Yes, that's right. This is the 42nd edition of this column. 'Notes From A Small Planet' has now reached the magic number that is meant to represent the Ultimate Answer to the Question of life, the universe and everything. And (especially as I'm writing this during my 42nd year on this small planet) I feel as if I should, somehow, have something astonishing to tell you - that I should now have some kind of insight denied to less numerically blessed life-forms.

But such is not the case. The more I learn, the more I realise how much I don't know; and often, the more I feel certain about things, the more I find that I'm wrong.

For example, just the other week, I read in my morning paper that some American schools were banning the 'Harry Potter' books on the grounds that they might lead young people into the occult. Ron Matthews, the president of the Ventura County Board of Education in southern California, has solemnly pronounced:
'What goes into the mind gets processed. Harry is endorsing demons and goblins and witchcraft, and it opens up the floodgates for demonic possession.'

The report also quoted an unnamed Los Angeles parent who had removed her son from a class that had the first of the 'Potter' books on the reading list. She'd complained:
'Harry Potter does not belong in a classroom setting. The title of the book is 'Sorcery', and sorcery is witchcraft.'

(Actually, the title of the film and first book is 'Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone' if you're British, and 'Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone' if you're American, US distributors having apparently decided that the mention of philosophy might deter American audiences. But whenever there's a conflict between the facts and their faith, you can rely on religious zealots to favour the latter.)

I had heard of similar controversies over J.K. Rowling's wonderful books elsewhere in America, so the story didn't come as a complete surprise. I was surprised to see something like this happening in California, which I'd always believed to be one of the most liberal States of the Union. But anyway, I shook my head sadly, and thought: those crazy Americans. Thank goodness nothing that ridiculous could ever happen here in Britain.

This complacent delusion on my part lasted for a matter of hours. That very evening, the front page lead story in my local paper read 'HEAD OF WORST SCHOOL QUITS'. The story told how Jo Jones, head of Bradford Cathedral Community College, had resigned from her post after her school had recorded the fourth worst academic results in the whole of Britain. It also explained that Ms Jones had caused some controversy among other staff members at the Church of England school. by banning the 'Harry Potter' books, on the grounds that they might lead children into the occult.

Now, let's see. The 'Potter' film has, deservedly in my view, topped the box-office lists on both sides of the Atlantic. The books, likewise, have sold by the truckload, along with no end of 'Potter' merchandise. During this time, have you noticed any sudden outbreak of pentagrams being drawn in school playgrounds? Any sudden tendency among the youth of the Western world to abandon more traditional childhood pursuits in favour of jolly games of 'Sacrifice the Goat', or something similar? Have the works of Aleister Crowley suddenly begun selling almost as well as those of J.K. Rowling, with a sudden upsurge of interest among young readers?

I rather think not.

I do, however, believe that there is evidence to suggest that Ms Rowling's wonderful creation has influenced very many children to take up an ancient art that has been rather neglected in modern times: that of reading books. No mean feat in these days of diminished attention spans.

I also think that the 'Harry Potter' film is actually a very moral tale. It's a story in which courage and integrity triumph over a force that desires power for its own sake. Harry resists temptations: he has the chance to join a bullying, exclusive elite group (Draco Malfoy's gang) and to join Voldemort in his amoral quest for power. He resists both. He uses his own power responsibly. In moving from the Dursleys' house to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, he discovers that adult authority can be either oppressive or supportive and nurturing. There are strong female characters at Hogwarts, notably Hermione Granger, who becomes one of Harry's best friends after demonstrating that she's better at some magic skills than he is; so gender equality is pretty much a given in the stories.

All in all, I wouldn't say that was a bad worldview to present to children - although I can certainly see why some people on the religious right might be less enthusiastic.

Surely, though, the main thing is that almost anything that gets children reading should be praised. I don't mean to suggest that a quick application of 'Potter' magic can solve any juvenile literacy problems. But as Bradford Councillor Ralph Berry commented following Ms Jones' resignation:
'Here you have a school with a lot of children below the national average in English. It seems silly not to use the most popular text that anyone has come across in recent decades.'

I couldn't agree more. Any youngster who manages to get through their childhood and face no more malign influence than the tales of life at Hogwarts will be very, very lucky. The books shouldn't concern us. What is surely much more worrying - especially in view of the UK government's enthusiasm for 'faith schools' - is that people with the narrow-minded outlook of Mr Matthews and Ms Jones can get into a position where they're able to influence young minds.

Every now and again, I like to take a look at Britain's most rabidly right-wing tabloid newspaper, the 'Daily Mail'. I'm drawn to it by morbid curiosity and a belief that it's always a good idea to know your enemy.

It was on peak form on Monday, rabidly railing against the creeping influence of the European Union on our sceptred isle. Its editorial column fumed:
'rules from Europe unveiled today will give unions the right to challenge firms' commercial decisions. the Information and Consultation directive is the biggest attack on British management's right to manage since the dark days of the 1970s.'

These words put me in the unusual position of wanting to believe something that I'd read in the 'Mail'. Because by 'management's right to manage', they mean the 'right' of commercial companies to push employees to breaking point in the name of 'productivity', and to take away people's livelihoods at a whim, regardless of the social cost. The European legislation against which the 'Mail' is raging is meant to ensure that companies with 50 employees or more will be obliged to set up consultation councils, providing a voice for employees' representatives in the running of the companies on which their livelihoods depend.

Is that really such a shocking notion? It seems to work remarkably well in other nations. After all, why would employees want to damage the companies who provide them with a living?

Management and employees both have a vested interest in the success of a company. Even if one side is primarily concerned with boosting shareholders' dividends, and the other is mainly concerned with ensuring that they stay in work, those interests do usually coincide to some extent.

In fact, once upon a time, the idea of both sides of industry working together was widely accepted as the natural way of things. But then came the bad old days of the 1980s: the days of Thatcherism, Reaganomics, macho management and the trend for 'flexible' (i.e. easily disposable) workforces.

In Britain, those 1980s rules still apply to a very large extent. The last time I was in full-time employment, the only changes for the better in terms of my rights as an employee came about as a result of changes in European law. No workers' representatives could negotiate a better deal for my colleagues and I, because the company for which I laboured had long since given up recognising trade unions. But the European Union's influence meant that the company was obliged to give paid holiday even to non-contract employees like myself.

Whenever a new employee-friendly regulation like that is proposed, those on the British right bleat about how this shocking new red tape from Europe will destroy British companies' competitiveness. What they never explain is why, in that case, companies all over mainland Europe thrive despite these supposedly catastrophic regulations.

Some of the British Europhobes who oppose the single currency and further integration into Europe are undoubtedly sincere when they warn against a possible loss of national identity. But some are really most concerned with preserving the British employers' ability to dictate terms to their workforces.

Personally, I'm more than willing to swap the pound for the Euro in return for the chance to be treated decently at work.

Finally, some encouraging news for those of us who are a little past the first flush of youth, but who nevertheless remember how to party. According to new research, people who drink alcohol regularly are less likely to become senile in later life than are teetotallers.

Of course, you're not going to do much for your brain power if you overdo it every day. But a four-year study has concluded that moderate wine consumption can cut the risk of senility by 40 per cent - and plenty of research certainly went into that conclusion. More than 16,000 people aged over 65 were studied for the effects of alcohol on the brain.

Explaining the study's conclusions, Dr Guiseppe Zuccala of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome suggested that alcohol could prevent blockages forming in arteries in the brain, thus protecting the imbiber from a possible cause of dementia.
He said:
'It's difficult to start making old people drink if they don't already, but it's important to know moderate alcohol consumption should not be discouraged.'

I'll definitely bear that in mind over the coming festive season. Here's to peace on earth and goodwill to all life-forms.

Ormondroyd

20.12.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page