Thoughts on matters LGBT+

The dignity of each and every human person derives precisely from their being a human person, and not from a characteristic of the person.  For this reason, the rights that derive from the dignity of the person are described as being universal (ie they apply to each and every person without discrimination) and inalienable (ie they apply to each and every person whatever their actions may be). This idea of the universality and inalienability of human rights can be found both in Catholic teaching and in internationally recognised human rights instruments, such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pope Francis captured something of this during a television encounter with a gay man, when he observed that "it is the person that comes first, the adjective comes after".

What are we to make of this month when local authorities here in the UK choose to fly a "Progressive Pride" flag, and to hold events "as a symbol of solidarity and support for the LGBT+ community" (see here for the reporting in my own local authority)? Is this act of flying a particular flag simply a recognition that the same dignity as persons is to be respected in members of the LGBT+ community as in those who are not part of that community - an act of solidarity with persons? Or is it an act of promotion of a distinct LGBT+ culture to wider society - an act of support for a culture? 

We could also ask how far, for the society that accepts the flying of this flag, we are in reality seeing an example of Vaclav Havel's "greengrocer's slogan", on which I commented here: The greengrocer's slogan: updated for 2021. Public conversation on LGBT+ matters uses the terms "sex" (as in a characteristic of human persons), "sex" (as in the activity of human persons), "gender" and "love" in indiscriminate and ill-defined ways, ways that can mask an underlying intent by using the latter two terms to intend, to a greater or lesser extent, the former two. I suspect that very few ordinary people really think through the implications of that "Progressive Pride" flag, or of the injudicious use of language in our public conversation.

Question 487 of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

God has created human beings as male and female, equal in personal dignity, and has called them to a vocation of love and of communion. Everyone should accept his or her identity as male or female, recognizing its importance for the whole of the person, its specificity and complementarity.

 Question 488 then reads:

Chastity means the positive integration of sexuality within the person. Sexuality becomes truly human when it is integrated in a correct way into the relationship of one person to another.

 There is already here much that would challenge an LGBT+ culture - a given physiological sex that is a characteristic of our identity to be accepted rather than being considered "fluid"; the complementing of male and female sexes, particularly with regard to openness to new life of children; that there is a correct activity of human sexuality which accords with being a person of a male or female physiological sex and is oriented towards a person of the opposite sex.

I think we need to be conscious that a concern to respect the dignity of all persons is not construed as supporting what Pope Francis has termed an "ideological colonisation" of the family, and of our culture.

The greengrocer's slogan - updated for 2021

 Some five years ago I posted on St Charles Lwanga and companions, on the occasion of their feast day (3rd June): St Charles Lwanga and Companions: an opportunity to comment on recent events.That post included an explanation by Rocco Buttiglione of events which occurred when he was nominated as a commissioner for the European Union.

When we compare the experience of St Charles Lwanga and his companions to that of Rocco Buttiglione, what occurred for the former as a physical persecution has been replaced now by a discrimination at the level of culture. At root, what is at issue is the same - Catholic teaching on homosexuality, explained very clearly by Rocco Buttiglione in my earlier post. But the challenge experienced by Catholics now is in resisting a cultural imposition of an opposite teaching rather than in facing a direct threat to life. The timing of St Charles' feast is surprisingly pertinent, with the annual display of LGBT flags and banners that is currently under way just about everywhere. 

I am reminded of a passage from Vaclav Havel's famous essay The Power of the Powerless, in which the author reflects on the role of ideology in a post-totalitarian society such as that existing in Czechoslovakia (as it then was) during the Communist era. The passage begins at the bottom of page 5 of this post of the essay, and forms section III of the essay. Reading the whole of this section, but with "Pride" flags in mind rather than "Workers of the world unite!" slogans, prompts the thought as to how far Vaclav Havel's essay can be applied to the very different time and context that prevails now. Think about it, especially when you visit your supermarket during this month.

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moments thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Do follow the link to read the rest of Vaclav Havel's analysis. 

Workers of the world unite! (or revolution at Felbrigg Hall) - UPDATED

I have been brought back to Vaclav Havel's text The Power of the Powerless (full text available by following this link) in reflecting on the position of the National Trust in its "Prejudice and Pride" programme, its participation in gay pride events and in the position in which it put some of its volunteers (the more cautious BBC reporting is here). Though, of course, the BBC's Gay Britannia programming equally prompts it.

What exactly are we doing when we ask people to wear that T-shirt, that badge, that lanyard or to walk in Pride marches? What are we asking of them in seeking their reception of that TV and radio programming?

Are we asking people to adhere to an ideology (of gender, of sex) that is unrelated to an authentic understanding of the dignity of the human person and therefore related only to ethical indifference? Are we asking people to adhere to an ideology that should be subject to the level of critique that Vaclav Havel offered to the communist ideology of his times in Czechoslovakia?

I suspect those National Trust volunteers who have preferred not to wear the requested badges and lanyards have exercised an ethical freedom that is becoming less common.

See Wrong rights? for my fuller account of Vaclav Havel's essay:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves.

UPDATE:

The National Trust have now issued a statement reversing their instruction to volunteers:

The National Trust was established “for the benefit of the Nation” and we passionately believe our purpose is to make everyone feel welcome at our places, as our founders would have wanted. 

We are using the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality as an opportunity to tell the stories of the people at some of our places, whose personal lives were outside the social norms of their time. 

We hugely value our volunteers and many across the country have taken the opportunity to get involved in developing our Prejudice and Pride programme, which explores LGBTQ heritage. 

At Felbrigg, many volunteers have enthusiastically supported a new exhibition, which looks at the life of the extraordinarily generous Robert Ketton–Cremer.  His decision to leave the house to the Trust was the result in part of the fact that he had never married and had no heirs. 

We asked all our staff and volunteers at the house to wear rainbow lanyards or badges during the six-week event as welcoming symbol to all our visitors.  We remain absolutely committed to our Pride programme, which will continue as intended, along with the exhibition at Felbrigg. 

However, we are aware that some volunteers had conflicting, personal opinions about wearing the rainbow lanyards and badges. That was never our intention. 

We are therefore making it clear to volunteers that the wearing of the badge is optional and a personal decision.  We will be speaking to all our volunteers at Felbrigg over the coming days about this issue.

The change of policy does not appear to apply to National Trust employees.  The Trust's earlier statement is as follows (I have added emphasis - it would be interesting to know the nature of the "training and support" and the meaning of feeling "confident to take part").

Annabel Smith, Head of Volunteering & Participation Development said:

“All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us – we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone.  We are committed to developing and promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion in all that we do regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

“Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting, personal opinions.

“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”

As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.

Some volunteers at Felbrigg have said they feel uncomfortable wearing these and we have offered them the opportunity to take a break from front facing duties if that’s what they would prefer.

Wrong rights?

During the last couple of weeks, I have been prompted a number of times to reflect on the image of the slogan among the fruit and vegetables that appears in an early section of Vaclav Havel's (at one time at least, but now perhaps rather forgotten) well known essay "The Power of the Powerless". Follow this link, and go to section III to see the full context.

THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? 

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Aunty points out that, at the time that Vaclav Havel wrote this essay, we probably would not have thought it possible that the sentiments such as those contained in it could apply to our Western societies, adding: 

Defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman,  openly opposing the deliberate abortion of an unborn baby, affirming that sexual activity outside the marriage bond is contrary to the moral law...all these things are essential to a wholesome and humane society. We can have a debate about these things, we can recognise the need to be open and tolerant of different opinions - but we cannot survive unless we are allowed to affirm the truth of male/female marriage and the protection of pre-born children.

And the cruel attempts to silence, undermine and destroy groups and individuals who seek to uphold the moral law do point the way to martyrdom...

And, likewise, Peter Saunders offers a commentary about transgender issues. I quote one paragraph, but do read the whole:

We are starting to see real pressure being put on people to adopt a new ideology, use new language, affirm the beliefs of transgender people and participate in surgical and hormonal gender reassignment. Some lobby groups want these things to be legally enforced.

If he were to refuse, there could be trouble .....

He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life .....


Postcript: Vaclav Havel's commentary on the role of ideology, from the same section III of his essay, written for his particular situation but with resonances for Western societies today:

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe

Havel's "Politics of Conscience" and Pope Francis' "Laudato si": surprising parallels

In the last week of the (not) long (enough) summer holiday that is a perk of the teaching profession, I have been reading Michael Zantovsky's Havel: A Life. It is a substantial biography of Vaclav Havel, playwright, dissident (in the very specific meaning of that term during the 1970's and 1980's), advocate of human rights and, eventually, president of then Czechoslovakia after its "velvet revolution" of 1989. My progress has been slow as, when works by Havel that I already have on my bookshelves are referred to by Zantovsky, I have been abandoning the biography to read them. One of these works was Havel's essay "Politics and Conscience".

Havel's essay "Politics and Conscience" (link to English translation from here; I have a print copy in a book entitled Vaclav Havel: Living in Truth) was written in February 1984 as a speech to be delivered on receiving an honorary doctorate at the University of Toulouse-Le Mirail. Havel himself was prevented from travelling to Toulouse for the occasion as the Czech authorities had confiscated his passport; the text was first circulated in a samizdat publication(underground publishing) in Czechoslovakia. There are striking similarities between Havel's text and chapters three and four of Pope Francis' encyclical letter Laudato si. Compare, for example, the opening paragraph of Havel's essay (written, like the remainder of the essay, from an existentialist background):

As a boy, I lived for some time in the country and I clearly remember an experience from those days: I used to walk to school in a nearby village along a cart track through the fields and, on the way, see on the horizon a huge smokestack of some hurriedly built factory, in all likelihood in the service of war. It spewed dense brown smoke and scattered it across the sky. Each time I saw it, I had an intense sense of something profoundly wrong, of humans soiling the heavens. I have no idea whether there was something like a science of ecology in those days; if there was, I certainly knew nothing of it. Still that "soiling of the heavens" offended me spontaneously. It seemed to me that, in it, humans are guilty of something, that they destroy something important, arbitrarily disrupting the natural order of things, and that such things cannot go unpunished. To be sure, my revulsion was largely aesthetic; I knew nothing then of the noxious emissions which would one day devastate our forests, exterminate game, and endanger the health of people.

and n.115 of Pope Francis' encyclical (the quotations are respectively from Romano Guardini and Pope John Paul II):

Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since “the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere ‘given’, as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere ‘space’ into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference”. The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand themselves and end up acting against themselves: “Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God’s gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed”.

Both Havel and Pope Francis address the place of technology, and the dominance of what Pope Francis terms a "technological paradigm", not only in its impact on the natural world but also in its impact on how persons live in society, on economic and political life. Both argue against a "depersonalised" (Havel's word) exercise of political power, driven by technology, ideology, consumerism etc, and in favour of a resumption on the part of the individual person of their own responsibility towards the world around them and towards their neighbours. Both warn that solutions that are merely technological in nature will not suffice, and that solutions need to be sought that will reform the way in which people live. What Havel terms "anti-political politics" (cf the last paragraph of section IV, but you need to read the two preceding paragraphs to fully grasp this idea) has an affinity to what Pope Francis terms "the common good" (Laudato sinn.156-158).

Interestingly, in his essay Havel can refer to "science as displacing God and taking over his throne", though one should not thereby infer a religious belief on his part. Rather, if the essay is seen in its whole, Havel is recognising that there is something transcendent, and deserving of respect, in the world in which we live; and something in the human person that seeks to recognise and live in harmony with that transcendence. Pope Francis, of course, can situate this within an explicit teaching on the world as created by God.

Pope Francis, in Laudato si, sought to approach the question from the point of view of offering a teaching about mankind's relationship to the natural world in which we live.  Havel, though he opens his essay by considering the ecological question, primarily seeks to offer a warning to Western European nations about the depersonalized and dehumanizing exercise of power to which he was subject under a Communist regime but which he saw in their nations under the guise of technology, consumerism and a politics of system and bureaucracy. From different directions, they approach the same question, the question that, since the publication of Laudato si, might be termed the question of an "integral ecology"; though the different directions of approach and their different immediate contexts also explain the treatment of different specific questions, particularly in Laudato si
To fully appreciate the proximity of the thought expressed in Havel's essay to that in chapters three and four of Laudato si, I think you have to read the full texts themselves .....

Pussy Riot and the Plastic People of the Universe

An Opinion piece by Victor Sebestyen in The Times on Saturday 18th August compared the plight of the three girls of Pussy Riot to that of "the Plastics" in (then) Czechoslovakia in the 1970's. To get a feel for Sebestyen, try here, here and here. A native of Hungary, he worked for many years as a journalist, most notably for the London Evening Standard; as a journalist, he covered the events in Eastern Europe during 1989 - hence his book on the subject, which, the Telegraph review suggests is probably more the work of a journalist than of a careful academic.

Vaclav Havel describes how he came to know "the Plastics" in his book length interview Disturbing the Peace (p.125 ff of the Faber and Faber 1990 English translation - according to Wikepedia, the translator was the band's lead guitarist/singer). Havel's characterisation of the music of the already banned Plastic People of the Universe and that of other bands forming an "underground" in the then Communist controlled Czechoslovakia, was:

..... I immediately felt that there was something rather special radiating from these performances, that they were not just deliberately odd-ball or dilettantish attempts to be outlandish at any price, as what I had heard about them before might have suggested; the music was a profoundly authentic expression of the sense of life among these people, battered as they were by the misery of this world. There was disturbing magic in the music, and a kind of inner warning. Here was something serious and genuine, an internally free articulation of an existential experience that everyone who had not become completely obtuse must understand ...

.. I realized that, regardless of how many vulgar words these people used or how long their hair was, truth was on their side. Somewhere in the midst of this group, their attitudes, and their creations, I sensed a special purity, a shame, and a vulnerability; in their music was an experience of metaphysical sorrow and a longing for salvation. It seemed to me that this undergound of Jirous' was an attempt to give hope to those who had been most excluded.

Not long after Vaclav Havel came to know them, "the Plastics" and other members of the "underground" were arrested by the authorities. Havel orchestrated a campaign of support for the band, drawing a distinction between the nature of this trial in 1976 and trials earlier in the 1970's when an essentially political motiviation governed the imprisoment of those opposed to the regime.

What was happening here was not a settling of accounts with political enemies... This had nothing whatsoever to do with a struggle between two competing policial cliques. It was something far worse: an attack by the totalitarian system on life itself, on the very essence of human freedom and integrity.... They were simply young people who wanted to live in their own way, to make music they liked, to sing what they wanted to sing, to live in harmony with themselves, and to express themselves in a truthful way.

The international attention given to the case surprised the authorities, led to the release of all but four of the detainees and, Havel suggests, moderated the sentences given to all but the artistic director of the band.

How far is the comparison between the predicament of Pussy Riot and that of the Plastic People of the Universe justified? Certainly the terms of the charges laid against Pussy Riot (hooliganism and public disorder) are similar to those pursued against the Plastics. They also share the use of a vulgar language (an interesting point for someone such as myself who has a particular sensitivity in that regard) - but I suspect there is a study to be made of the use of such language in the context of samizdat writing and culture - think perhaps of the visciousness of the sarcasm employed in The Gulag Archipelago. Pussy Riot do seem to have engaged in an explicitness of political intent that does not seem to have featured for the Plastics (Sebestyen perhaps adds a gloss by seeing the Plastics as having sparked a revolution that, via Charter 77, led to the fall of Communism in 1989); and to have engaged in an anti-religious statement that, too, does not appear to have been there for the Plastics.

But, to follow a line of analysis that Havel suggested with regard to the Plastics: when you cut through all the details of the case, each worthy of its own distinct evaluation - see Cranmer here and here, who covers most of the details; or Fr Ray reflecting some other comment from a Catholic angle; the question arising from the apparent close relationship between the Patriarch and the President here; or, for a comparison between the sentences given to the three girls and those given to participants in last year's riots in England, here; or my own reflection which would be about the place of vulgar language in any form of art - are we looking at "an attack by the totalitarian system on life itself, on the very essence of human freedom and integrity"?

And to follow Havel again, who regularly identified in the free West the same moral crisis that he saw in the (then) Communist states, have the liberal Western nations really understood the point? Are the cultural elites of these Western countries not just as intolerant of anything that is different to their own point of view as the authorities in Russia have been towards Pussy Riot, and as the Communists in Czechoslovakia were towards the Plastics in 1976? Are they not just as guilty of having governing apparatus' that do not admit the space that is due to individual conscience?

Vaclav Havel at Dolphinarium

Red Maria has posted thrice about Vaclav Havel, and I am very happy to link to her posts. These posts shed light on Vaclav Havel's relationship to Catholicism, particularly in his meetings with Pope John Paul II and in the Church-State relationship in which he was a participant as the first president of a free Czechoslovakia and, now, the Czech Republic.

The posts are here, here and here.

The poignancy of the events of Vaclav Havel's death and funeral arise for me because of my familiarity with his writings - even so far as going to see one of his plays in West London many years ago - and the fact that, during our visit to Prague, we visited many of the locations that have been associated with him in recent days.

Chapter 52 - again

My "not coping" (with people talking to me in church) is not the only reason I have been reflecting on Chapter 52 of the Rule of St Benedict. I was in fact led to it by thinking about the monastery, as described by St Benedict, being a model of the political process. Chapter 3, for example, talks about how the Abbot should call together the brothers when an important decision has to be made and listen to their advice before he chooses a course of action. One might think of this as a kind of parliamentary democracy, or perhaps a referendum. The election and duties of an Abbot described in Chapter 64 might also be considered as models of the democratic process, and of the duties of political office.

But I still came back to Chapter 52, and reflected on it in the context of the political process.

Chapter 52 On the Oratory of the Monastery

Let the oratory be what it is called, a place of prayer; and let nothing else be done there or kept there. When the Work of God is ended, let all go out in perfect silence, and let reverence for God be observed, so that any brother who may wish to pray privately will not be hindered by another's misconduct.

"Let reverence for God be observed". Even when a politician does not have a religious faith, is an atheist or agnostic, this seems to me a pre-requisite for a politics that is for the common good. For the believer, that reverence for God is represented in the world by the dedication of the physical building of the church solely and exclusively to the worship of - and, indeed, the presence of - God. For the non-believer this reverence for God is not a profession of belief in a supreme being, deity of some form, or a religious practice. It is instead a recognition that there is something more, something beyond ourselves and our immediate environments, something to which we owe respect and against which we rebel only at our cost.
 
This is expressed very ably by Vaclav Havel in the opening section of his lecture Politics and Conscience. The text can be found by going here, and clicking on the title Politics and Conscience. Do read the whole of the first section, and not just my extract below. The text is also published in the collection of writings, and appreciations, of Vaclav Havel "Living in the Truth". Vaclav Havel was himself a non-believer but one who possessed at the same time a respect for things of religion, a respect that in part came from his encounter with believers in the dissident movements of Communist era Czechoslovakia.

To me, personally, the smokestack soiling the heavens is not just a regrettable lapse of a technology that failed to include "the ecological factor" in its calculation, one which can be easily corrected with the appropriate filter. To me it is more, the symbol of an age which seeks to transcend the boundaries of the natural world and its norms and to make it into a merely private concern, a matter of subjective preference and private feeling, of the illusions, prejudices, and whims of a "mere" individual. It is a symbol of an epoch which denies the binding importance of personal experience including the experience of mystery and of the absolute and displaces the personally experienced absolute as the measure of the world with a new, man-made absolute, devoid of mystery, free of the "whims" of subjectivity and, as such, impersonal and inhuman. It is the absolute of so-called objectivity: the objective, rational cognition of the scientific model of the world....

Lest you misunderstand: I am not proposing that humans abolish smokestacks or prohibit science or generally return to the Middle Ages. Besides, it is not by accident that some of the most profound discoveries of modern science render the myth of objectivity surprisingly problematic and, via a remarkable detour, return us to the human subject and his world. I wish no more than to consider, in a most general and admittedly schematic outline, the spiritual framework of modern civilization and the source of its present crisis. And though the primary focus of these reflections will be the political rather than ecological aspect of this crisis, I might, perhaps, clarify my starting point with one more ecological example....

Prague 8: Seven Men at Daybreak

"Seven Men at Daybreak" is the title of a book by Alan Burgess. It tells the story of a group of Czech resistance fighters who were parachuted into then German occupied Czechoslovakia to kill Reinhard Heydrich, the SS officer who commanded occupied Czechoslovakia. A film "Operation Daybreak" was based on the book.

The mission to kill Heydrich was, as I have understood it, an operation initiated by the leaders of the Czech government in exile in London, headed be Edvard Benese. In part at least, their motiviation was to enhance their own standing in relation to the allied powers by bringing off a high profile assassination. The British trained the fighters involved and parachuted them into Czechoslovakia - I suspect they were willing to support a mission that would cause problems for the Germans in occupied Europe. I can't help but be a little cynical about the pragmatism of Benese's decision, and this has been reinforced by reading Vaclav Havel's account (follow the link from this page)of Benese's stance with regard to both the Nazi's before the Second World War and the communists afterwards.

At the time of the mission, Czechoslovakia was one of the most docile of the territories occupied by the Germans, something the British were quite keen to see change. This made it a difficult mission, as the parachutists could not rely on support except from the most determined Czechs in Prague and the nearby area. After Heydrich's death, and the German retaliations against the Czech population, there was a wave of support for the Czechoslovak people and a strengthening of anti-German feeling in the world at large. The Western powers repudiated the Munich accords, which had ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Germany, something that no doubt delighted the Czech government in exile.

The attempt on Heydrich's life in a Prague street did not go to plan. A Sten gun jammed at the key moment, and it was the back up of hand grenade thrown into his car which eventually killed him. Heydrich died three days later, of blood poisoning caused by fragments driven into his body from the exploding hand grenade. The German retaliation is estimated to have killed some five thousand Czechoslovak citizens, in Prague and elsewhere. The most notorious part of this massacre was the destruction of the village of Lidice - burnt to the ground, and its citizens either executed or sent to concentration camps.

The parachutists were eventually cornered in the crypt of the Orthodox church of St Cyril and Methodius on Resslova street. They fought to the end of their ammunition, and then killed themselves rather than be captured by the Germans.

This crypt is now a museum and memorial to all those who died in the German retaliation after the death of Reinhard Heydrich. The memorial below is in the wall of the crypt, above an opening through which the Germans pumped water and smoke in attempts to force the Czech fighters to surrender.

Inside the crypt itself, we saw a number of small wreaths and crosses left in memory of those who died there. The parachutists are still seen very much as heroes who died for the freedom of their country.

Note: the above account is based on memories of reading "Seven Men at Daybreak" (many years ago) and on the content of the displays in the museum at the crypt.

Vaclav Havel: "Leaving"

I caught a short piece on Radio 4's Today programme about the premiere of Vaclav Havel's new play, "Leaving". Vaclav Havel was the first President of a free Czechoslovakia, following the "velvet revolution" that overthrew Communism in the country. And before that, he was a leading figure in the dissident/resistance movement against the Communists. One of his most famous pieces of writing is an essay entitled "The power of the powerless"; part of this essay discusses why a greengrocer might put a sign "Workers of the World unite" in his shop when he has no belief in its message at all, essentially to avoid trouble from the authorities if he removed it. It is a wonderful image of how people go along with the flow of contemporary thinking, even though an even cursory examination will reveal that they have no personal belief in it at all. The "gay agenda" could be equally subjected to its critique - how many people really do believe that LGBT behaviour is morally identical/equivalent to heterosexual behaviour?

His new play seems to at least reflect the genre of underground theatre, though it may not fall into it exactly. In this style of theatre, a relatively innocuous or politically acceptable narrative hides a coded message that challenges the authorities. During the Communist times, this had to be done very cleverly so that only those tuned into the coded message would detect it and read it in to the play. There is a good account of this type of theatre in the introduction to Clare Asquith's book Shadowplay, where she describes attending the theatre in Moscow during Communist times. [The book then develops a theme of coded, Catholic messages in the plays of Shakespeare.]

So I wonder what the coded message of "Leaving" is? According to the Radio 4 item, the anti-hero to the hero of the retiring politician is someone who initiates the destruction of the former politician's residence (and cherry orchard) and replaces it with a shopping mall and brothel. The name given to this anti-hero is very close to that of Vaclav Klaus, who succeeded Vaclav Havel as President of the Czech republic. Czech society was described in the Radio 4 item as being split down the middle, between those "Havelites" who supported his vision of the world as "a place where we must strive for a more moral society" [this reflects Havel's writing about and experience of the dissident movements during the Communist era] and those "Klausites" who "believe more in the economic side of the transition that followed 1989".

So, is the coded message of "Leaving" that a politics worthy of the name should strive for a more moral society rather than limiting itself only to the economic sphere? And what do we make of this in Britain after this week's votes in the House of Commons?

UPDATE: I have just found Vaclav Havel's website and an item on the BBC website.