andreeva_ln_volkovinskaia_lv_korziuk_nn_liudi_i_obshchestvo

T E X T 4

ANIMAL FARM

Four days later, in the late afternoon, Napoleon ordered all the animals to assemble in the yard. When they had all gathered together, Napoleon emerged from the farmhouse, wearing both his medals (for he had recently awarded himself “Animal Hero, First Class” and “Animal Hero, Second Class”) with his nine huge dogs frisking round him and uttering growls that sent shivers down all the animals’ spines. They all cowered silently their places, seeming to know in advance that some terrible thing was about to happen.

Napoleon stood sternly surveying his audience: then he uttered a high-pitched whimper. Immediately the dogs bounded forward, seized four of the pigs by the ear and dragged them, squealing with pain and terror, to Napoleon’s feet. The pigs’ ears were bleeding. The dogs had tasted blood, and for a few moments they appeared to go quite mad. To the amazement of everybody, three of them flung themselves upon Boxer. Boxer saw them coming and put out his great hoof, caught a dog in mid-air, and pinned him to the ground. The dog shrieked for mercy and the other two fled with their tails between their legs. Boxer looked at Napoleon to know whether he should crush the dog to death or let it go. Napoleon appeared to change countenance, and sharply ordered Boxer to let the dog go, whereat Boxer lifted his hoof, and the dog slunk away, bruised and howling.

Presently the tumult died down. The four pigs waited, trembling, with guilt written on every line of their countenances. Napoleon now called upon them to confess their crimes. They were the same four pigs as had protested when Napoleon abolished the Sunday Meetings. Without any further prompting they confessed that had been secretly in touch with Snowball ever since his expulsion, that they had collaborated with him in destroying the windmill, and that they had entered into an agreement with him to hand over Animal Farm to Mr. Frederick. They added that Snowball had privately admitted to them that he had been Jones’s secret agent for years past. When they had finished their confession, the dogs promptly tore their throats out, and in a terrible voice Napoleon demanded whether any other animal had anything to confess.

The tree hens had been the ringleaders in the attempted rebellion over the eggs now came forward and stated that Snowball had appeared to them in a dream and incited them to disobey Napoleon’s orders. They too, were slaughtered. Then a goose came forward and confessed to having secreted six ears of corn during the last year’s harvest and eaten them in the night. Then a sheep confessed to having urinated in the drinking pool — urged to do this, so she said, by Snowball — and two other sheep confessed to having murdered an

82

UNIT II

T E X T 1

RIGHTS AND RESTRAINTS

Because completely unrestricted freedom of action would make peaceful human existence impossible, some restraints on freedom of action are necessary and inevitable. Virtually all codes of action recognize that basic limitation. Liberty is in such codes as the right of individuals to act without restraint as long as actions do not interfere with the equivalent right of others; acts that do violate the right of other are rejected as license.

The nature and extent of the restraints to be imposed and the selection of the means of enforcing them have been important problems for philosophers and lawmakers throughout history. Almost all the solutions finally arrived at have recognized the fundamental need for a government, meaning an individual or group of individuals empowered to compose and enforce whatever restraints are deemed necessary. In modern times, great emphasis has also been placed on the need for laws to define the nature and extent of these restraints. The philosophy of anarchism is an exception; it objects to all governments as evil themselves and substitutes an idealized society in which social restraint is achieved through individual observance of high ethical principles.

A perfect balance between the right of an individual to act without undue interference and the need of the community to restrain freedom of action has often been projected in theory but has never been achieved. The restraints imposed throughout most of history have been oppressive. History has been described as society’s progress from a state of anarchy, through periods of liberty for every individual under democratic governments; history has thus been shaped by the natural desire of all people to be free.

T E X T 2

DISSEMINATION OF LIBERTIES

In antiquity, liberty meant national freedom; slavery was considered a necessary institution of society. Liberty in medieval tomes related primarily to social groups seeking to wrest certain privileges from the sovereigns against whom they contended for power. This kind of struggle resulted in the Magna

84

Carta. Imposed in the 13th century on John, kind of England, by a group of barons; the document has great significance in the progress of human liberty. As the Middle Ages came to an end, the Renaissance raised problems of intellectual freedom, challenging the established dogma of the Catholic church; later still the reformation further promoted ideas of religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

There great revolutions helped to define individual liberty and ensure its preservation. In 17th-century England, the Glorious Revolution was the culmination of several hundred years of gradual imposition of judicial and legislative restraints upon the monarchy. The Bill of Rights, adopted by the English Parliament in 1689, established representative government in England.

The American Revolution of 1776 joined the problems of achieving individual liberty with those of creating a new state. The Declaration of independence issued by the American revolutionists reflected centuries of freedom in England. The second great charter of liberty to issue from the American Revolution was the U.S. Constitution. In its first ten amendments, know as the Bill of rights, the Constitution established guarantees of civil rights.

The French Revolution of 1789 destroyed the feudal system in France and established reprehensive government. In the Enlightenment, the body of thought that molded the thinking of the leaders of the French Revolution, liberty was defined as a natural right of man, a right to act without interference from any source but nevertheless requiring voluntary submission to necessary limitation in order that the benefits of organized social existence might be enjoyed. Challenging the theory of the right of kings to rule new theory held that the source of all govemental power was the people, and that tyranny began when the natural right of men were violated. From the French Revolution came the Declaration of the Right of Man and of Citizen, which served as a model for most of the declarations of liberty adopted by European states in the 19th century.

T E X T 3

THE FASHION POLICE

It all started just before Christmas when an armed police officer barred my spouse, a 40-year-old sociology professor, from leaving the Regal Elmwood Theater. If she wanted to continue walking the 10 yards to the exit door, the officer informed her, she would have to pull down her hood until she was outside. Or she could be arrested. Of course the pulling down the hood part goes against everything our mothers taught us about winter attire — that we put on our mittens and hoods before we go out into the cold. But the man giving the order had a gun and represented the power of the state.

85

While the Regal’s apparent dress code might not seem like a big deal, it is. Random intrusions of authority imposing arbitrary laws upon us is the essence of a police state.

Of course the whole policy smacks of racism. The good ol’boys at Regal entertainment can’t quite bar black youth from their theaters, so they do the next best things, and ban attire common to black youth — and enforce the policy exclusively at the only local Regal patronized by black youth.

But hoodophobia isn’t just a Regal phenomenon. I was recently contacted by a black college student who was barred from Tops Supermarkets after an off-duty police officer ordered him to remove his hood.

As it turns out this weirdness isn’t confined to Tops and Regal. Last Sunday, the Buffalo News’ Lou Michel, a reporter not formerly known as a moron, wrote a story that ran under the headline, “Citizen’s Learn Tips to Spot Terrorists”. Above the headline was a photo of a group of Buffalo auxiliary police officers learning to spot terrorists. Michel, demonstrating no more critical thinking skills than an army ant, unquestionably echoes the anti-terrorism “expert” in explaining that “it’s the little things that count in determining if someone is up to no good”. He goes on to list three bullet points for spotting terrorists. They’ll buy “bulk amounts of fertilizer”, they’ll take photos of “buildings and locations in the area” and they’ll wear “oversized coats and hooded sweatshirts on warm days”.

Whether this is a story about racism or one about just plain stupidity, one thing is certain: It is a story about an emerging police state where rules are arbitrarily formed and enforced just for the sake of exercising authority and control over a subdued population. There truly are fashion police in this brave new world.

T E X T 4

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA

AND RELATED INTOLERANCE

“Bigotry, hated, prejudice — these are the ugly symptoms of a sickness humanity and everywhere suffered. Racism can, will and be defeated” Kofi Annan United Nations Secretary-General.

The fight against racism has been at heart of the mission of the United Nations aver since its founding in shadow of the horrors of the Second Word War. Never again was the world to witness the persecution of people based on their race, the drafters of the United Nations Charter vowed. They enshrined in that historic document that everyone, regardless of color, sex, language or religion, was entitle to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

86

UNIT III

T E X T 1

LICENCE TO KILL MUST BE REVOKED

In some countries, like the United States, it is an individual’s right to own a gun. But should people have this right? Or should private ownership of guns not be allowed? There is strong debate on this issue in Britain.

Michael North, whose five-year-old daughter Sophie was killed by Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane with a legally owned handgun, calls for a ban on such weapons

...Since that day many of my thoughts have been focused on gun control, on why we as a society allow civilians to own weapons as dangerous as handguns.

I have been told by senior politicians that the United Kingdom already has some of the tightest gun laws in the world. This may be so, but they were clearly not tight enough and there is no room for complacency. At present a firearms certificate can be granted for a handgun to anyone who can show good reason for possessing it, and that need only be the wish to target-shoot. If a shooter persuades the police that he needs different guns for different shooting disciplines then he can have any number of handguns, perhaps as many as 30. It might be expected that with ownership of as dangerous an instrument as a gun the onus would be on the applicant to prove beyond all doubt that he is and will continue to be a fit person to hold a firearms certificate. However, under present legislation the certificate will be granted unless the police can demonstrate that the applicant is not a fit person, something which they appear to find very difficult to prove. Only 1—2 % of firearms certificate applications are refused. Once granted, the certificate allows a person to hold guns for three years before renewal (there were even moves to relax this to five years). During that period the behaviour of the gun holder could change dramatically as a result of domestic problems, drinking or mental illness. At the start of 1995, a police constable involved in the renewal of Hamilton’s gun license expressed doubts about his suitability, yet he was still granted a license for another three years. We now know the dreadful consequences of that decision.

Handgun owners claim they have a “right” to shoot and that the vast majority of them are responsible. However if we are to compare rights, the

88

“right” to own a gun comes very low down on a scale in which the right to be safe and protected from lethal weapons and the right to life are paramount. If you cannot be absolutely certain that every person owning a handgun will be safe, then in my view there is only one possible course of action: the banning of the private use of handguns. Handguns are only used for a pastime — target-shooting — but were designed for another purpose, killing, and are the most dangerous of weapons. They are easily concealed: Thomas Hamilton was seen entering Dunblane Primary School but no one would have been able to tell he was carrying guns. Many bullets can be fired rapidly from semi-automatic weapons. Even single loading pistols can be reloaded rapidly:

Thomas Hamilton’s killing spree lasted only three minutes but within that time he fired over 100 rounds of ammunition — including the bullets which killed my daughter.

Vocabulary: complacency: satisfaction with the present situation and an unwilling ness to change; onus: responsibility; paramount: more important than anything else.

T E X T 2

GIRLS AND BOYS COME OUT TO PLAY…

AFTERCURFEW

In the USA they have tried having a ‘curfew’ to stop youth crime. This means young people are not allowed out on the streets after a certain time in the evening. Do you think this is an effective way of dealing with crime? What do young people think about it?

Jonathan Freedland in Washington watches the city’s youth react to an attempt to curb their freedom — and discovers that not one arrest has been made in 12 months

The witching hour approaches, when Washington’s teenagers will turn not into pumpkins but suspects. It is 10.40 pm just 20 minutes to go before the city’s curfew comes into force — and the mood is still

The scene is the 7-Eleven at Tenley Town in north-west Washington, not a glamour location for adults perhaps — but a hang-out for the area’s mainly middle-class teenagers. On a summer evening they flock here, to pick up some chips at the McDonald’s across the road, to buy a packet of fags, to scope out the opposite sex.

But they’re not here now Maybe it’s because it’s a school night; maybe it’s because Washington’s year-old curfew is so effective, the city’s teens don’t want to risk being caught out after hours. A police car waits ominously across the street.

89

The minutes crawl by At 10 47 a woman in evening dress — not a teenager — totters in to use the payphone.

Then, as if on cue, they appear. On the stroke of 11 — precisely (he moment when they are meant to be off the streets and tucked up in bed — the teens invade “What curfew?” says one, not really joking. “Most of us don’t follow it,” explains Kathy, 16 years old and tiny in the driver’s seat of her mum’s big Acura car. She says the police don’t enforce the rule — which bans youths l6 and younger from public places between 11 pm and 6 am on weekdays and from midnight on Fridays and Saturdays — and official police figures bear her put. Not a single Washington teenager has been formally arrested under the law since

it was passed last summer.

“They instituted it basically as a threat, and they never followed it through,” says Jason Pielemeier, his hair cropped, his ear pierced and his face flush with the fact that this is his last week of high school. “They made a big deal of it for the First couple of weeks and then you didn’t hear about it”.

If the cops are around, though, it makes all the difference. Next week Jason and his buddies will engage in the teenage summer ritual of Beach Week — invading a resort for seven days of drinking and mating. Their destination is Dewey Beach, Delaware, where the curfew starts at midnight and applies to everyone under 18. “There’s a cop on every comer with a breathalyser,” says Jason. I’ll definitely be thinking about it then.

But tonight at Tenley Town curfews matter less than hiding from the guy who fancies you and that classmate you’ve been avoiding The kids keep coming, barefoot girls and whis kery boys in grungy shorts long enough to reach their ankles.

‘Are you talking about all the ways you can totally get round if asks Halah Al-Jubeir, springing open a new packet of Merit cigarettes as she slides up to a group of girls counting off exemptions to (he curfew In Washington, you’re allowed to stay out if you are accompanied by an adult — including an 18-year-old brother or boyfriend — participating in a school-sanctioned activity or even running an errand for a parent. When President Clinton praised curfews last month, he spoke in favour of such loopholes — but the teens of Tenley Town are not impressed. “There are so many excuses, it’s ridiculous,” says Halah.

Being good Americans, the kids’ main objection to the cur few is that it violates their rights. “I think it’s a matter of principle, I don’t think the government should” say where you can be and when, fumes David Brunner. “1 should have certain inherent rights, like the right to stay but as late as I want.” The American Civil Liberties Union agrees, claiming teenagers are being singled out for lesser rights than other Americans, and that law-abiding kids are being punished along with (he troublemakers. In fact it’s usually the parents who

are punished — shelling out fines of up to $500 in some towns.

90

Now aged 17, Caroline Woolfe is beyond the reach of Washington’s curfew. But when she was l6, she was sitting on the porch of her own house when a police car slowed down and an officer yelled at her “to go on home”.

The kids all say the curfew serves as an excuse for police who want to give crap to teenagers, and that if there is to be an enforced bedtime it should be parents, not the law, which sets it. Kathy is explaining how the curfew unfairly presumes “that a teenager after dark is automatically dangerous” when she checks her bleeper and realises the time. “My mum gave me a curfew of 11, she says hurriedly. I’ve got to get home.”

Vocabulary curb: control, limit; witching hour: important moment when something is going to happen; flock: gather together in great numbers; ban: forbid; loophole: way of avoiding something; shelling out: paying out; give crap to: make life difficult for (slang).

T E X T 3

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Childhood is a time of joy and innocence for most people: for others, life turns violent and so do they. Criminal acts of young persons are referred to broadly as juvenile delinquency. In some countries delinquency includes conduct that is antisocial, dangerous, or harmful to the goals of society. The general tendency is to limit the term to activities that if carried out by an adult would be called crimes, but in the United States since the 1980s juvenile delinquents are often referred to as “youthful offenders.” The age at which juveniles legally become adults varies from country to country, but it generally ranges from 15 to 18. Clearly the problem has skyrocketed: for example, in 1990 rates of arrest in California for burglary, theft, car theft, arson and robbery are higher among juveniles than among adults.

Sociological research has established such bases for predicting delinquent behaviour as the nature of a child’s home environment, the quality of the child’s neighbourhood, and behaviour in school. It has never been conclusively proved, however, that delinquency can be either predicted or prevented.

Nature-nurture controversy

Some psychologists believe that there is an inherited flaw in the genetic makeup of a criminal that leads to rejection of society’s standards. Others note that many violent prisoners have higher than normal levels of the male sex hormone testosterone.

The contrary opinion tends to view delinquents as not substantially different from the remainder of the population. Not alhsturdily built individuals,

91