have already found their caretaker in Brown: a browbeaten and embattled figure who can do little more now than sweep up the remnants of a collapsed regime and begin despondently pushing them towards the rubbish heap of history.

Google Latitude: A helping hand or a watchful eye?

The other week, while happily ensconced before the whirring conveyor belt of my local sushi restaurant, I happened to stumble across something in the Times comment section that almost made me choke on my Chumaki. It seems that internet polymath Google has added another “neat” and “handy” feature to its already burgeoning array of applications in the form of Google Latitude: a mobile phone based tracking system.

Essentially the software allows people to monitor the movements of others using mobile phone masts, GPS, and wi-fi hardware in conjunction with the pre-existing “my location” feature. Although Google spokespeople stress the safety of the system; its opt-out clauses and privacy safeguards I couldn’t help but feel a creeping sense of unease as I gradually learnt more about the ramifications of this supposedly benign device.

I’ve known and accepted for some time now that the mobile phone I carry on a day-to-day basis is, in effect, a radio collar which the “powers that be” can readily exploit to zero in on my movements should they so wish. The idea that this ability is to be extended to civilians is, perversely, even more unerving.

One only has to look at the effect other social networking medias such as Facebook and Myspace have had in exposing people’s private lives to the public domain and the by now standard “profile trawling” undertaken by prospective employers. In a society where mobile telephony is ubiquitous, it is hard to see how people will ever be able to roam undetected ever again. Parents will monitor children, couples will monitor each other people whom you’d rather avoid will hunt you down and subject you to their inane chatter. Ok, perhaps I’m being a tad melodramatic, hell you can always just switch off your phone and hey presto! You’ll drop off the radar. I just feel we need to question and exercise caution when a technology such as this comes along, rather than just blithely embrace it. Many people treated Facebook like a toy and got their fingers burnt, and unless people know what they’re dealing with, the same could happen with latitude.

Capturing Cardiff: A FAN-tastic way of forging community relations

“I THINK this is just about the happiest I’ve ever felt a few days before Christmas” smiles Gill Saunders to the dozen or so people gathered around: “and I know that one of the reasons is that I’m here with you all”. Gill is secretary of the Cardiff “Friends and Neighbours” (FAN) group, a non-profit organisation that since 2003 has set-out to promote cross-cultural relations within the Welsh capital. Rubina, originally from Pakistan, encapsulates what FAN means to many newcomers to Cardiff: “When I came to this country I did not know many people, I was alone…at FAN everyone can discuss their problems and share ideas”

Cardiff is a city steeped in ethnic and cultural diversity owing to its past as a trading port and post-war immigration. Grangetown, for instance, has been home to generations of Somali families. Like many other parts of the UK Cardiff has experienced a new wave of immigration during the last few years. FAN member and Cardiff resident David Davies said: “I notice how Cardiff is changing in its demographics, you can sense it just walking around the city and I really do celebrate that”.

The FAN groups represent both an acknowledgment of these changes, and an attempt to reach out to Cardiff’s increasingly diverse population. Originally devised as a way of helping new immigrants develop their English skills and meet Cardiffians, FAN now boasts 10 separate groups from Pentwyn to Grangetown, where people of different ages, races, cultures and faiths can interact: “There are aspects of life in our world today which seem to be splitting people up” says David: “FAN is such a simple and effective vehicle for integration and community spirit.”

FAN Meeting Locations Throughout Cardiff

View Larger Map

Each meeting begins with members reading extracts from the FAN statement, whose principles emphasise the ethos of equality and tolerance, before moving on to a group discussion. Topics of conversion can range from serious issues such as family or employment to more light-hearted chats on the foibles of everyday life. In this way FAN hopes to make newcomers to Cardiff feel welcome and reinforce shared values held by people from different backgrounds. Gill Saunders agrees: “This is what FAN is: so many wonderful people all across Cardiff. I have never met anyone at FAN who hasn’t been interesting in their own special way.”

The simplicity of the FAN concept could easily lead some cynics to dismiss the groups’ activities as yet another example of “woolly liberalism”. The issue of social cohesion is however highly relevant in Wales today and one that the Welsh Assembly is keen to address in 2009 with its “All Wales Community Cohesion Project” (AWCCP). The project, which seeks to improve community cohesion through raised awareness, has already endorsed the work of the FAN groups in initiatives to encourage: “Mutual understanding and respect amongst all those who live in our country.”

Click below to listen to a reading of the FAN opening statement

“There is a human need to feel accepted and safe in a foreign land.” says David adding: “Through FAN people have always felt that they have had a friendly ear to their concerns.” Thanks to the funding provided by bodies such as the Home Office, NHS and Oxfam Cymru, the FAN groups have been enabled to build on the successes of the last 5 years into 2009 and beyond.

The work of the FAN groups were also showcased in the 2004-2008 final report (on page 22) of the Advisory Board of Naturalisation and Integration (ABNI) as examples of what community projects could achieve at a grassroots level. “FAN was not really acknowledged as having a main role [in social cohesion] until quite recently” admits David.

Perhaps the simplest way of measuring the success of FAN is through observing the feedback of members such as Zahra, who came to Britain from Iran in 2003. As a political activist in her native country, Zahra was persecuted and imprisoned by the Iranian government and eventually forced to seek asylum in the UK. Zahra has now managed to start a new life in Cardiff and regularly attends FAN meetings: “I’m very pleased to live in Wales and Cardiff.” She says: “This was one of the best choices in my life”.

Cardiff man, David Coombs, is also in no doubt about the importance of the groups: “People who come from another culture are very much a stimulus to your normal way of thinking.” Says David. Gill reiterates this view: “It’s taught me not to think: ‘who is this person?’ and turn around. Now I think: ‘this is someone who will have something interesting and important to give’”.

The FAN groups meet weekly all across Cardiff and are always keen to welcome new members whatever their background, faith or nationality. For more information visit the FAN website by clicking here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click below to listen to David Coombs give his views on FAN

Power to the people? Freedom of expression and accountability online

“Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped with barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders. The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip.” - Ronald Reagan

This was the conclusion of the, by then, former White House incumbent, during an interview with the Guardian in 1989. It was during that same year that the world witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and, as a consequence, a de facto end to over 40 years of Cold War.

Presumably, many people reading Reagan’s words at the time were simply relieved that the stand-off had been resolved largely by Glasnost, as opposed to a macabre homage to Stanley Kubrick.

Yet, a quick examination of today’s digital world would suggest that  ”The Gipper” and his predictions were often surprisingly prescient.

Since the end of the Cold War, the internet and web 2.0, have led to a surge in global communication and the dissemination of information. Whilst repressive states still exist, their attempts to control and manage information has become infinitely more difficult, as recent events in Tibet and Zimbabwe have shown.

In an era of 24-hour news, blogging, mobile phones, Twitter and You.tube, the capacity of governments, or anyone else, to control what individuals hear and say has been significantly reduced. This can only be considered a good thing…right?

As you might expect, there is a flip-side to this new-found freedom of expression: that of moderating content and the issue of accountability for published material. I should at this point make it clear that I do not advocate censorship and overwhelmingly subscribe to Voltaire’s maxim regarding free speech. This is also an ethos promoted by The Daily Telegraph on its blog site MyTelegraph , which, since May 2007, has allowed “anyone” to have their say.

This includes BNP councillor Richard Barnbrook, who (regrettably) finds ample time to regularly air his odious views on everything from immigration to Lily Allen. Of course, it would be all too easy to pillory the Telegraph for allowing this. By allowing the likes of Barnbrook to have their say might imply that you in some way condone or are sympathetic to his views.

The Telegraph’s response is that it has no moral right or desire to determine who can say what, and that the best way to undermine extremist views is by exposing them to public ridicule and contempt. Furthermore, according to MyTelegraph Communities Editor, Shane Richmond, Barnbrook’s posts are closely monitored by the Telegraph’s lawyers for anything that could be deemed illegal.

Such an approach is fine when dealing with relatively high profile individuals such as Barnbrook, but what about the millions of other blogs and social media outlets out there?

Traditional media formats are overseen and regulated by bodies such as Ofcom and the PCC. However, as the relationship between professional media and consumer further intertwines, the lines on contempt and defamation are becoming increasingly blurred.

Indeed, if the recent Manuelgate debacle at BBC Radio 2 is anything to go by, media professionals can sometimes not be trusted to moderate their own content, let alone their audience’s.

By Richmond’s own admission, the MyTelegraph site does not read or moderate the majority of its user content. This is because, perversely, not reading is often the safest approach in terms of legal accountability.

By reading and approving content (or worse still approving and then reading content) media organisations can potentially be held directly responsible should anything of a defamatory and/or libellous nature be published. By not reading what users send in, editors effectively absolve themselves of responsibility.

Surely, we can do better than this?

Web technologies and social medias have advanced so rapidly that the old guard have not had time to work out how to effectively regulate what goes on, or reform laws that will inevitably become outmoded. This it seems will be a challenge the media will have to face for many years to come.

Googlewhacked:How one search engine revolutionised the web

As I sit resignedly before the screen and prepare to draft yet another fascinating foray into the world that I’ve increasingly come to refer to as ”Groundblog day”, a sudden thought has inveigled its way into my stream of consciousness. That thought translates roughly to words of this effect: “Geez! How much harder would this thing be to write without google?”

Ok granted, when compared to the musings of Newton or Plato, few members of the blogsphere are likely to be awed by my little epiphany. It does nonetheless lead us nicely into this week’s topic: social media on the web. Those of you who took the time to watch the video at the start of this post will probably have some idea as to what social media is, but in case you missed it allow me to try and summarise.

Social media is an umbrella term that essentially refers to networking applications such as Facebook and Myspace, user-generated content sites such as YouTube, and, more latterly, developments such as Twitter and Digg. Search Engines also come under the banner of social media, and it is this aspect of the web that forms the basis of this entry.

Search Engines have, almost since the inception of the internet, functioned as the web surfers sextant in navigating the “oceans” of digital information.

In 1998 a revolutionary new search engine called Google came along allowing for faster and more pertinent search results than ever before. Today, Google tracks an estimated 1 trillion web pages (approximately 25% of all web content) and is often built-in as standard into computer toolbars as a testament to its mastery of the search engine world.

In many ways Google represents far more than simply a search engine: it has also been responsible for creating many other useful applications such as Google Maps, Google Earth and the upcoming Google Library Project (GLP). The GLP is unprecedented both in scale and possibility: the digitisation of literally millions of books and manuscripts from around the world, that will eventually be accessible from anywhere in the world.

Writing for the Guardian online, Professor John Sutherland says of the GLP:

“What we are witnessing this year is the beginning of the greatest act of recovered memory in the history of our species. The next decade will be the age of the unimaginably vast archive. More particularly, the dynamic and usable archive. The archive, that is, which hurls its contents at you, rather than requiring laborious spadework.” - John Sutherland, Guardian Online

Some would argue however that Google’s near monopolistic status within search engine/ social media is more behemoth than benevolent, with the example of the search engine’s acquiescence with Chinese government demands to censor its search results commonly cited as a compromise on Google’s motto.

Certainly we cannot dismiss Google’s decision to self-censor (indeed it has been roundly criticised for it) but we should not let one incident cloud our view of its liberating potential:

“Google should be presumed virtuous until proven evil. Just because it could be evil does not mean it is. Just being big and powerful does not make it evil.” - Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine.com

Moreover, Google has never rated its content based upon how much a contributor has paid for it (unlike some other search engines) meaning that search results tend to have far more relevancy to users. The impact of Google upon the internet and modern society has been enormous and, whilst perhaps not perfect, we’d do well to remember just how fundamental it has become to our daily lives:

“Google has opened up the world’s digital knowledge to everyone. We can answer any question, satisfy any curiosity, fix any error of fact in the blink of an eye. I wanted to know just how fast that is, so I asked Google how fast an eye blinks and in .3 seconds it told me that a blink takes .3 seconds.” - Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine.com