Freepolitik

Tobias Jones and 'Militant Fundamentalism'

2007-01-06T19:45:00.000Z

Believe it or not, Tobias Jones is not the name of an ancient Welsh hero (thought it easily could be, rousing up the choir to go and fight the English….), but a writer on Guardian Unlimited who today had an article published upon the subject of ‘Militant Fundamentalists.' The article, along with the 300+ comments it has received, can be viewed here.

Apparently ‘secular fundamentalists’ wish for the ‘total eradication of religion’, and they do this by instilling upon the unsuspecting public a belief that open expression of faith is offensive to other religions. But this wasn’t so successful, so instead the violent reactions to the Danish Cartoons (which have been dealt with here previously) and the Jerry Springer Opera ‘were wheeled out as examples of why religious groups are unable to live with our cherished freedom and tolerance’.

Subsequently, atheists develop a superiority complex over believers and preach that 9/11 and subsequent conflicts are due to religion. However, Jesus, Tobias claims, invented secularism. I’d agree with the author on this, if he can please openly advocate the disestablishment of the Church of England and the end to all state-funded faith schools.

Lets have a look at this. First of all, Tobias is using the words ‘secularism’ and ‘atheism’ as interchangeable. They are clearly not- the former denotes a political belief in the separation of Church and State, the latter a non-belief in God or a religious deity. It is possible to be religious and believe in the separation of Church and State, and for religion to be more private than public- just ask the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, leader of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Though the National Secular Society, or certainly its members, can be guilty of using the two words interchangeably as well.

Tobias also speaks of ‘our cherished freedom and tolerance’. Your damn sure it’s cherished Jones, and one process by which Britain and the West has reached this point, where these values are held so highly by governments and citizens, is by throwing off the shackles which organised religion held down for so long. The cartoons will be published, the plays performed and not because we want you to be offended- though if you are, live with it- but because we have the right to do so.

However, my largest picked bone with Tobias is his comments on postmodernism. ‘It tries to rescue the marginalised’ ‘The tyranny of orthodoxy has been replaced by the tyranny of relativism’. Well of course he isn’t a fan of postmodernism, Tobias is religious. What’s the alternative? To state, in a globalised and fragmented world, where I can eat fruit from South America, drive a car made in the U.S.A, read news stories about Africa and have my blog read from China all in one day, that there exists an absolute truth, a universalising concept which can override all opposition? The age of reason had to be going somewhere. It tries to rescue the marginalised? Good, I’m pretty sure that’s what the world needs- how about the Vatican giving some of its money to AIDS research rather than promoting abstinence as a cure and condoms as evil?

‘They will dictate what you can wear and what you can say. That, after all, is what totalitarians do’. Quite frankly, that phrase is simply wrong and hypocritical. Is self-censorship in the face of religious anger not preventing what you can say? Is stating that women must dress’ modestly’ not telling you what you can wear?

I’ll be raising my glass to Theo Van Gogh tonight.

News of the World and Justice

2006-12-13T17:03:00.000Z

Is it not hypocritical to proclaim a reward to find a murderer while actively encouraging mob rule against paedophiles?

In the ongoing police investigation into the murders in Ipswich, they have had considerable help from the public offering information in the hope of catching the perpetrator/s. However, the News of the World has decided to offer a Â£250,000 reward for any information leading to the capture and conviction of the 'Suffolk strangler'.

On the face of it, this does indeed seem a worthy act; the News of the World offers this money under its normal conditions, in the hope of ending the current spate of murders. However, this should be looked at more closely, for one thing, being able to splash such a large amount of money across your front page along with the pictures of those who have been killed is sure to sell more papers.

In addition, the reward in this case may seem a little odd. It is likely, thoughadmittedlyy not impossible, that their is only one individual carrying out these crimes. Therefore there will probably be few people who can 'betray' him- and for who the money would be an incentive against any loyalty. This individual does not appear to be a boss of organised crime, somewhat with many associates for whom rewards are more often offered. Surely if any members of the public had seen anything take place, they would have called the police already. Aside from laziness, what incentive would they have not to? Its difficult to see how, in this case, the offer of a reward is going to be much help.

Finally, I would challenge the extent to which the News of the World, and their sister paper, the Sun, are treating the victims of these crimes with respect. In the article linked to, the paper is happy to refer to those killed as 'hookers', while the Sun earlier in the week found it necessary to state the victims hair colour before their name. The following is controversial thesis: if those murdered had all been illegal immigrants, disappearing and being murdered after years of drug addiction and the sex industry, would the Sun and the News of the World be reporting them to the same extent? The murders of the victims are indeed horrific, and its good to see that the press is as concerned as the police. But its always wise to be wary of the tabloids.

How strong is the commitment of the News of the World to the law? Last week, they published the whereabouts of Robert Oliver, a paedophileconvictedd of part of a joint-murder in the 1980's.Unsurprisinglyy, an angry mob surrounded his house, demanding that he leave. The police came into Bishop's Lydeard and did just that, but also pointed out that if this continued to be the reaction, Oliver along with other padeophile's could be driven underground. The paper knew this would be the reaction, and it is all part of its ongoing 'Sarah's Law' campaign to give parents and carers the right to know if a registered sex offender is living in their area. The News of the World, on its website, hopes to state that the police would punish those who took the law into their own hands; but something tells me the paper would make them heros.

When individuals get hold of this information, what exactly are they going to do with it? The above, if not more violently, would be replicated across the country; mob rule inspired by tabloidirresponsibilityy. These continued actions would drive paedeohpile's off the radar of the police, where at least they can be watched and tabs kept on them. They are often dangerous and the police have to know where they are, but if the public do their reaction will be similar to a planning application to build a nuclear power station- Not In My Back Yard. Rather than registered sex offenders reporting to the police and being kept an eye on, they will be gone, their whereabouts as unknown as their frame of mind.

Blair, Multiculturalism and Faith Schools

2006-12-08T20:08:00.000Z

The need to integrate while preserving cultural diversity is considerable, but can the PM expect this to happen while faith schools are still supported by the state?

The prime ministers words on multiculturalism today seem to make a remarkable amount of sense. It seems odd that only recently has the term exposed itself to widespread use in the media, yet this has taken place under a government which seems to have a remarkably vague policy on the whole thing. To have a look at some of the finer points: (full speech here)

Blair is right to point out the raft of anti-discrimination laws now in place as an example of how Britain has changed. These rules need to stay in place to ensure that eventually, they are not needed- whether this is possible in Britain, or indeed in any country, is hard to say.

'We like our diversity'- Largely, but some sections of both the white community and of ethnic minority communities do not wish to mix or integrate, and seem to find fear in those that are different. The perception that the 'other' holds these views only increases these feelings of isolationism, deliberate or otherwise.

Blair also stated that 'Those whites who support the BNP's policy of separate races and those Muslims who shun integration into British society both contradict the fundamental values that define Britain today'. This is indeed a brave move; comparing Muslims who do not wish to integrate with the BNP is challenging those at the extreme ends of the argument, and grouping them together as extremists- not one as the victim and the other as the perpetrator (for both wish to portray themselves as the former).

'Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid'. Blair makes a good point here, and this almost seems to be a nod to Jack Straw that speaking about Muslim veils and Christmas decorations is not something which should be muffled by either The Independent feeling that he is attacking minorities, or by the Muslim Council of Britain. Talking of which, they seemed to point out that Blair should spend money on the UK rather than on the Iraq war. Who would have thought they'd have responded by bringing in the war!

Setting the use of English as a condition for citizenship- This is indeed a very bold move, and no doubt there will be much opposition to this.

Now, onto faith schools. Blair states that faith schools need to link with each other in order to strengthen ties with those of other religions, and that they should teach respect for other faiths. He then goes on to talk about a voluntary agreement that faith schools should teach about other religions.
Why does the PM not realise that his support of faith schools is totally incompatible with almost all his other statements in this speech? Its good that he intends to put more pressure on Madrassahs, but how can schools whose aim is to teach children one religion, to defy science in some cases and to select students on the basis of their parents faith. If the PM wants a society which is not divided along religious lines, then perhaps its best not to bring up children in that very environment.

Alexander Litvinenko and Pierre Gemayel.

2006-11-23T23:22:00.000Z

Targeting individuals in foreign nations is unacceptable.

Just got the BBC news alert of Alexander Litvinenko

The funeral of Pierre Gemayel took place today.

Perhaps it seems a little heartless to focus on the deaths of two individuals on a day when Baghdad has undergone its bloodiest day since the war. Yet I can't help but see some similarities in the deaths of two men who lived much of their lives under threat of assassination.

In each case, there has been no claim of responsibility.

In each case, the prime suspect is a country (Russia and Syria)

In each case, the individual was attempting to challenge a tyrannical force (Putin's government and Basser Assad's regime).

In each case, the killing has been met with widespread international condemnation.

There is, of course no direct evidence to link the deaths of Litvinenko and Gemayel with the governments of Russia or Syria. Assumptions often are, as they say, the mother of all fuckups, and should therefore be avoided. But does anyone really think the Putin and Assad would not be capable, both in willingness and capacity to do so, of sanctioning the deaths of these two men?

During the Cold War, the West targeted individuals in foreign countries numerous times- be it rebel leaders in Africa or Castro's exploding cigar. Those days appeared to be over, yet there is little willingness to stand up to those countries which may-or may not- continue to undertake such actions. This is especially true in the case for Russia; a decent reason (as if there wasn't a good enough one already) for investing in renewable energy if I ever heard one.

Found this video on Youtube. Contrasts with the picture of him in the hospital bed just a little. Poisoning with suspected Russian involvement. Remember Yushchenko?

I hope this can be viewed in Russia.

Reflections

2006-11-15T22:40:00.000Z

Looking back, as I do on occasion, to the past 58 posts, I reflect on how politics can dominate ones life.

No doubt this is true for many- by reading this blog, by watching the news and discussing what you see with friends of family, by engaging in actions as diverse as buying a fair trade kiwi fruit or voting, we are all taking part in civic society. Interdependence and up-to-date news has created a small but committed band of news junkies, committed to savoring one of the greeted sources of power through human history- knowledge. I count myself as one of these individuals.

Let me elaborate. This blog, is for all intents and purposes, anonymous as I can make it (some reading this will know who I am). The reason for this entire blog is as much to clarify my own views as to encourage debate and put across my equally invalid view of the world, its past, and its future. Instantaneus reaction to world events are common in my experience, and if I reflect a little but still let those initial feelings dominate, perhaps I might be able to realise exactly what viewpoint am I coming from. Thought why that is advantageous to know is a question I'm unable to give a clear answer to.

Studying what I do and have seemingly experienced these past years, I've seen (through the media) many events which have shaped the lives of many individuals I have ever met. In a way, it is possible now to sit at a computer or in front of a TV and seeing the real effects of the policy which, as citizens, we allow to continue. Those effects can of course, be positive or negative. It seems that power is quite literally at the fingertips, be they pressing a remote control or tapping on a keyboard.

News alerts crop up on the laptop top screen, beep across my phone, on the TV screen and then more detailed viewpoints are given in the newspapers the day after. Bombardment, voluntarily.

Anyone noticed how many adverts now start with the lines "In today's fast paced world..."

The editors of the news channels make decisions as to what matters. Does that mean that we have to as well?

The things that matter- these are in no order, and just from the top of my head- a bit James Joyce-esque....

My family
My friends
Reversing global warming and convincing others of its seriousness
Whether or not postmodernism is a legitimate tool, and if so, whether there is consequentially any point in the search for 'truth'
God, in whatever form
Health
Debate
Preversing political neutrality in the places where it belongs
Challenging your own beliefs, and the beliefs of others
Opposing dictatorship and encouraging democracy
Being honest
Politics
Understanding history
Advancing our understanding of the world

The above vague, overarching and egotistic statements cannot be put in some kind of fanciful order. Different things matter to different people. Is it legitimate to tell an individual that they should not care about a film premiere but about the ice on Greenland melting? Once again, this is not a question I can answer.

What seems to be matter, however, is being there for people. When your friends, when your family, when a stranger has need of company in whatever form then it is important to be there for them. Politics, global warming and the future of the world matters, to such a great extent and I cannot emphasis this more strongly- encourage others to care about them. But personally, and I say this to my family, my friends, my fellow students, fellow bloggers, web browsers, people of all religions, tribes and nations- remember to be there for those who ask for your help. It is, indeed, a humbling experience. Glaciers are melting, the world is on the edge of a catastrophe almost everyday- but do not forget those around you.

It is my birthday tomorrow you see- one can get a little reflective ;-).

A look into the future of US Politics

2006-11-12T15:59:00.000Z

This generation is going to dominate the American government in 20 years

Recall my previous post about extremists in the UK? Perhaps its the folks on the other side of the pond we should be worried about.

Scary. There isn't really another word for it. These kids- and many others, and many teenagers- are being indoctrinated into what can only be described as a holy war. Preached at by zealous individuals, touching symbols of their political leaders with a religious fever which is thankfully rarely seen in the UK (though appears to be growing more popular). One mindset, one way of life, one God. No other ideas are acceptable.

The above paragraph describes both the trailer, and the attempts by Islamic extremists to recruit young men to blow themselves up.

The problem is not Christianity. The problem is not Islam. The problem is the fusion of fundamentalist religion and politics.

The Growth of UK Extremism

2006-11-11T20:04:00.000Z

In recent days, the UK has been reminded once again of the more extreme fringes of its varied political spectrum.

There are videos on Youtube to BNP political broadcasts ('BNP TV- News you can trust'). They are set across a backdrop of ambulances, the image of the destroyed bus in Tavistock Square on 7/7. Nick Griffin wore a poppy when on TV yesterday. His 2005 political broadcast featured him standing next to a model of a Spitfire. It is fascinating how fascists feel that they can parade themselves next to an iconic image of a war, in which people with similar views to their own were the ones we fought against. Had Griffin been alive then, he would have been in prison just like Oswald Mosley.

There are videos on Youtube to footage of US soldiers being shot in the head by snipers. They are set across a backdrop of Islamic songs and crude graphics, and images of Bush and Blair. The sniper adds his kill to a list of dozens. In the last couple of years this films have been widely available online, and with English narratives. It is fascinating how a religion whose name means 'peace' can be abused in this manner. Many would argue that this is not Islam.

The steady but sure growth of extremism worldwide is obvious, but the increase here is immediate, frightening and seemingly more real. Mohammad Sidique Khan's word 'Now you too will taste the reality of this situation' resonate just as much as 'lets show the ethnics the door in 2004'.

Each are products of globalisation, the BNP being a reaction to multiculturalism and immigration, whilst Islamic extremism a reaction to a pluralistic society and secular values. There will always be those who oppose a change and what they percieve to be a threat to their religion or nation, and with an interdependent world this is inevitable. Their should be discussion and debate. But neither of the above groups wish for that.

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller is right to warn of the sheer number of terrorist plots currently underway in this country. To think otherwise is to be naive: public reaction to the Iraq war and anti-terror tactics has been so widespread in certain communities that to think that those who committed 7/7 were unusual is simply absurd. It only takes a few people to slip through the net, and before anyone suggests a conspiracy theory on the part of the government, feel free but I'd rather you didn't. 7/7 happened, and the UK is still under threat- accept it.

In addition, Gordon Brown (who I must say I am slowly warming to...oddly) was right to speak out over the verdict in Nick Griffin's trial. I noticed another statistic this week, from France, which showed that twice the number of voters now support LePen for the 2007 Presidential election as they did this time before the last one- up from 9% to 17% I believe. Neo-Nazis marched through Berlin this week. The BNP must not be ignored. Ridiculed, argued against, put down, discouraged, shown for what they are, but not ignored.

Perhaps the most ironic analysis of these two groups is that they are a reaction against each other. When 7/7 happened, the BNP were quickly able to produce a leaflet saying 'we told you so'. Everytime the BNP campaign or win an election, it makes British Muslims feel threatened and frightened for their way of life.

I stood for 2 minutes in silence today, as did millions. I did it to remember those who died so that Griffin and Khan could have a voice and speak out. They did not die for those who believe in only one way of life could triumph in this country through fear, misdirection and violence.

48 Hours in America

2006-11-09T15:50:00.000Z

Monitoring an election is a tiring job, but its little compared to running a nation with an opposition Congress

A night indeed to be recalled.

There were two battles I was focusing on that night. One was between Democrats and Republicans, a clash of titanic proportions in the most powerful country on earth, deciding the future of President Bush's term, and subsequently of a major section of world affairs. Its location streched over several time zones, from ocean to ocean, in polling booths from Atlanta to Seattle, Honolulu to Jamestown. The other battle took place on this side of the Atlantic, in a small kitchen/lounge area in an untold city, within which were two laptops and a TV changing between News24 and Sky. It was between your coffee-drinking blogger, and the need to sleep.

I stayed alert until around 4:30am (longer than my associate Dr. Picaros), when I admitted defeat in my ongoing battle against tiredness when I heard George Allen not conceding. Even the most ardent followers of politics find it difficult not to lie down eventually.

AP is calling Virginia for the Democrats- I'm glad we won't have to wait until the 27th to actually start the recount. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that Allen will demand a recount. Looks like even the right can be sensible on occasion.

I can't imagine what Bush is going to do now. No doubt 'bipartisanism' will be the buzz word for a while longer (though you wonder what other choice they have). If the Democrats had managed this in 2004, think of the damage which could have been done to the President's agenda. Two Supreme Court justices, some limited privatisation of social security and various trade agreements may well have been off the cards, not to mention various investigations.

Now personally, I am pleased about the results. Initially. Then of course (as previously mentioned), I realise that the Democrats may well do some things which I feel are unwise. 'A new course in Iraq' is an admirable and effect mantra, but I doubt very much they have any idea what they plan to do. Withdrawal is a betrayal and staying will probably be electoral suicide in two years.

I'm a little tired of all this international stuff. I may well turn my attention to domestic policy for a bit.

US Mid-Terms: Live Blog

2006-11-08T00:35:00.000Z

04:25

Democrats seem to have taken six gubernationals. Tennessee, Missouri, Montana and Virginia seem to be the key Senate seats, and it seems none have declared yet.

Lots of candidates talking about bipartisanship. First results of of Proposal 87 in California seems a vote against 25/75.

Flatmate and fellow blogger is now probably asleep on the sofa. Didn't want any coffee.

03:20

Switched to BBC from Sky News. More interviews seemingly. Democrats have taken four gubernatorials.

Democrats not too far away from the Senate in a way. Took Rhode Island. Missouri Senate looks like it will stay Republican, and they may not support stem cell research either. TN Senate is not totally predetermined, seems pretty much the same on 52/47 for now, 54% turned out.

IL6th, Tammy Duckworth seems to be lossing.

Had some toast, cheese and yoghurt.

02:20

TN seems almost certainly out of Ford's reach. Missouri is an important one to watch right now, with Claire Macskill ahead according to Fox, but CNN with Talent in front.

Rhode Island- 51%/49% to Whitehouse (D) to Chafee (R), first results.

Mendenez seems to be winning in New Jersey- but many of the networks seemed to declare him but with a smaller amount of votes than Kean Jr! Pretty odd.

I am hoping that South Dakota may not pass the ban on abortion (or greater ban on it)- CNN on 44/56. Missouri is on 52/48 in support of stem cell research.

Indinia 9th very close still, 49/47

The coffee helped, but only for a bit

01:00

Not a lot more yet, thought it looks like TN Senate isn't going the Democrats way. News reporters complaining that Britney Spears marriage is dominating.

Fox stating that George Allen is winning in Virginia. Katherine Harris almost certainly lost (55/43) the Florida Senate. Will need coffee soon. Liberman may well get back in. BBC not being that useful yet.

00:30
Sanders won in Vermont!

The first ever modern self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist has won! Not sure of the actual results yet, but still, amazing.
Virginia although, has banned gay marriage. Not a particuarly good idea, better than a federal ban though.
Democrats have got one House seat, and it looks like Katherine Harris is going to get whooped.... more soon

Spare Saddam the Rope

2006-11-07T20:32:00.000Z

Even the crimes of brutal dictators are not enough to allow state-sanctioned murder

So, on the even of the mid-terms (was this Karl Rove's 'October surprise?'), Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death by hanging. The man is responsible for thousands of deaths of both his own citizens, and those of Iran and Kuwait. He was a tyrant, who would use whatever means necessary to keep himself in power. There have been many bogeymen who's names still resonate throughout history- Stalin, Hitler, Polt Pot, Mussolini, Mao, these names we see so often grouped together in history textbooks as those we must oppose, those we must challenge.

China recently tightened its laws on the death penalty, to the welcome of many in the international community. However, I also saw a report some time ago on the organ trade in the country, and one of the images stuck in my mind. It was of a young man, being led by guards in a public execution. There was a rope already around his neck, which would tighten should he attempt to escape. Many in the West would feel sympathy for this man, but fewer for Saddam. Their crimes are undoubtedly massively different. But that is not why the death penalty is wrong.

The mere thought of what is in effect state-sanctioned murder scares me. The thought that the Leviathan (lets see it in this respect while making this point if no other) can pick an individual which has disobeyed its rules and decide that they subsequently have to die, is absolutely terrifying. Whatever the crime of an individual, do they really deserve to be killed as a punishment? Their are two points, for one (in the case of Saddam), does it not bring the new Iraqi government to the level of the previous one, and secondly, is it a terribly good precedent to set, at the birth of an apparent democracy we see being killed a previous leader.

In addition, there is a practical aspect. Some news reports have stated how Saddam has been brought to justice for his crimes. He has not, for he has only been tried for one incident early on in his regime, not for any other occasions. Surely if justice is to be had, he should be tried for all he has done?

David Cox was wrong to give the ex-leader a tribute in the Guardian, as is evident by the points of those on CiF. Saddam is not someone who deserves sympathy. But he is still an individual, a human being. He disrespected the lives of others with such impunity and brutality that the hatred of many in Iraq against him must be immense. But the death penalty simply carries on his legacy, and makes a regional martyr out of a defeated tyrant.

Elephants and Donkeys

2006-11-01T14:11:00.000Z

435 house races, 33 Senate races, 36 Gubernationals, a nation of 300 million people and 50 states... and one troubled President.

The above is the situation which the USA currently finds itself in. With embarrassing amounts of money being thrown into everything from lawn signs to attack ad's, the 2006 mid-terms are shaping up to be the most expensive in history, not to mention the most cynical. Candidates websites team with criticisms of their opponent from (relatively) legitimate points such as voting records all the way down to attending a party with a minor connect to Playboy. Policy is more absent than in Cameron's soundbites, liberal is still a dirty word (except maybe in Vermont) and whatever you do, try your best to ensure that if your a Republican, Air Force One doesn't pay a visit to your area (or that John McCain does).

Obviously, the Democrats are optimistic and the Republicans downright worried. Both sides are using all the tactics in the book to get their supporters to turn out, from stating that if you vote for Democrats then American security is as good as gone, while (if your a Democrat) criticizing a war which, chances are, you backed.

Its difficult, personally, to know what my preferred outcome is. On the one hand, the Republicans (to use the term broadly and with exceptions) policies and views on abortion, gay marriage, church and state, tax, immigration and welfare are simply scary. However, whichever way you look at it, I am not an American citizen and therefore am not really affected by all the above which are essentially domestic policy issues. However, as troops from the UK are in Iraq (like US troops) and world affairs does have a rebound on all nations, I am/will be affected by foreign policy.

Put simply, if the Democrats actually pressure the Bush administration into withdrawing from Iraq, then I'm pretty lost as who to back. I despise Republicans, but leaving Iraq in its current state will clearly create regional civil war, and sensible Democrats know this.

Largely then, the outcome I'm wishing for is just what the polls (see right) show. A Democrat House, and a split Senate (which would mean that occasionally the Republicans would loose, as party discipline in the US is relatively weak). This way, the Democrats would struggle to force the administration into withdrawal, but with the amount of Committee chairmanships and by sheer numbers in the House, could certainly prevent the Republicans from passing such abhorrent right-wing legislation.

I intend to be up all nights with mid-terms, occasionally blogging as I go. I will particuarly focus on the Illinois 6th, Florida 13th, Indiana 9th, Louisiana 3rd and the Minnesota 6th, as they seem interesting House races, as well as the Texas gubernational (purely for the wacky candidates), Proposal 87 in California- while all the time, crossing my fingers that the racist wanker that is George Allen (R-VA) will loose to James H.Webb in a closely fought race.

This is going to be fun.

The Terrorist Threat and Political Adverts

2006-10-21T18:02:00.000+01:00

We are under threat from a hidden, home-grown and increasingly influential enemy. But this fact shouldn't be used to win elections.

Since 9/11, their have been a swath of terrorist attacks across the world. The locations of such incidents still provoke images from the live news casts- Bali, Beslan, Madrid, 7/7, Istanbul, Casablanca and many more. Those who believe that negotiation is possible, that isolationism favorable, and that Bush and Blair are literally the devil(s) on earth, are living in a fantasy world. This threat must be taken seriously, and on occasion will have to be met with force.

I believe the above paragraph. However, I do not believe that voting for a party which, essentially speaking, has really messed-up some of the responses to 9/11, proven itself riven with various scandals and corruption and is led by narrow-minded fools, is going to make you safer. However, some of my fellow citizens of the world across the pond in the U.S.A may well believe that, thanks to the Republicans most recent attack ad.

You can watch the ad here, just click on 'Play'. You will see images of terrorist leaders with direct quotes, plotting to kill Americans. The Republican PR machine emphasizes this, by leaving certain words from the quotes afterwards, like:
'kill Americans'
'inside America'
'suitcase bombs'
'what is yet to come will be even greater'

Because obviously, people will only remember those lines and are too stupid to think otherwise (you'll notice I have stopped highlighting words and phrases in my blog apart from direct quotes).

'The RNC is responsible for the content of this advertising' is the only spoken line during the whole advert. Well, its probably the most accurate part about the whole thing.

Chavez does this, as I pointed out. So does Castro and Kim Jong Il II, so did Saddam. Its the simple tactic of blowing out of all proportion the threat posed to your nation, in order to win support for your policies. You would think that with America being at the receiving end of such a tactic in all four of the above cases, one of their main political parties would be unwilling to do so. The hypocrisy is staggering. This absurd and horrific advert should be seen for what it is: a attempt to hold onto Congress by the Republicans by making American citizens believe this fact:

'If you vote Republican, we will keep you safe from those hooded terrorists in the adverts. If you vote Democrat, you, and your friends and family, will be killed by these nasty people'.

I will be up all night watching the mid-terms on November 7th. Feel free to join in (and check out this website for good polling data).

Veils, integration and the State

2006-10-15T17:30:00.000+01:00

Freedom of expression should be respected, but this must be balanced against a secular state and the need for intergration.

Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, the relatively new Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (that most progressive of organizations) has stated that:

There can be no doubt we are already witnessing an increasingly bigoted anti-Muslim climate being fostered in Britain. Recent weeks have witnessed several arson attacks against mosques and assaults on Muslim individuals around the country. Jack Straw's comments will hardly help.

Now, in this case the gentlemen may have a point- it seems that their has been an increase in attacks on Muslims. However, is a climate of Islamophobia really being fostered in Britain?

The vast majority of UK citizens appear tolerant of all faiths, be they on your doorstep, across the street or in a different town. This is a pluralistic society, where multiple ideas are welcome. However, religions (as with basically every other possible grouping) shouldn't be surprised at ordevoidd from criticism.

The often violent backlash against the Prophet Mohammad cartoons (including in this country- 'Bin Laden is on his way anyone?') appeared to give the impression to the West that Islam should not be insulted, or indeed various aspects of it even be debated for fear of offending Muslims. When the Pope quotes a text, when the Germans want to show a play, when the Danes draw some cartoons and when a UK Cabinet minister makes a legitimate point, it is too often seen as a co-ordinated attack on Islam.

On the Veils themselves, my view on this is pretty simple. In the UK, one should have the right to wear the veil, both in the home and outside. However, if one is represtenting the state (for example, as a teaching assistant), or if one is in circumstances (such as airports, security checks and courts) where it ispracticallyy necessary, then it should be removed. It is important to remember though, that this isn't really the point being made, rather that the removal of the veil would improve community cohesion and lessen the feeling that UK citizens are leadingseparatee lives.

I agree with thisanalysiss. The veil is indeed a dramatic symbol ofseparationn, and I personally can't help but see it as somewhatarchaicc, a throwback to ages when religion dominatedsocietiess to the extent thatsubjectionn of women as the norm- a concept which in Britain has thankfully been largely erodeded. Individuals have a right to wear them, but for the sake of community cohesion and preventing a 'salad bowl' effect becoming absolute, they should perhaps be discouraged- but not through attacks on Muslims, rather through wide-ranging and open debate.

This is an ongoing debate within an increasingly complex realm. The secular state, or at least they degree to which it does exist, should be protected, as should the rights of individuals. Its rare for me to agree with a Conservative, but David Davis has a point- ghettoisation of communities must be avoided.

Oh, and of course no post would be complete without taking a swipe at the Respect Party. They can hold all the conferences they want and Galloway can call for Jack Straw's resignation if he wishes- this doesn't stop the entireorganizationn stinking of hypocrisy andextremismm. Does it not seem a little contradictory to state that they want a debate on the veil issue 'open to all comers' and then call for the resignation of the minister who started the debate in the first place? At least their stance on freedom of speech is simple to understand- you have a right to speak, as long as you agree with us. Cute.

Neighborly relations with Russia

2006-10-07T15:44:00.000+01:00

The Kremlin still runs a powerful country, but it can't be allowed to hold back those states it used to control.

Russia is (now) one of those nations which is so difficult to place on the international stage, the ex-superpower which at certain points looked like it would one day rule the earth with its ideology, instead collapsing in the face of liberal democracies and economic impossibilities. Since 1991, Russia has undergone a limited process of democratisation, but as is increasingly obvious, this is not a trend which is continuing at a particularly fast pace. Not only is nationalism on the uprise (not only in the form of pro-Kremlin youth parties, but also attacks on foreigners), but Russia is tightening its grip on its ex-satellite states.

In January, this was in the form of threatening Ukraine with higher gas prices, which Russia said was essential for the economy but was at least partly due to Yukoshenko's wish to move closer to the West. A similar situation is now happening with Georgia.

The officers arrested have now been handed over to the OSCE, yet Putin seems determined to punish Georgia, a state with underwent a similar revolution to Ukraine (i.e. pro-democratic and pro-western, in this case the Velvet Revolution). Georgians have literally been deported out of Russia, businesses in Moscow targeted (odd how they target them now, despite, seemingly, illegal practices having taken place at them before. Not to mention the rail and postal blockade, with the latter including money sent from Georgians with Russia which counts for around 1.5% of their entire GDP. Schools, according to some reports in the Russian media, have been asked to draw up lists of pupils with Georgian surnames, and that this is linked to an immigration drive.

Putin has accused Georgia of pursuing an anti-Russian foreign policy. Is that surprising? An overbearing state on your border which has troops inside your nation, which as good as controls aspects of your governmental policy and (as has been obvious in Ukraine and Belarus), been more than willing to support leaders who commit electoral fraud. I think most nations would turn to the West in Georgia's situation.

NATO, the E.U. and the U.N. cannot and should not let Russia get away with this bullying of its neighbours. International law has yet to conclude than Georgia did anything wrong by arresting the Russian officers. Even then, Russia's barricade of restrictions on Georgia and Georgians is inexcusable. If Georgia goes through the process of blocking Russia's bid to join the WTO, the West should support it.

On another note, Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist has been found dead in Moscow, shot. She exposed human rights abuses in Checnhya, and was a well known opponent of the Putin administration.

I wouldn't put it past them, that's all.

Sunshine winning the day with David Cameron

2006-10-01T17:34:00.000+01:00

The Conservative leaders speech was unfortunately rife with old-fashioned concepts of the role of the state.

Having just watched DC's speech to his conference, here are some initial thoughts (I'm trying to find a full text transcript as I'm writing this...)

I've always been relatively impressed by David Cameron, he comes across as quite moderate, has calmed down the more right-wing parts of the Conservative party and has no wish to reverse everything that Labour has done. This speech has somewhat changed my mind.

In a thinly-veiled and stuble speech, Cameron attacked the Labour government on a variety of issues, including ID cards, its attempts on anti-social behavior, security and the like. It is indeed telling that most of his attacks were about Labour's attempts on certain policies, rather than the policies themselves. However, it was easy to pick out the old Tory-demons swirling around that podium. Its an odd combination, with tirades of classical liberalism being intertwined with 21st century speechwriting (mentions of the family, a wide variety of jokes).

By focusing certain parts of his speech against 'the nanny state' and 'big government', Cameron has simply re-classified himself as a right-wing Tory; believing in as little intervention as possible and with the responsibility of benefits being shifted to NGO's, community organasations and charities. Despite his promise not to lower taxes, this still seems to be the core of his policy- reducing the intervention and role of the state and defer it elsewhere so that taxes can be lowered. This is 19th century politics from the era of Disraeli and Gladstone, and it has no real place in the 21st century. Perhaps it is positive that he has an optimistic view of human nature, but it may perhaps be more prudent to have a realistic one.

In addition, there is an extent of hypocrisy that a friend of mine pointed out. He mentioned that musicians should realise that singing homophobic lyrics is irresponsible, and it is. But is it really wise to do that while launching a stinging attack on big, interventionist government and then praising the culture of this country, including its music?

In addition, it just wasn't particularly good. The pauses he left (after the part about the MEP's voting about something on the environment) were too obviously left for applause (or maybe the party faithful simply aren't as used as Labour members to clapping in the right places), and really, 'sunshine winning the day'? I'm not entirely sure what that means, and although it may sound young ( 'In 8 days I'm 40!'), new and optimistic, some might feel that it is too similar to the language of spin doctors that has featured recently in politics. The rest of the conference had better come up with some impressive speeches and concepts, and who knows, maybe even some policies.

Why don't I support Labour?

2006-09-28T10:15:00.000+01:00

I agree with most of their policies, but I can't help but feeling uneasy about giving my full commitment to New Labour

I'm trusting that many people saw all of, or highlights of, Blair's final speech to the Labour party conference as leader. Rather than pondering whether or not he should stay, I return to a question I have asked myself before- why is it that I don't support the Labour party?

I am not a member of any political party, and the reason for this that I cite to people is that they all have policies I disagree with them on. The Lib Dems have their constant war-bashing (which as a student they sort of use on me a lot, but I find it frustating that they see it as a distinct electoral assest), the Tories will eventually end up cutting taxes, and the other parties are simply too extreme. Perhaps if the Euston Manifesto was a party, I would join it (providing they did some more events outside London).
Then we come to Labour. Since 1997 they have done a good job on the economy (interest rates, employment, growth- indeed the only factor which seems to have got worse is how expensive houses can be, but I guess that is healthy as well), benefits (introducted more) and to a lesser extent, public services. As for foreign policy, I went back on forth on Iraq but am now generally supportive of it, I think the U.S-U.K ailliance is important, and that the promotion and encouragement of democracy around the world is something to be admired...so why is it that I don't support them?

The one policy which I am always uneasy about of New Labour's is faith schools, which as I have mentioned before I can't help but see as divisive. This however wasn't their worse political decision of the last few parliaments, that came in the form of calling a referendum of the E.U constitution, which Labour would probably have lost and may have resulted in Blair having to resign early and giving the Tories (and UKIP) a strong springboard for the 2005 election.

I think the main reason I don't support Labour is for fear of being tied to defending policies which I would rather not, and the fact that I can't help but feel that is is time for a change. What Brown needs to ensure is that he is the change, because if he is not seen as enough of one, it is likely that the voters will indeed turn to Cameron.

The Pope's Words: Reactions to offence

2006-09-15T21:46:00.000+01:00

As has been in the news for a year few days now, Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14thC Emperor who stated that after Muhammad brought the world only "evil and inhuman things". Quite what his entire point was is perhaps a little uncertain, you can read the full text here.

Personally, I am not too concerned at the moment with exactly what is was that his Holiness meant. The far more significant aspect, in my opinion, is the subsequent reaction to his remarks.
Obviously, if someone insulted your religion (which the Pope didn't claim to do, and indeed appears not to have- it seems more likely that he did simply use the quote to make a point, and he did repeatadly stress that it was not his view), you have the right to be angry. However, as with the Prophet Muhammad cartoons (perhaps a somewhat inevitable comparison), the reaction from the Muslim world is both relatively swift and strong. I wouldn't be surprised if protests turned more violent before they calmed down. If you can imagine a hypothetical: that a senior Islamic leader (obviously their is no direct comparison in the current Muslim world to the Pope) quoted something similar with regards to Christianity, would the reaction be they same? Their would no doubt be strong protests, but would they burn efficacy of that individual? Would the security forces have to guard mosques? The above two however, have happened in India and Pakistan respectively.

Strong faith is perhaps something to be admired; but to the extent that it can create such extraordinary displays of violent anger..., it understandably makes some people a little uneasy. I am not suggesting in this post that Muslims are by nature more sensitive or more likely to overeact (for example, the burning down of the Danish embassy in Damascus). The West needs to understand why the Muslim world reacts in such a way to insults, be they direct or otherwise- however, this does not mean that it should be scared of being critical if it feels the need to be.

However the Pope should make clear that he meant absolutely no offence by his remarks (unless he did of course, which I doubt but would present a whole different problem)- and the best way to do this is to continue with his planned visit to Turkey.

Sophisticated News...or not

2006-09-13T21:25:00.000+01:00

Most major news websites will list their 'most popular' stories- in other words, those which the largest amounts of people click on. This allows a fascinating insight into the interests of the growing number of individuals from across the world who get their updated news from the internet (where one has the ability to be more selective) rather than other forms of media.

To look at the demographics of the internet, certainly regarding news websites, one could make some assumptions. Users are likely to be relativley young (younger generations being more technology-savy, in general but not as a rule), relatively well-off (having access to the internet) and relatively intelligent and interested in important national and international issues. For the purpose of this post, I shall be taking three of the most popular news websities as examples, BBC News, Guardian Unlimited, and CNN International.

With regards to the above, I have always therefore found it slighty amusing that the most popular stories on all three websites are those associated with sex, murders and celebrities! Despite the people that these news websites are often aimed at, its always these stories which appear up the top. I'm not saying theres anything wrong with it, and I'm certainly not going to take an elitist viewpoint. Personally, I think its just funny:

13th September: 9:30pm or so

In the top 5 (or 10) of each, include the following-
BBC News
'Colombian Gangsters face sex ban' (No.1)

Guardian Unlimited
'Wank week to climax with girls guide' (No.1)

CNN International
'Skinny models banned from catwalk' (No.2)
'Coroner's office: Death of Ann Nicole Smith's son 'suspicous'' (No.3)
'Man kills, dismembers dance girls' (No.4)

So tell the truth, how many of you clicked on one of the links? Nothing to be ashamed of, as it seems that so many other people do as well!
I will admit that this is only one time (and only 3 news sources) but try it for yourself, its interesting. Enjoy the stories, I'm off to buy a tabloid!

David Shayler and conspiracy Theories

2006-09-10T10:28:00.000+01:00

I've just been watching the Heaven and Earth show, one of the BBC's relatively wide range of religious programmes. Featured on the programme was David Shayler, ex-MI5 officer who was prosecuted by the British government in the year 2000, after returning volutarily from France.

Mr Shayler was towing the line, which I think has become scarily popular, that 9/11 was either organized by or took place with the help of (through non-intervention) the Bush administration. He went on to state that he could show one of the other panelists videos and the like to convince him, and that as a Christian it was his duty.

The 9/11 truth movement, which Mr.Shayler is part of, is a group of quite frankly, anarchists, anti-war activists, anti-globalization activists, in addition to some academics. Obviously the current political situation is a little bit too boring for them, so its far more convenient to conjure up an imaginary plot, akin to those from Hollywood movies. You can understand Shayler joining it; after being prosecuted and found guilty under the Official Secrets Act, he must be keen to continue his self-image as an anti-government individual with insider knowledge.

Why do so many people continue to believe that 9/11 was the not a real event which took place, but a conspiracy? One reason is the way the towers collapsed, for the movement claims that plane impacts could not have brought the buildings down in such a way (i.e. straight down). Personally I think that few engineer's have ever thought the consequences of a fully-laden jet plane carrying large amounts of kerosene crashing into the middle of a skyscraper, and that a couple of theologians and bored individuals on the internet can't make such assumptions.

In addition, the movement has international support. From those well-known lovers of everything the US does, the government of Venezuela. and Iran. Serious legitimacy there folks.

Well, I'm sure reams of paper have been typed on this issue, so I won't continue on for now. 4 years and 364 days ago, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place. Some believe that the attacks weren't all they seem, that in fact they were not attacks, but an inside job to convince the US population to go to war. The media love a conspiracy, they love corruption, and it therefore seems odd that the movement has not broken into mainstream media to a great extent. However, there is a reason for that- not that the media (all under the sweep of Murdoch) are being censored by the CIA (as some in the movement, and the Stop the War Coalition, would no doubt believe), but that such a belief has so little hard evidence that no media outlet could publish it with any real conviction. It is right to challenge, and to oppose, but there is little need to go this far.

The Domination of our News Agenda: 9/11

2006-09-04T22:39:00.000+01:00

Now that I'm done (for now) with my last lot of Galloway-bashing, I'll open up a more subtle observance which I have noticed over time. As many programs on BBC2 and Channel4 tell us, it has indeed been nearly five years since 9/11, a day which most of us can still undoubtedly recall. The continuous images on our TV set of the two towers, both blazing. I recall Peter Sissions stating at the end of one of the news reports that day (or the day after): 'How it will end, nobody knows. But no-one will forget how it began'. What followed was a montage of clips, set with the mournful music so often used by news channels in the following days.

Five years on, and as many articles, blogs, comments and books will tell us, the world is a different place, for better or worse. However there is one particular aspect that shows this, rather than attempts to explain it. Before 9/11, although I payed a fair amount of attention to the news, it in no way comes close to the fixation I now have with it. What I can't help but notice is how many news stories, from UK and international, from one continent to the other, from a speech in the US to a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, how so much of our news agenda can be traced back to that day. Unlike no other time in history have the specific events in one day dominated the entire spectrum of politics, and in terms of impact on the world, is perhaps only equaled by the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the attack on Pearl harbor.

I would point to today as an example, using the BBC website. The top stories are the shootings in Jordan, Blair's words over military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kofi Annan intending to mediate between Israel and Lebanon, a tribute to the airmen killed in a plane crash in Afghanistan. The Guardian covers the same stories, also leading with arrests against alleged terrorist suspects in this country, and Gerry Adams meeting Hamas leaders. CNN International, NewsNow...the list could go on I suspect. The lives of millions were affected by those events, and policy, especially on an international (but also, importantly, on a domestic stage) is wildly influenced by its many consequent repercussions. This if the focus of the world politic and the story of our time, and it shows no signs of disappearing anytime soon.

On a lighter note, I've added the library thing to the page. This is more complex than it may appear, and now my damn archives have disappeared. I do wish editing the page was simpler.

Galloway- can he be stopped?

2006-09-02T02:23:00.000+01:00

Oh but no please no not again! Galloway has had two articles in the Guardian in the past couple of days (which is most certainly overdoing it). He doesn't belong there, such a man belongs at the Independent, along with the the one issue-front page (such as Israeli tank and big letters 'WAR' and Palestinians, and big letters 'PEACE') and the other 'oh whats the difference between Bush and Hitler' commentators.

Today's article sees... I'm sorry, I can barely bear to read it makes me so angry. The passion with which I despise this man, and his hypocrisy seems to be only equaled by my passion against terrorism in all its forms.

Anyway, there it is (the article is actually called 'Three cheers for Chavez'), bringing into question the Cedar revolution (something I was very pleased happened, he was obviously annoyed to see the Syrians leave), criticizing pro-democracy initiatives (such an evil concept that, uber-socialism should come first of course)...I could go on.

The Respect Party needs to be stopped. It is dangerous, hypocritical and quite frankly, scary. Our support for democracy should be and must be total, our opposition against tyranny and extremism complete. Galloway needs to become a political irrelevancy. Its just finding out how to make that happen.

Galloway and his New World

2006-08-31T23:21:00.000+01:00

I could just put all the following on Comment is Free, but why bother? It will only get lost in the inevitable fights between those who express their views, in the usual mess of lies, inaccurate facts and downright insults. So I'll put it here instead.

As with the last article, lets have a look at the words of the individual we're talking about- rather than making generalisations. I refer to, of course, today's piece in the Guardian (which I still contend is less left wing than the Independent- but only just). So, lets dive into the rhetoric, assumptions and down right hypocrisy that is the leader of the Respect party.

'If the fierce thicket of the Iraqi resistance stopped the Bush war spreading to Syria...' I'm sorry? Does anyone reputable really believe that the Bush administration wanted to invade Syria after the war in Iraq? Didn't think so- I guess Georgey-boy must have access to the Neo-Con plans for the world.

'the Israelis were given a severe pounding by Hezbollah fighters when it came to boots on the ground'
George tries his best, but this line (along with others in the article) can't help but give the impression that he is actively happy about Hezbollah 'winning'. Anyone else happy about a group which advocates the destruction of a democracy?

Galloway goes on to suggest that there should be an Israeli withdrawal from all post-1967 land, a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, no 'Zionist settlements' and so on... in return for which Israel will get acceptance from its neighbor's. How does this not seem like caving into violence? Galloway has a rose-tinted view of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah indeed if he thinks they will ever stop fighting Israel while it stills exists.

'It (the Arab world) has seen the Iraqis confound Anglo-American efforts to recolonise their country'. The Guardian pointed out in the same issue that yesterday, 80 Iraqis died due to violence. What is this due to, the news and facts will tell you, is terrorists, many of them foreign, killing Iraqis, and on much rarer occasions coalition troops. The Iraqis are not confounding efforts, extreme terrorists groups are.

And finally, the last line: 'But make no mistake, with the victory of Hezbollah, a terrible beauty is born'. A beauty? When you have a group which encourages the mobbing of the UN secretary general, actively targets civilians, advocates the destruction of a democracy and brings war upon the country it is based in, that is not a beauty. It is a terror.

In previous times, I may have sided with Mr Galloway. During the most recent conflict, I felt very uncomfortable about Israeli actions, as a previous posts shows. But everytime an individual or group comes from the anti-war left sprouts this hypocritical rhetoric, it makes me believe in the triumph of democracy over extremism once again.

Ahmadinejad in his own words

2006-08-20T13:54:00.000+01:00

I am always impressed that, according to the site counter thingy, that people from China can access my blog. You would have thought that the state controls would be pretty damn powerful. Speaking of tyranny's and the internet, let us turn to Iran. The number of blogs, often critical of the government, that have emerged from this country in the past couple of years is simply astonishing. It is a pity then, that a country with such healthy debate online is ruled by arguably one of the most dangerous individuals to hold power at this current moment.

The Guardian (and my guess is they've been chasing this interview for a bit), devoted a double page spread on Saturday. Lets have a look at what he had to say:

The UN Security Council should be renamed 'the council of massacres'.

That Lebanon is the 'real holocaust'.

'God's promises have come true. On the one side there are the corrupt powers of the US and Britain and the Zionists with modern bombs and planes. On the other side is a group of pious youth relying on God'.

'The eneimies of Iran are trying to divide the Iranian nation'.

'God has the power. No human being has all the power. Power is a gift from God," he tells his audience. They are hushed now, listening intently. "Power has to be used to help people. This applies to the leaders of countries as well as ordinary people. God rewards believers and those who have patience. Those who believe should not be scared of anything. For God is with you. The people of Lebanon are believers. They were not scared. And they did succeed. God kept his promise to the people of Lebanon. And he has given them victory."

As for the first two comments, what surprised me is how similar these phrases are to those the favourtie buzz phrases of the anti-war left. Someone must be getting speech writing tips.

Pious youth relaying on God against the modern technologies of the West? I wonder if he is so confident in his younger generation (who, from what I know, tend to be more moderate than most others Iranians) why he needs a nuclear bomb to protect his country? Surely that is simply a 'Zionist' weapon (as pointed out in an episode of the West Wing, Teller, Einstein and Oppenhiemer were all Jewish) which was created by the West?

As for the last part of the above quotations, that kind of talk scares me. The combination of foreign policy and religion can surely not be something we can admire or defend- indeed, surely the only policy we can defend is an ethical one. Once (or if) the situation in Lebanon calms down, the focus will shift back to Iran. If the government has nothing to hide, then they would let the inspectors in. Incidentally, Lebanon was victory for no-one, nor were the Lebanese people not scared- I'm imagine most people in their situation would be.

Is nuclear power a sovereign right? Perhaps it is, but that right can be overidden if those wielding authority are not responsible. The world community, as a whole, can identify that Ahmadinejad does not fall into this category.

My Middle East

2006-08-17T11:18:00.000+01:00

There has been much talk recently of new 'visions for the Middle East'. Condi has one, so does President Assad and I would be very surprised if Nasrallah hasn't as well.

It struck me yesterday when in conversation with, of all people, my optician. He was telling me how his ancestors originally came from Uzbekistan, then moved to Kabul and finally now to Pakistan, and how Arabic culture has been somewhat stagnant for the past hundred years (compared to their achievements in, for example, algerbra, astronomy and yes, optics as well). However, what with the often-quoted survey (1/3 Muslims believe this about USA, 1/2 this about identity etc.) doing the rounds on Comment is Free and most of the media, he then said something which surprised me. He stated that there is now a tendency to blame the enemy- which for many Arabic countries was Israel- for all their problems, when in fact it was the tyrannical despots (he singled out Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria) who had killed more of their own citizens than Israel ever had. My conclusion of this dialogue that even in times when the country is under threat from terrorism, as it has been of late, it is the moderates that must be listened to, and given the ability to influence. It is important not to tarnish all with one stroke of the brush.

Back to the Middle East. Seeing as so many people are talking about their vision for the middle east at the moment, I thought I might chip in as well. This is my Middle East:

A two-state solution, with a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over its own borders and a powerful army and national police force which gets rids of the need or want of militias.
Israel existing in its current borders (but no bigger), allowing a passage from the West Bank to Gaza, and free from threat from all sides of its border. Jerusalem a separate and permanent mandate under the UN.

A stable Iraqi government, with a continuing presence of coalition troops if wanted. A quasi-autonomous Kurdish state in the north of the country. Greater inclusion of Sunni's within the government, and tighter border controls especially with Syria and Iran.

A more moderate regime in Iran with full dialogue on its nuclear programme and greater freedom.

An ongoing programme of democratisation, even for 'friendly' states such a Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim brotherhood being a formal political group as long as its renounces its ties with more violent groups.

A vibrant and unrestricted celebration of culture within Arabic countries, including scholarship and an opening up of ties with the rest of the world.

Well, obviously I guess this may be too say the least optimistic, but then so is Hezbollah wanting to destroy Israel, a country which still has an huge army and a nuclear weapon or two. It might be simpler to say that there is only one concept to hope for in the Middle East, and that is peace. But I fear it will not be as simple as that- it would be a victory for diplomacy if this could be achieved without bloodshed, but this is unlikely to be the case.

The Rhetoric and the Reality

2006-08-12T18:10:00.000+01:00

Watching the UN in session on News24 yesterday (a little sad perhaps, I know), I was struck with a thought. So often in modern day politics (or indeed, throughout the history of politics), there is a distinct difference between what is said, and what those saying such words are actually think and therefore in turn, their actual motives.

Politicians like to mince words- you only have to watch PMQ's, a Presidential debate or newsnight to realise this. However this is not exactly what I'm attempting to put my finger on. More, it is those in politics justifying actions, excusing words, dismissing claims and refuting suggestions that, deep down, we all know they are the wrong side of the road on. Take, for example, the current Labour government (in one of my rare moments of criticism of them). After 7/7, even after the matyrdom tapes that accompanied it ('you too will face the reality of the situation'), the Blair government denied that there was any link between British foreign policy and the bombings. They continue to deny that the disillusionment of young Muslim men, which can manifest itself in hatred of the West, has any connection to British foreign policy. You could say that most of us know otherwise- but this would be inaccurate, because the Labour government knows this as well! Of course it makes a difference, its fantastically obvious that it does- seeing innocent Muslims killed by British and American forces (even though neither go out of their way to deliberately target them) within a religion which encourages brotherhood is going to create resentment, hatred and eventually a need for violence.

The Labour government knows this- they are not as stupid as some suggest. However, it is convenient to deny it, as admitting so would open up another front for critics of British foreign policy. The rhetoric and the reality. All parties, and many individuals in public life do it. When the Qatar foreign minister states that the UN resolution is biased towards Israel, he actually means 'the US has created this terribly unfair resolution for the Zionist state of Israel, which we'd rather wasn't there, and if you think we are going to forget this your out of your mind'. In the same way that Bush and Blair say that calling for immediate cessation of violence wouldn't have helped as all sides need to stop, they do really mean that they'd rather Hezbollah got a pounding.

There is an exception to this though. Their is one group which don't tend to conform to this concept. When Bin Laden says he wants the West destroyed, an Islamic empire established and the execution of non-believers, he means it. In this example, the rhetoric and the reality are the same.

To finish, I would point out that the British government should admit that British foreign policy does have an affect on the young Muslim population, and can create resentment, that it makes Britain more of a target. Then they should point out that the latter is no real reason to stop doing what they are doing- if extremist and brainwashed terrorists believe that the British state is doing something wrong, it may well mean they are doing something right (though this is not an absolute). What a predictament indeed- the state cannot stop their policy because a minority of the population wish them to (indeed, they cannot if a majority do save at elections, otherwise we'd have the death penalty)- but nor can we have a situation where more and more British citizens are willing to kill other citizens.

Threat to the UK

2006-08-10T22:26:00.000+01:00

I certainly hope they've got all of them. It would only take a couple of people to slip through the net and we have a catastrophe on our hands. This would have been bigger than 9/11, certainly in terms of numbers killed. I sure hope the police have the right people, and its lucky that no-one appears to have been hurt in any of the raids. It would be terrible if this was another Forest Gate.

Ironic that this comes just after the speech John Reid made yesterday, in which he mentioned certain people not taking this threat seriously. We should be under no illusion that the UK isn't under a terror threat, under no illusion that the government are just trying to scare us (save that for the conspiracy theorists), under no illusion that for certain parts of the British population to want to kill masses of other citizens is a very dangerous situation.

The Muslim community (and I might be making a persumption that the people arrested are Muslims, but I'm guessing its probably true) is the most important element in addressing this problem. In a way, I find it difficult to imagine being part of a faith which can be so powerful as to perhaps create such strong opinions. As long as there continues to be those who advocate the killing of British citizens (while, oftentimes, being British citizens themselves) due to such a massive belief in their own actions and their faith, then the UK will be in danger. Encouragement to intergrate must be greater on both sides- this current ghetoisation benefits no-one.

Having said that, I would make one point. The Muslim community in Britain often feels victimised, especially after Forest Gate. However, I would point out that one of stopping this victimisation is by tackling extremism within the community, which still appears to exist. The Muslim Council of Britain hardly helps this with its comments about Israel, or indeed their (now ex) General Secretary stating that 'death was too good' for Salman Rushdie. The British government doesn't want to have to arrest and question people, and it realizes that everytime those it arrests and questions are Muslims, the community feels targeted. Its unfortunate that the Muslim community feels this way, but such raids are needed. Someone had to stop 9 planes being blown up.

Lebanon Israel- Time to Stop

2006-08-07T13:35:00.000+01:00

Just a short post- seriously, I know it may seems sometimes that I'm a little too pro-Israeli but this time, would they just stop the fighting already? 40 Lebanese dead in a village due to an air strike, again? They haven't got a chance of destroying Hezbollah from the air, as yesterdays barrage of rockets has shown.

My only fear is that if Israel stop, what if Hezbollah don't? Too many citizens on both sides are dying, and wars can no longer be won that way. Ideally, Israel need to strike a killer blow to Hezbollah then stop- this would prevent Iran sneering over an apparent victory.

Israel needs to stop the fighter jets, and Hezbollah must return those two Israelis. In addition, it must just be me, but does anybody really think sending in the French etc. is going to work in the longterm. Hezbollah appear a little to stubborn to disarm.

I'm sick of seeing a toll of the dead printed in the papers every day, and the BBC news front story always detailing the last rocket strike on Haifa or bombings in Beruit. Stop already.

Nick Ferrari as London Major?

2006-08-01T22:12:00.000+01:00

Included in David Cameron's reform of the Conservative party is the opening up of the London majoral nominee processs. Like a US-style primary, anyone can put forward their name and often being reduced by the party, anyone can vote for who they would like to be the candidate. There's several contenders at the moment, all relatively moderate. Except one.

Nick Ferrari, who I will admit I have been fortunate never to listen to on LBC 97.3 (not living in London, or being a particular fan of commercial radio), comes across as, to say the least, a little right wing. And naturally, this means he isn't a great fan of Major Ken, who I will admit I'm not that fond of, but he's done a lot of good stuff as well (i.e. congestion charge).
Mr Ferrari has stated that he may well like to be Conservative candidate for Major, or may run as an Independent. His blog on the LBC website stated, when referring to Major Ken:

'We like to call him the current major because if a certain rotund presenter decides to run for Major, we could see him voted out of office!'

So lets have a close look at the man himself in London, one of the most diverse and multicultural cities in the entire world.

Doubling income tax on human rights lawyers (I'm not even joking) was one of his suggested policies.
Tends to like to talk about Charles and Diana. Great. Go read the Express.
Likes to point out the downfalls of positive discrimination.
Isn't so keen on the hose-pipe ban, because saving water really sucks.
His listeners seemed to think that Islamic Fun Day was discriminatory. Ok.

Now I realise that the above list is not that comprehensive, nor anything to be shocked out. Its nothing than we'd find in the Sun (who Ferrari used to write for), the Mail, News of the World etc. However, I always think with papers, radio programs, TV shows and the like, it is not so much what they say, but what they include. The stories which the right wing press and -dare I call him a shock jock?- and radio DJ's like Ferrari include are so often about asylum seekers, government intervention, crime and punishment and issues of 'morality' and values. Ho-hum indeed.

How serious Ferrari is actually being, its difficult to tell. However, if he were to run for Major as a Tory candidate, it would be a slap in the face for Cameron and is moderating modernism of the party. Even as an Independent, he would still be dangerous. However, I will admit I have perhaps made some assumptions about him, and the next time he has Livingston on the programs, I may well tune in online. If he becomes a candidate though, I may well go campaign against him.b

The Relative Madness of King Chavez

2006-07-25T22:50:00.000+01:00

That most friendly of world leaders, Hugo Chavez, has been causing somewhat of a stir recently with a small world tour. Of his friends (apart from the far-left in the UK, who cheered him when he came to London and commented on how much electricity the World Trade Centre used) .Starting off with Castro (both visiting Che Guvera's birthplace in Argentina), and then onto Eastern Europe. So come take a tour with us, as we see what el Presidento has been up to.

One of Chavez's most notable stops is in Belarus. In this ex-Soviet state (some would hesitate to call it 'ex-Soviet'), Chavez called the nation a:

'a model social state like the one we are beginning to create'

In other words, a state which has the following features: locking up political opponents, rigging elections, intimidation of the opposistion and suppressing the press. All sound very modern indeed. The President, Alexander Lukashenko, is a dictator clinging onto pre-1991 features of Belarus- even the secret service is still called the KGB. Chavez stated that this was just the start of a strategic alliance.

Next stop, Russia, One can hardly attack his visit here without perhaps sounding a little hypocritical, given its recent hosting of the G8. His purpose, however, is perhaps a little more sinister. He is expected to sign arms deals, worth over $1 billion, which includes helicopters and fighter jets, not to mention Kalashnikovs. Why does Chavez need these weapons? Why, to defend against the US attack of course.

...hold on, a US attack? We know Venezuela has oil, but surely the US isn't going to attack? Well no, its not, we know its not, anyone relatively sensible knows its not going to- yet according to Chavez, this is very likely to happen. No wonder he keeps winning elections. Create the illusion of a feared enemy among your people, and they will keep electing you as a protector. Strange how both Bush and Chavez do this (although Bush probably has a little more justification in doing so).

What, may you ask, is this purpose of this tour. Well, Chavez is lobbying for a seat on the UN security council. I'm uncomfortable enough having China (which is at least showing signs towards democracy, rather than the other way around) on the security council, not to mention a whole plethora of undemocratic countries in the UN itself, but to give a country ruled by a reactionary, scare-mongering President with no proper electoral mandate (the opposistion do not contest the elections, claiming they are unfair) is absurd.

What other countries come next? Why those well known bastions of liberal democracy, Qatar, Iran, Vietnam and Mali. Chavez has admittedly done great things for the poorer people in an unequal nation. But alliances with dictators should not be on the cards- indeed, if he is really such a champion, perhaps he should spend that $1 billion on its citizens, not on his army.

Reflections on the International Future

2006-07-23T20:39:00.000+01:00

Recently, in amongst the body counts in the Middle East, the angry words on both sides and Comment is Free, I have been thinking about what the future holds for this world. I will admit that this was sparked first of all by Timothy Garton-Ash's most recent article, and also by an email from a friend, alerting me to Scott Adam's blog post on his book, the Religion War.

It was TGA's question 'Who would be prepared to risk a bet that we won't see a nuclear weapon in the next ten years? I wouldn't. Would you?' that first of all got me thinking. He's correct in this sense, it is perfectly possible that we will. This might be in the form of a dirty bomb in Berlin, New York, London, Tel Aviv or various other countries, or a tactical strike from a US nuclear submarine in the gulf, striking at an area in Iran with something quite sinister underneath the soil. A nuclear weapon has not been fired in anger in my generation, nor my parents. The thought that our world could now have got this chaotic, this disordered and unclear that nuclear weapons might be used in anger is somewhat frightening. Who's fighting this war?

TGA makes another very good point is that the West will be restricted by public opinion- something terrorists don't worry about so much. Whatever the West tries to do, it will need consent from its populations.

To go onto Scott Adams: well first things first, I fully intend to buy this book (if I can avoid having to get it shipped over). Use the link to find out what he means, its basically:

Islamic Caliphate takes over Middle East, starting in Iraq, Muslim population in Israel increases and subsequently the state becomes more apartheid-like (losing support in the process), Israel destroyed, strong-man (more Hitler than Eisenhower) takes over the West to stop subsequent terrorism.

This might seem unrealistic, and for some it may be easily dismissed. Not for myself- I have been thinking about it since then, and it does not seem out of the question. Iraq is an unstable place and the Middle East has many more divisive features in it that Sunni/Shiite. With Israel attacking as it currently is, Syria and Iran have a great cause to rally the rest of the Middle Eastern countries around. Perhaps this could well be the start of the next World War- two globalising forces against each other. The very survival of the world order, and of Western Civilization, at stake.

How to stop this? Adams might mention this in his book, but he hasn't yet. In this situation, with an Islamic world pitted against Europe and America, with suicide bombings all over Europe and technologies being used in deadly ways...where will China stand? That, if this situation were ever to come true (and I hope it does not), would be the deciding factor.

'Stop the War' Coalition and the Middle East Crisis

2006-07-21T17:07:00.000+01:00

So the MCB and the Stop the War Coalition have organized a series of protests over the weekend against Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
On the face of it, this is an excellent idea. Israel is bombing Lebanon back twenty years, and in the process is damaging investigators and killing civilians. Obviously this is not on.
However, you would struggle to find either of the above groups condemning Hezbollah (or any of the Palestinian groups), the former of which is equally to blame for this conflict due to its blatantly provocative kidnappings of the two Israeli soldiers.

The Stop the War Coalition say: (taken from their website)
'End Israel's barbarism now!'
It quotes a Lebanese student saying the following
"Regardless of Hizbullah's strategies, beliefs and aims, whether we agree with them or not, by international law, a resistance group has a right to capture people for the purpose of exchanging prisoners with the enemy. I ask a simple question: whether Hezbollah is eligible or not, whether they are right or not, is the capture of two prisoners a sufficient excuse to start a full-fledged war against another country and kill hundreds of civilians and destroy all its infrastructure?"

Well probably not, and I'd agree that Israel's actions are out of proportion. However I would ask...why did the kidnap the Israeli soldiers in the first place. Hezbollah is not a resistance group as Israel no longer occupies Lebanon, they are group intent on the destruction of a state which neighbor's the one they are based in. If they were fighting the legitimate Lebanese government, they would be a resistance group, however they simply are not in this case.

Whereas the MCB feel that...

"By failing to condemn the Israeli actions under the pretext of 'selfdefensee' they have ipso facto given the Zionist fanatics more time to carry out their rape of Lebanon."
That language is a little provocative to say the least. 'Zionist fanatics'? Thats parts of Likud, not the government.
It goes onto say, rather alarmingly:
The MCB believes that Israel's slaughter of civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Lebanon will not break the resolve of their respective peoples. This sterile policy has been tried for decades by successive Israeli governments and has only produced highly motivated resistance movements. Many more will be recruited into their ranks across the region and beyond due to Israel's crimibehavioriour.
'Will not break the resolve of their respective peoples'- you mean like suicide bombings in Tel Aviv and rocket attacks on Haifai won't do so to the Israeli people?
Highly motivated resistance movements'- you mean terrorist groups which deliberately target innocent civilians? Call them what they are please. Their ranks may swell, but this is not just due to criminal behaviour on the part of Israel, but the brainwashing of these cult-like groups and the howevermany virgins after you blow yourself up no doubt.

The 'Stop the War Coalition'- the name would suggest a want for peace, for a cessation of conflict. Yet by only condemning one side, that is Israel (also US and UK in other cases), they cannot hope for this peace. As I said before in a previous post, the Middle East Crisis cannot be blamed on one side, and dialogue is important. But once again, the protests are directed at only half of the problem.

Euston Manifesto vs. British Moment

2006-07-17T21:15:00.000+01:00

The Euston Manifesto (hence the EM) has obviously created a massive amount of degree within the political community, from Comment is Free to newspaper columns and, no doubt, dinner parties in North London. However, a new...(how to describe it..Manifesto? Statement of beliefs? Ideology?)...lot of people have come along with The British Moment (hence the BR) 'The Case for Democratic Geo Politics in the Twenty-First Century'.

At a glance, they both seem pretty similar: relatively moderate, liberal (ish), generally for the Iraq war, pro-global democracy etc etc. However, I think its important that we compare the two.

To start off with, both the EM and the BR have a long and comprehensive statement of beliefs. They seem to agree on a lot, for example (EM in Green, BR in red)

We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures Â freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion.
Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone.
...clear universal principles such as the global promotion of the rule of law, liberal democracy, civil rights...

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking.
Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States

Perhaps I am clutching at straws a bit with the above, but it seems there are at least somesimilaritiess. Now by and large, I have little to disagree with either of them on, except the following. First of all, BR's 7th point begins with the line two cheers for capitalism. While theyachknowledgee it has some faults, to be so blatantly obvious about it is a little two 'cheery' for me. With Euston (this problem is discussed in an earlier post), it still seems difficult to accept the whole 'universal' aspect, due to postmodernism.

However, for me the tipping point between the two comes in members. The EM has Nick Cohen (one of the best newspaper columnistss at the moment), along with amultitudee of bloggers (nearly all of whom are probably more talented than I). Its origins are relatively humble (even if it is frustratingly London-based: how are the rest of the country able to get to the events it holds?). BR, meanwhile as Michael Ancram (yes I know),Michaell Gove (shadow housing minister who seems to like getting himself on TV, if I'm thinking of the right person), someone from the Conservative Friends of Israel and the quite boring David Willets. So much for being non-party political.

My support continues to be to the Euston Manifesto- the British Moment has its temptations, but simply seems to be a more partisan and beefy version.

The Middle East and the Crisis of our Times

2006-07-16T00:20:00.000+01:00

'Middle East Crisis'. Three words that are seen too often on newspaper headlines and scrolling news channel banners. I saw it again today on News 24, those 3 words which bounded together shape so much of modern international politics.

It seems a little inaccurate. Any crisis within Western Asia (as the US sometimes calls it) is not a crisis for the Middle East, but for the world. For the first time (that I can remember) today, I saw petrol at over Â£1. As the G8 meets its talk will be dominated by Hamas, Israel, Lebanon and the like, distracting away from issues of poverty, climate change and democracy. World wide economies, relations, all are heightened by Israel and its neighbours. I find it unlikely that Islam-inspired terrorism would have quite so much support if there was no conflict between Israel and its neighbours. Whether countries like it or not, that small bit of land on the east of theMediterraneann is the centre of our political landscape, with conflicts far and wide being affected by it. Perhaps one can compare it to the Berlin Wall: a small part of the world which shows the ideological divides which help to encourage wars and terrorism into every other corner of the globe, it is thepersonificationn of global tension.

Thepracticalitiess of the current situation are obviously difficult to comprehend, and it is not prudent tolegitimatelyy state that either side has any moralsuperiorityy over the other. Israel does have a right to defend itself, and so do thePalestinianss and those in Lebanon. I'm glad to see that, so far, there have been no suicide bombings by anyPalestiniansn group. The petty details are not to be ignored, however I do intend to dwell on them here. A way must be found, through NATO, the UN, the EU, through the Arab League- to find a solution to the problem. A third intifida cannot take place, no more should Israel feel the need to re-occupy either Lebanon or Gaza. What the real solution is is unknown- it is tempting to revert simply to the clash of civilizations, but perhaps that is too easy. Discussion is essential, conflict is, in this case, going to solve little.

Our thoughts should be with the prisoners of war, the citizens ofBeirutt, Gaza, and the Israel towns being hit.

Postmodernism and Democracy

2006-07-06T23:40:00.000+01:00

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, but have been busy.

I've decided to think about the relationship between postmodernism and democracy, a struggle with which I have thought about now and then.

As I understand it, the political implications of postmodernism are that of no absolute certainties. Beliefs in, for example, human rights for all, any ideology as being better for all of the world or every system (a belief, as oppose to simply being more practical), in short, in any sort of universalising force is impossible, due to relativity of every individual and society. Every person is brought up with their own set of experiences and morals which are taught to them, and as a result, have different views. However, essentially, no one person or belief can be superior to another, for it is a persons experience and that is all.

Enough of that ramble- as you may have noticed, I'm somewhat a keen supporter of democracy. I believe that all the world, every individual should have the opportunity to be free, and that freedom comes in the form of representative democracy. I believe those countries that are democractic should encourage and persuade other systems to become democracies (not 'enforce', before anyone mentions that word). However, I also see the logic behind postmodernism, it does seem sensible that there can be, essentially, no universal truth. How can my belief in worldwide democracy and in postmodernism be compatible, because my thought that democracy is the 'right' thing is surely only my word, and not an absolute, essential truth.

Its all a bit confusing- any answers or comments welcome as always.

Reversed Perspective: Ideologies in the current world

2006-06-19T22:28:00.000+01:00

Imagine, if you will, an alternative world situation. Some things appear to be the same and others do not. I present this manifestation merely to attempt to prove a point regarding the current international situation in world affairs, and the ideologies behind major viewpoints regarding such affairs.

Let us assume that the events of September 11th took place as we now understand them to have folded out. The attacks were carried out by the same people, in the same way. Bush, who was elected in 2000, invades Afghanistan with wide international backing. They encounter the same amount of ongoing resistance. However, this is were the similarities end.

At this point, the Bush administration begins to preach the rhetoric of withdrawal and isolationism. This is not that far fetched; America has gone through flucxuating periods of intervention within the world and hiding themselves away from it. The Republican majority in the USA see that the only way to prevent another attack is to tighten their borders and protect their own people directly, and if this means ignoring injustice in the world then so be it. Much better to let the dictators fight each other and their own people. Those on the 'right' begin to follow this line, with much of NATO (including Spain and to an extent the UK) agreeing with Bush's retreating line. The allied troops all but leave Afghanistan by 2004.

However, since 2001 terror activity has continued; this includes the Bali bombings, the Madrid train bombings and the 7/7 attacks. The world's focus continues to be on dictatorship and cruelty to innocent civilians, in both Muslim countries and elsewhere. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' continue to thrive, with the Syrian leader as strong as ever, Libya as remote to the world has she has been for the past 20-30 years and the PLO still fighting with Israel, who are fighting back just as brutally and with little mercy. Talks of a peace plan of any kind are ignored, and despite the forming of a new party, Likud win a majority in the Israeli parliament.

Meanwhile, in the UK, parts of Europe and the US, those on the left look on in despair. They are so disappointed that their governments, and particularly the US, will not stand up to the dictatorships and tyrannies which became so much more visible after September 11th. Colluminists frequently quote George Orwell, when the great writer refers to the struggle for freedom in the Spanish Civil War, and hark back to the socialist ideals of a democratic revolution. However, their friends and foes on the right see it as much more sensible to leave the rest of the world to its own devices. The left do what they can, but citizens of Western democracies wish to be safe in their nation-fortresses and are regretful to engage with the rest of the world. This is reflected in subsequent voting patterns. Much better to continue their comfortable resistance; after all, if the world is left alone, it will surely leave their countries
alone.

The above imaginary world came into my head for one purpose only, I am ready to admit. It is to attempt to prove that those on the 'left' should not see themselves as being bound to a non-interventionist, anti-war agenda which has now becoming so dominating. Both the right and the left have the ability to be pro and anti-war. The Labour party in the 1930's called for retaliation against Germany far before the Conservatives did. There is no restriction, however much the Bush administration on one side and Georges Galloway's Respect Party on the other would like to think, on what any individual who refers to themselves as being on the 'left' or 'right' should feel about the war in Iraq, 'the clash of civilizations' if one exists and international intervention. All perspectives we are currently seeing could be justified from either ideological position, particularly international intervention as it is so often justified by the right. This labeling of individuals of an ideological due to their opinions on world affairs has to stop, however tempting it is- I myself, admit to having done it and it does not help the debate so badly needed as to the direction of the world.

John Reid and separation of Powers

2006-06-13T17:30:00.000+01:00

If you have not yet read the details of the horrific case surrounding the sentencing of Craig Swenney, you can do so here
Obviously, anyone who even begins to imagine what this now jailed man did do the little girl is going to start feeling sick. However, that is not the concentration to this post, rather the reaction of Home Secretary John Reid, and that of the tabloid press.

John Reid wrote to good old Lord Goldsmith, the Attonery General (I still like the fact that we have one of them, its almost endearing in some way), stating that he thought the parole details of this case were too lenient. Lord Goldsmith can himself judge this, and can recommend that it goes to appeal.

Therefore, why did good old Reid, that ol'bulldog of the home office, feel the need to do so? Was it perhaps due to the tabloid frenzy which always surrounds such cases?

'The Sun is campaigning for the sacking of judges who go easy on killers, rapists, child sex abusers and other violent criminals.'
So what the Sun is saying is that judges who's rulings they disagree with should be sacked? Hey, maybe we should do that with all branches of government...

Naturally, the Sun's concern is around those most emotive of cases- murders, rape, sex abuse and 'violence'. Once again, we see the papers stirring up the fear of crime, an infestation of the public's minds making them full of suspicion and rife with reactionary tendencies. Never mind the fact that all four crimes are more likely to be commited by a friend or relative than the stranger on the street. Remember the News of the Worlds campaign on showing where convicted sex offenders lived, and what I can only describe as the consequential lynch mobs?

Well, if John Reid wants to encourage vigilante, populist justice, he seems to be going about it the right way (along with his comments of 'stop moaning, do something'- I'm sure people will start doing so at some point, and indeed many would if there weren't so many knives about). Just what we need, a home secretary who panders to the tabloids. It might just be me, but in the Labour government, it seems to often be the minister for the home office who is the most conservative and reactionary, odd that.

If Craig Sweeny is released within 10 years by the way, then I'll take back all I've said. But somethings tells me its pretty unlikely to happen. The parole board will be as aware of his crimes as anyone else, and be far better informed than the tabloid press.

The Evolving Nature of Sovereignty

2006-06-07T19:10:00.000+01:00

It has occured to me in recent times that we often talk of nation states being 'sovereign', of having the legitimate authority to exercise power within their own borders. Obviously globalisation has led to many commentators questioning whether states are still sovereign, or whether aspects of public life and policy are simply no longer under their control.

My primary concern with sovereignty however, is how we define who is sovereign within a nation. On the face of it, the leaders of any nation, in what ever way they are chosen, seem to have the right to exercise power within their borders, and therefore we see that nation as sovereign i.e. not to be interfered in, be it through intervention or any other means.

But can this be right? Can we, after having been through the holocaust, the Balkans war, and General Pinnochet (to name but few), still justify regonising all nations as sovereign? Regardless as to whether you hold a postmodern view on international affairs (that all politics is local, and that nothing can be absolute including human rights) or not, the contiuning suffering of people in certain countries (Burma springs to mind) as a direct result of their leaders cannot surely be tolerated. The world cannot hope to ignore these countries into submission, nor simply hope that democratic change will come as a matter of course (even I myself am not 100% sure as to whether a historial path from tyranny to democracy is inevitable for every country). What is needed is pressure, primarly from the UN and major trade blocs, to make it difficult for leaders of countries to continue opressing their people- including preventing them travelling, trade embargos and funding of pro-democracy groups.

Before any jumps the old starting gun, I am not suggesting that certain nations invade all those who are oppressing people, as this is totally unrealistic for one thing, not to mention that each nation (and each opressing government) should be seen on a case by case basis. For example, Bhutan is still an absolute monarchy but I do not feel the need for too much pressure on it, as it is showing signs towards democracy, seems to be a generally consensual government and their are few signs of tyranny. However, Burma is a nation ruled by a military junta who denied the result of fair elections, keep the primary pro-democracy ruler under house arrest and are in a contiual war against their own people, especially minorities. For the West, and the entire world, to sit back while this happens on the basis that a nation is sovereign is absurd. On a secondary note, it is also the West's role I feel to help nations where sovereignty no longer exists i.e. collapsed states such as Somali, and perhaps to a lesser extent the DRC. However, each nation must be seen on a case by case basis.

Natfhe Boycott of Israeli Academics

2006-05-30T12:57:00.000+01:00

First of all, sorry for the long delay since my last post- to cut a longer story short, I will blame self-inflicted technical difficulties.

So Natfhe has passed a motion which states than any Israeli academic who supports Israel's 'apartheid policies' will be subject to a boycott (they will actually have to sign a piece of paper saying this, which the supporting members of the union will no doubt have framed and put on their desk, to remind themselves of how powerful left-wing lecturers can still be).

To follow this logic, I can't help but wonder what the next stage will be. A boycott of American academics who refuse to denounce the 'war on terror'? Something tells me that Natfhe is more likely to do that than impose a boycott on, say, Palestinian academics who refuse to denounce Hamas suicide bombings.

Put simply, this is the academic community imposing censorship on another academic community. Universities are bastions of ideas, both left and right and to attempt to ignore and sideline those who we don't agree with on one issue is massively hypocritical and absurd. Good job the motion doesn't have a long shelf life- and lets hope that the new uber-union (made of Natfhe and the AUT) pass a motion overturning this boycott completely.

Well we are on the subject of academics... 23%??? That's an absurd amount all at once, the 12.6% (or so) over 3 years was a good deal, and for the record, students don't appreciate being used as pawns in this dispute. If the striking lectures want to be tough, then they should go on indefinite strike- at least that would bring a quick end to the whole thing.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Legacy

2006-05-16T17:04:00.000+01:00

I first came across Ayann Hirsi Ali when reading about the Dutch film Submission, which she wrote and was directed by Theo Van Gogh. The director was later murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim extremist who shot and stabbed Van Gogh, pinning a letter with anti-Western rhetoric to his chest. Since then, Hirsi Ali has been in hiding and under police protection, due to the many death threats she has received.

Obviously, if someone lies about an asylum application, the Dutch government cannot simply excuse that person on the basis that they are an MP. However, I would like to point out some of the issues she raised while in office.

The importance of limited intergration of immigrants into a Western society was one such issue. It is of course a thin line which I have discussed in a previous post, but there must be at least some intergration on the part of immigrants-particularly those whose religion is different from the majority of the country-to engage with society as a whole. Indeed, this is the responsibility of both immigrants and those who are already citizens, but Hirsi Ali encouraged fellow immigrants to join a society that had welcomed her.

Hirsi Ali is perhaps best known for highlighting the plight of some Muslim women, an issue which the film Submission so graphically displayed. I admit to not seeing the film myself, but it is obvious to most that Muslim women are not treated equally, even in Western societies.

Hiris Ali was an example, a Somali immigrant to a Western country who kept her unique identity while participating in civic society to a greater extent than many born in the Netherlands do.

She may have had to leave the country, and I do not agree with all her views, but there's a reason why Time named her as one of the most influential thinkers of modern times.

I remember speaking, perhaps in September or October, to a Dutch man about Van Gogh's murder. He said 'Van Gogh was not murdered, he was slaughtered'.

As with Moussaoui, we can be glad that Bouyeri was sentenced to life in prison, not death, as he would have wished. The note he had on him after a shoot-out with police shows that:

BAPTIZED IN BLOOD
So these are my last words…
riddled with bullets…
baptized in blood…
as I had hoped.
I am leaving a message…
for you… the fighter…
the Tawheed tree is waiting…
yearning for your blood…
enter the bargain…
and Allah opens the way…
He gives you a garden…
instead of the Earthly rubble.
To the enemy I say…
You will surely die…
Wherever in the world you go…
Death is waiting for you…
Chased by the knights of DEATH…
who paint the streets with Red.
For the hypocrites I have one final word…
Wish DEATH or hold your tongue… and sit.
Dear Brothers and Sisters, my end is nigh…
But this does not end the story.

We can agree with him on one thing perhaps: this doesn't end the story because even with Theo Van Gogh's death, and Ayaan Hiris Ali's departure, the fight against violent extremisim, in all forms, goes on.

The Labeling of Political Views.

2006-05-14T15:56:00.000+01:00

I was reading today a comment on a website, and under someone's 'favorite music' it stated 'oh why is this the first question always asked by our generation'? (which also happens to be mine).

Having thought about this, I came to the conclusion that their exists a political parallel. You would think that in a democracy, how you regularly vote would be a clear indication of where you lie on any political spectrum; however, due to the growing similarities between parties, the decline in party membership and the number of people who don't vote, this is no longer an option.

Instead, amongst our generation, the war on Iraq (and under this I include the 'war on terror', 9/11 and terrorist attacks since and viewpoints on American hegemony) has become the defining characteristic.
Amongst the student population, for one to be 'for' the Iraq war is to be sidelined as an American worshipping crusader by many on the 'left'. Why has this now become the only view which is needed by many in order to judge someone's entire politics on?
When stating that the Iraq war was the right thing to do, it is not uncommon to be bombared by accusations of supporting Guantanomo Bay, President Bush and all his policies or simply not being willing to criticise Tony Blair.

Obviously it can work the other way around- perhaps some feel that being against the war unwillingly puts them in the same bed as George Galloway, some religious extremists and many socialists. However, I see much less evidence of this- there are far more who consider themselves on the left who supported the war than those on the right who did not.

It is welcome that the Euston Manifesto is beginning the process of uniting those of us who believe that the Iraq War was the right thing to do, and although the process many have been flawed the action itself was still correct.

Personally, my political views are taken from a variety of sources, and I make a specific point of not joining or labeling myself with any particular party (indeed, the two times I have voted, I have done so for different parties). This is the shopping trolley of politics, we have the freedom to have a variety of views and to express them on different platforms.

The fight against apathy cannot be helped by individuals being labeled as one thing or another on the basis of one incident in modern day politics. We must avoid assumptions, and encourage debate with even those we fear disagree with ourselves in every way.

Dick Cheney and... Democracy in Europe

2006-05-10T15:52:00.000+01:00

Let us take two current stereotypes, as perceived by Western Europe.
On the one hand, Putin's Russia, an increasingly authoritarian regime with out-of-control racist killings, waging a dubious war in the Northern caucus and desperately hanging onto control of its satellite states.
On the other hand, US Vice-President Dick Cheney, ex-chairman of that most ethical of companies, Halliburton, Neo-Conservative to the extreme, quasi-puppet master of the President and joint-mastermind of the war on terror.

Now neither Russia nor Dick Cheney can be expected to be invited over for a continental, but there is in fact an important issue behind these somewhat odd comparisons.

In Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade were Dick Cheney's words during a speech in Eastern Europe recently. It is important to achknowledge that the VP has a point here; since Beslan Putin has installed a number of reforms which would make civil libertarians scream (rather than shout, as they do to Blair) blue murder, such as the appointing of regional governors. The power of the President only continues to increase (odd to have such centralisation in the largest country on earth) and Putin continues to govern quite easily- especially when you can put any potential rival opponents in jail with surprising ease (although watch Garry Kasparov).

Once again, I find myself supporting the Bush adminstration for standing up to a nation of questionable democratic principles. The EU made some impressive noises during the Belarus elections, but not impressive enough. There is a war of influence going on in the ex-Soviet states of the Eastern bloc, played out during the Georgian, Ukrainian and Belarus elections- and I'd much prefer this war to be won by Western Europe, the EU, and NATO than Putin's Russia- even if it means getting Dick Cheney's help.

On a last and separate note- he got life in jail. That is justice, the death penalty would not have been.

Local Elections in the UK and 'Choice'

2006-05-04T11:02:00.000+01:00

A few grumbles about that great British institution, the local elections.

Some people are lucky. Perhaps their council is stuck between two rival parties with radically different ideologies, engaged in a well-published battle of ideas and grappling with each others proposals. Or maybe, your in a position similar to mine... and you have no idea who to vote for.

In the current political climate, it seems that if you aren't a die-hard then your pretty lost. Conservatives have little idea what Cameron is actually doing, Labour seem to be going into lost-prisoner, Prescott-adultering, public services-crisis freefall, and even the Lib Dems I know are becoming increasingly bored and put off by Ming. I can almost forgive some for not voting.

I actively want to vote in these elections. My council is Labour controlled, with the Lib Dems a close second and all other parties with single-figure numbers of councilors. Therefore I have a really good option, whether to support Blair or 'give him a bloody nose'. I was all geared up to vote for the Lib Dems... until I received their leaflet.

Negative campaigning directed at me (as a student) is possibly one of the most patronising concepts employed by a political party. Very little was said about the Lib Dems proposals for the local area; instead its 'send Blair a message' about Iraq, tuition fee's etc. I love the way the Lib Dems manage to
1. Patronise students by presuming they dislike Blair and
2. Assume that all students opposed the war on Iraq.
If Ming had wanted my vote, he should get his members to bloody well tell me what he's going to do for the community in which I live, not make blatant assumptions with regards to my political views in negative campaigning comparable to the Labour 2005 election tactics. Shame on the Lib Dems.

However- and this is the grumble at all other parties- this the only election material I have received! No Labour, Conservative or Green leaflets... as a voter, I should not have to trawl through obscure local party websites trying to find what they propose! Nor have I come across a single campaigner, be it with the university or outside it!

I'm happy to vote in these elections, and I'm proud of the political process, but I shall do so with confusion as to why I am doing so, and questioning whether I should bother voting if most parties aren't even attempting to get my cross next to their candidates name.

Once I decide who to vote for, this is.

Moussaoui and Justice

2006-04-26T19:46:00.000+01:00

0933:"No more. Sit down."
"(In Arabic:) That's it, that's it, that's it. (In English:) Down, down.
"Shut up."
"[Unintelligible.]"
"We just, we didn't get it clear... Is that United 93 calling?"
"(In Arabic:) Jassim."
"(In Arabic:) In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate."
"[Unintelligible.]"
"Finish, no more. No more."
"No. No, no, no, no."
"No, no, no, no."

The above is from United Flight 93, on September 11th at 09:33am. It details some of the last minutes of the plane, before it crashed in Pennsylvania.
The above was part of the transcript played by the prosecution of Zarcarias Moussaoui during his trail.
Soon, the jury will make up its mind. Moussaoui may well be guilty of obstructing the FBI's investigation, and may well be indirectly linked to the deaths on 9/11. However, this does not warrant his putting to death: I hereby intend to support a plea for clemency, that Moussaoui should not be put to death but sentenced to live in prison; I do this out of no sympathy for his cause or his views, put for the justice of those who died on 9/11.

I am personally not interested in Moussaoui's background, his childhood or upbringing. I write this post in the presumption that the jury will find him guilty.

Moussaoui's craves to be a martyr. He states 'no regret, no remorse'. His death will be mentioned in the next al-qaeda message with pride. Martyr's have such faith in those who are killing them, that they will do so in a such a way and with such an outlook that among their deepest enemies, they will have created a worshiped individual even after death. Moussaoui has this faith, and this I agree with him- among the deepest enemies of the USA, this is how he will be seen.
This post is unlikely to reach any of the jurors of the Moussaoui case; I write it is a clarification of my own opinions. I detest Moussaoui, his narrow minded beliefs, lack of remorse for innocent deaths and his general disregard for anyone's life. Don't give him what he wants. He does not want to die in jail forty years later, forgotten in the newspapers for 20 years until his death. He wants to put on a show, for his death to be watched by the victims families.

The following is the statement the jury will have to decide (if he is found guilty) whether to support or not:

Based upon consideration of whether the aggravating factor or factors found to
exist sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor or factors found to exist, or in the
absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factor or factors are
themselves sufficient to justify a sentence of death, we the jury, by unanimous vote,
determine that a sentence of death shall be imposed.

It is easy to hate, and it is easy to blame. I am not asking people not to hate, or not to blame however. Life in prison IS hating- denying Moussaoui the victim's crown he so dearly desires is a sign of strength and defiance. Otherwise we are doing little more than pulling a suicide bombers cord for him, by making him a martyr for killing others.

Iran and the Future for the World

2006-04-22T18:47:00.000+01:00

Reading the Guardian (as I so often find myself doing) I happened across an article by the esteemed Timothy Garton-Ash, in which he depicts a vision of 2009, where the Clinton white House has attacked Iranian nuclear facilities, and in response the West has been met with co-ordinated suicide bombings, killing over 10,000. I highly recommend that you read it (at least twice, with some coffee in between)

The article can be found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1757132,00.html along with a considerable amount of response on Comment is free, large amounts of this were, in my humble opinion, a little cynical. A bit of foresight cannot be a bad thing; indeed, the entire situation with regards to Iran falls back down to avoiding a worse situation in the future, therefore trying to see possible outcomes of possible actions should not be greeted with such dismissivness.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for TGA, his articles are among the most engaging in all the Guardian's pages, and (even more so so than Arranovitch), I find myself broadly agreeing with him. However, I am for once devoid of a clear cut opinion on this matter of Iran's nuclear program and the West's response: I am indeed, totally and utterly at an impasse, a fork in the road with regards to my views- and I have not felt this divided since the early days of the Iraq War.

On the one hand, TGA's article has worked its magic- into scaring me, making me think about the possible consequences of an attack on Iran. It was only a couple of days previous that I read about The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, an Iranian group seeking British and American Muslims for operations against Israel (read about them here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iran/story/0,,1756461,00.html) It claims to have 52,000 recruits. The thought of more bombings scares the hell out of me, of citizens of the UK and other countries- all innocent people- being blown up by religious extremists which infliltrate our society. The logical conclusion is that if you want to avoid the end, change the means. Therefore, by not backing any attack on Iran and its possible nukes, we could avoid such a tragedy at home.

This is one view.

My other view is one of defiance. Why should the British people surrender to intimidation? Why should we stop following through the actions we believe to be right simply because violence against us may follow. We knew that in 1939 we may well be invaded if we declared war on Germany, yet we did it anyway. Defiance in the face of extremism, in the face of violence. I have no problem with a country having nuclear power, I have problem with such an announcment being followed with a military parade and shouts have 'allah akbar' and 'death to America/Israel'. Yeah, bomb them, do it before its too late and we'll see how it turns out. Defiance.

Now to conclude my quasi-schizophrenic rantings:
I regonise that the decisions as to whether or not Iran should be stopped by force from developing what could be a nuclear programme is not one that can be simply divided into two polarised options, as stated above. There are many paths to take, and many possible outcomes for the future. I also realise that I can gone on considerably about myself and my own views in this post (which I guess is nothing too unusual), however I believe this is one of the first of my posts where I admit to being divided on an issue I write about. Iran and the future for the world does not have to be a defining political issue by which to judge someone (which many on both the left and right have succeeded in doing, unfortunately, with the Iraq war), but it is simply such a difficult decision- to march against such a strike, or egg on the stealth bombers?

Only time can tell- will Iran successfully manage to enrich Uranium to the percentage required? Will China and Russia really oppose all military action? Will Hillary Clinton really be elected President (personally I'd prefer Mark Warner as the Democratic nominee, but he hasn't raised $20 million). And will the Iranian youth, who contary to popular belief are very Westernised, pro-democratic, increasingly secular and disaffected, tolerate the current Iranian leadership? Time will tell.

Keeping the Faith Schools with Chris Woodhead

2006-04-16T19:10:00.000+01:00

Today in the Sunday Times an article by Chris Woodhead, that most adored of figures by teachers unions nationwide. In this article, which you should feel at liberty to view at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2135984.html, good old Chris is flying the flag for the most divisive of concepts in 21st century Britain, faith schools. When referring to a teachers union which called for the withdrawal of all state funding of schools by 2020, he states (all words in blue are from the article)

'I cannot decide which angers me more: the arrogance of the activists at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference or their stupidity. The motion they backed said that plans to increase the number of faith schools would “hinder integration, foster religious divisions and provide fertile ground for religious and ethnic conflicts”. '

Is that arrogance Mr Woodhead? We live, thankfully, in a multicultural society which however cohesive it may seem, does have some dangerous divides in it. Muslims in Britain (and other religious minorities) can feel adrift from the mainstream- and this is partly the fault of that very mainstream, but also (and it is important that this achknowledgeded to a much greater extent than it has been) of the Muslim community themselves. Arrogance is to assume that faith schools, which keep communities which have a hard enough time communicating with each other totally separate throughout education (remember the extent to which a child can be moulded in those years- teachers have one of the most important and arguably most powerful jobs in the world), to encourage the teaching of a single doctrine and modify a national curriculumum are NOT going to hinder intergration and encouraged divisions and conflict.

Why should they assume that because they are teachers they know better than parents?'

Because they are teachers, they know the education system inside out and have an itrincate knowledge of what happens to children during those years. Personally, I'd rather listen to them than parents with strong religious convinctions. Mr Woodhead goes on to state that there is no evidence of faith schools being socially divisive. One word- wait. In ten years, with the great of funding that you are suggesting for faith schools, we'll see how divisive they have become then, how the divisions extend into universities and throughout the lives of those taught in them.

Chris then goes onto to wonder was it wrong with rote learning? (i.e. learning things off by heart, like the Koran). Oh deary me- tell you what, shall we bring back the cane and feather quills to write with as well? Welcome to the present Mr.Woodhead. You may have enjoyed the poems you remembered, I'd personally prefer to analyse the meaning of things than be able to recite a couple of verses.

What’s more, their teachers were all women. Models, as a parent pointed out to me, of how Muslim women can contribute to society.

Oh well done Mr Woodhead, so one of the few ways Muslim women can contribute to society is by teaching in a Muslim school, oh the imagination. I personally think Muslim women would be disgusted to think that you feel one of the few ways they can contribute is by teaching within their own community and not trying to extend their skills anywhere else. Shame on you.

Yes, I know, all our schools are meant to be welcoming, inclusive places. My Muslim friends tell me it isn't always so. They worry about the materialistic, secular values that dominate life in so many state schools. As, of course, do many Christians and Jews and Hindus and Sikhs. '

First of all My Woodhead, please explain how materialistic values in any way dominate life in state schools. Secondly, explain why secular values should not dominate life in a state school- the only possible option under which all faiths can be treated equally within the school system and still intergrate.

Around a third of the 22,000 state schools in England and Wales are faith schools Most (6,800) are Christian There are 36 Jewish state-funded schools, six Muslim and two Sikh state-funded schools 22,000 state schools are faith schools, ok, and six Muslim schools. But hold on now, you just mentioned in the article that you visited one of 120 private Muslim schools? I've looked for exact figues and I can't find them, but I'm expecting there are, in that case, many many more private faith schools of other religions as well. This is too many. I go further than the teachers union: the phasing out of all faith school, state funded or private, needs to be started. What of, My Woodhead, the couple with a young child who they would rather wasn't indoctrinated into a faith school (the only good school in the area due to the funding shifts) where the parents have to lie about their faith in order to get a good education for their son? Wait Mr Woodhead, wait ten years or so, and then we shall see.

The Euston Manifesto Launch

2006-04-14T12:29:00.000+01:00

The following is the launch text for the Euston Manifesto:

'Today, 13Apr06, we — bloggers, academics, campaigners, writers, scientists, journalists, citizens — launch the Euston Manifesto. With this document we hope to publicly assert our progressive, democratic, egalitarian, internationalist principles in the face of recent attacks upon them from the Right and, to our dismay, the Left.Many of us are of the Left, but we come from across the range of political positions. We are not founding a political party. There were differences amongst us over Western military intervention in Iraq. Our declaration is not definitive, final, or perfect; it is, we hope, the beginning of a renewed debate, grounded in a common set of progressive values. You can read and sign the document at our Website where donations towards our costs are also welcome.Comments are closed on this announcement alone because that is all this post is: an announcement. We simply want to launch this movement in a co-ordinated way and make sure there is time for people to understand exactly what we stand for before criticising it. We welcome discussion of the Euston Manifesto across blogs, in the media, and in the public world and intend that the Euston Manifesto Group, the organisation founded upon the manifesto's principles, will promote such debate by organising meetings, sponsoring seminars, and publishing ideas. '

I signed the Euston Manifesto, and intend to be involved in it because it is strongly in line with my current views of the world. Debate is needed, and the Left needs a hard look in the mirror. We must not forget the environment we are in.

Compulsory Voting and Turnout

2006-04-08T17:49:00.000+01:00

In post-war Britain we have been faced with a ever declining number of the electorate choosing to vote. At the last election turnout was at 61%, up from a historical low in 2001 of 59%. European and Local election turnouts are abysmal, rarely toping 30%- and unfortunately this may well be the case in the May local elections of 2006.

To take one particular case: the 1999 Welsh referendum on an assembly. Just over 50% of the electorate voted in this referendum, and just over half of them voted in favour of the motion, which was put through. Therefore only one quarter of the Welsh population voted for the assembly, one of the most significant constitional changes in the Union for centuries.

This is a major problem (I would not class it as a crisis- turnout in 1997 reached 71%) in some Western democracies. Voter turnout in Iraq, were there was a chance of being blown up while voting, was higher than in the UK. The Italian election of tomorrow and Monday may well see turnout up to 80%. Our governments, both national and local, lack legitimacy and a mandate for their policies- and finally, voter turnout is of course, poorest among the youngest voters.

Our recent governments have little interest in raising the number of people who vote, it is often easier for them to simply rely on a steady base. Reform of the electoral system is a bad idea in itself and would not change voter turnout, nor would the introduction of referendums (also a pretty bad idea). 'Get out the vote' drives are largely only focused on very small areas. Postal voting as had numerous problems, including voter fraud. Personally, I think there is one solution to this worrying trend, and that is compulsory voting.

The requirement to vote would strengthen the legitimacy of every government massively and provide a much stronger democratic system. However, I believe this should be done with one guarantee, and that is that on the ballot paper, each citizen has the right to mark a box expressing that they do not wish to vote for anyone. This is a democratic right and should be allowed. With the present system governments do not know what the 40% (or whatever number don't vote) are thinking, and therefore cannot respond to their needs in anyway. It is like having a census and only counting 2/3 of all people (and by the way- I update this on the 1st May, it appears the Institue of Public Policy Research agree http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4961532.stm)

What do you think of this proposal, I have been personally been unsure for a while but have recently warmed to the idea. Please do comment.

The UK Life League

2006-03-29T16:51:00.000+01:00

WARNING* This article is about the UK Life League. Their website contains graphic pictures of post-abortions and the like, mostly from the USA. I would strongly advise you to bear in mind the contents of your stomach before trawling through their website.*

You may have read in the Guardian on Monday a piece by Sandra Laville about the new pro-life pressure group, the UK Life League. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1740485,00.html
By the way, I can't help but feel that I will be preaching to the converted a litte here; I know very few people who oppose abortion with as much zeal as these guys. However, having researched them, they scare me to such an extent that I feel highlighting them is necessary.

In this country we are very lucky. Abortion is legal, with no regional variations and luckily, unlike in America, its legality hangs on more than a Supreme Court case which I would imagine will be challenged before 2008. The UK Life League wish to reverse this luck, and campaign to 'stop the slaughter of our youngest children by abortion'.

Why focus on this pressure group in particular though? There are a variety of pro-life groups within the UK, why pick on the UK Life League? For any interest group, it is not their cause which matters as much as the tactics they use.

The UK Life League's tactics:

"We still need more people local to abortion facilities to gather information for the UK Life League. Do you already have information? We need information on abortionists, clinic workers and anybody else who actively supports unborn child-killing."
- In other words, this is asking for actual information on individuals in the medical profession so they can be targeted, much like the ALF (see previous article), and the home addresses of people have already been published.
The Guardian article details how catholic teachers themselves are targeted for teaching sex education, and that pupils at schools are also targeted with such literature, and the inspiration the group gets from militant US tactics.

You can imagine how, as they gain support, these tactics will become more visible.

James Dowson is the man at the top of this despicable organasiation, he is both a vicar and a former member of the Orange League (i.e. the orange Protestant order in Northern Ireland). Just the kind of man you'd invite round for tea while he could preach his message of hatred and show you pictures of abortions. Nice.

I'm not going to make lots of points stating why abortion should be legal; if you think otherwise then feel free to comment and justify yourself- it is your views that need explaining, not mine.

There is a chance that in the USA abortion may soon be illegal or be considerably more difficult to be undertaken legally. Those of us who believe in giving people a choice, rather than letting a minority of people's religious views restrict everyone else, need to keep an eye on the UK Life League.

Once again, I find myself publishing a post were a minority of people think they can change the behavior of the population through threats and possible violence. Time to stand our ground again.

The Hypocrisy of the Left

2006-03-21T16:44:00.000Z

Today I read an article by Ian Traynor in the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ It commented upon Lukashenko and Milosevic. This was in the new part of the Guardian website, Comment is Free, which means anyone can comment upon any article.

Someone named Tricky Tree had left a comment, which provided a link to: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/335370.html
This was an article which was critical of an anti-war meeting and its support for dictators and double standards regarding Iran. This was not the most interesting aspect however; it was the comments to the second article. This included:
"You talk of extremism in a manner akin to fascists like Nick Griffin and your paranoia is lamentable."
"Your only interest is to attack Iran."

I point these out so we know who we are dealing with. The left (a generalization I know, but for the purpose of this post I will use it and hope most get my meaning) worry me far more than Neo-Conservatives do most of the time. I intend to explain why.

There was an anti-war march in London a couple of days ago. Placards included calling for a revolution like those in South America (not really revolutions, just elections which we a little questionable) and for a Free Palestine. And nuclear disarmament. No wonder they didn't have as many people as they thought, perhaps it should be re-named "Stop the War Coalition along with any other international issues which will annoy America and help incite a worldwide socialist revolution". Not as snappy, but more accurate.

The hypocrisy of these people; to blast anti-terrorist laws in this country yet support dictators in others, to state that censorship by the US and UK is rife yet be horrified at the Prophet Mohammad cartoons, to state that the UK is a dictatorial police state while supporting the very same abroad! A criticism of me may now be that just because they don't want to attack it (unlike, they would claim, me) it doesn't mean they support it. Really? Lets see.

I wonder where George Galloway is when the Uzbekistan government killed hundreds in a democratic protest, or where the anti- war movement is during the election in Belarus, Lebanon's elections. Where were they cheering the disarmament of Libya?
... and what is this in the name of? Hatred of America, and anything it may stand for. I remember how the left used to be the champion of freedom and liberty not just for the UK but for the world. Have these people forgotten that a foudning principle of socialism is worldwide democratic revolution? Where is the support for that gone now, must be too busy excusing Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi insurgents; after all, anyone who stands up to America must be a hero.

We watched Belarus. Do you know what I heard? I heard the EU, the OSCE and the American state department criticising Lukashenko. I didn't hear the Left, nor did I expect to, for to do so, would put them on the side of America- which they cannot bear to do.

The American Strategy

2006-03-16T16:34:00.000Z

Today the US released a new document detailing their general outlook regarding the war on terror and foreign policy: you can read it yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf

"The first pillar is promoting freedom, justice and human dignity - working to end tyranny, to promote effective democracies, and to extend democracy through free and fair trade and wise development policies".
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democracies movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Anyone massively disagree with that, please say, I mean freedom and democracy for the world... oh how terrible.

"Leaders that have won democratic elections need to uphold the principles of democracy".

Your damn right they do! Quasi-democracies, as I call them, are far more easy to tackle with diplomatic pressure, sponsoring of others groups and the like than say, North Korea. Incidentally, please all keep you eyes on Belarus for the next couple of days, the opposition in that country deserves our attention.

"People living in nations such as the DPRK, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwae know firsthand the meaning of tyranny".
there's our key little list again, and it looks like there right. If anyone would object to the sponsoring of pro-democracy groups and restrictions on the travel of senior officials within these countries, please say.

America comes in for near constant criticism, and sometimes I count myself among those who do this. I don't agree with everything in this report. The reason I am stating this whole thing is to challenge those who criticise America for wishing to spread democracy (in Iraq and Afghanistan they went in for other reasons, and could hardly leave these countries to another tyrant or similar regime). I do not wish America to invade another country, what I wish for is the global community to support their efforts, diplomatically, verbally, economically and even sometimes military (military intervention and invasion are quite different) to support democracy around the world. Tell me why that is wrong, please.

The reports lists some successes and failures in such an aim of the past couple of years. We know the failures, so I will list what I believe to be the successes:
The colored Revolutions
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza
Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and its first elections.
Elections in Afghanistan
Elections in Iraq
Libya giving up WMD's and coming out of the cold.
Reforms in Saudi Arabia.
Kuwait allowing women the vote.
Well, I'm sure there are more. The unfortunate thing is, no-one else is going to do this, no-one else is going to promote democracy. China can't for hypocrisy, nor can Russia for the same reason, the EU is too scared to. I can write this, right now, and be free to do so. Why should anyone else not be able to?
Perhaps I am straying into the realms of idealism too deeply, considering the very title of this blog. I however, make, no apologies for such views. Keep watching Belarus.

One last point- I promised I would mention them so http://www.petitiononline.com/FoE2006/. This is a online petition for freedom of expression, feel free to read what they have to say and sign it if you so wish.

Belarus Revolution

2006-03-03T22:38:00.000Z

Hello all, back once again.
Today's article is about the Eastern European county Belarus. If you'd like to know more about what the county is like then please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus.
The reason I mention it is because of the lack of democracy there. It has been labeled as Europe's last dictatorship by the USA, and for once they are pretty accurate. President Lukashenko has been in power since 1994, and is running for re-election again this year. Press freedom is being decreased, opposition candidates arrested and Soviet-era laws on assembled are still in place. The security forces have posters stating 'we are always near you'.
So much for post-Soviet democratisation.
However, there is still hope. Many of you will remember the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Velvet revolution in Georgia. Along with the overthrow of Slobadon Milošević' these represtented a new wave of democractic revolution against corrupt and Russian-supported leaders.
On the 19th March 2006, 'elections' will take place in Belarus. It is important that the West supports the opposition and monitors the elections. A greater ideological issue is at state. The West bangs on about democracy in other countries. We can't invade China or even Burma, but we can fund opposition groups, put diplomatic and financial pressure on a country right on our doorstep. The main student opposition group is http://www.zubr-belarus.com/index.php?lang=2 (be sure to click on 'English').
Lets see what happens in 16 days time then- bring on the next revolution.

Oxford Lab, Animals Rights and Pro-Test

2006-02-26T18:58:00.000Z

Greetings all.
It has come to my attention recently that I am yet to mention the animal rights debate on my blog. I therefore will do so today.
The ALF, a group which fire-bombs cars and buildings, throws objects at people, publishes the addresses of anyone who disagrees with them and dig up the remains of a grandma who's living relatives had a vague connection to Huttington Life Sciences... (you get the idea) are still at large, organizing marches under the cover of 'moderates' (any of the above seem moderate?) and generally going about their business. However, along has come (drum roll please)... Laurie Pycroft, also called Sqrrl101, who has created the Pro-Test (I LOVE the name, simple but fantastic) group, campaigning against the ALF. They held their first march recently, hundreds of people. The argument for Pro-Test is a long list of people who's lives have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved by modern medicine... For the ALF, it is holding a puppy in front of a camera while wearing a balaclava (not the puppy wearing it... Though wouldn't put it past them). Go figure.
Let no-one say the internet isn't a powerful tool for public opinion.
Laurie Pycroft is doing a fantastic job and he needs the support of as much of the population as possible.
Again, I see a recurring theme in my blogs with regards to extremism. We disagree with them... and they threaten violence. But we stand up for what we believe in, we stand up against bullying tactics- this is what Laurie Pycroft is doing, under siege from ALF death threats. Give the man a knighthood.
Here are some links, to the Pro-Test site and Laurie's blog.
http://www.pro-test.org.uk/index.htm
http://sqrrl101.livejournal.com/
And here is the one for the ALF... got to show the other view as well (or maybe I'm just exposing them for the extremists they are, you decide dear reader.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
Enjoy.

Church Schools

2006-02-16T16:45:00.000Z

So, to move away from the below topic in some ways (but to keep some association), let us deal with the issue of Church schools.
Many a-time have I voiced my opposistion of all Church Schools in the UK to friends, and have been met with besuement, so I will expand.
Church schools deviate from secular schools in a number of ways. On the board of governors, local members of the Church will be included. There will be an increased focus on whichever religion (or denomination) the schools belongs to. Selection will too be effected greatly by the status of the school, as is (I believe) funding. I will admit that I haven't researched this topic too thoroughly, so mistakes may be noticeable. But the general theme can be seen regardless.
How Church schools can be anything but devise is largely beyond me. How separating children during their education-at a time when they are arguably being shaped into the adults they'll become, at a time when we are heavily impressionable can be favorable is again, beyond me.
Lets have some figures: 7,000 faith schools in England (600 secondary, 6,400 primary). The vast majority are Christian
Luckily we have not yet reached the point where creationism is being taught on a par with evolution.
The policy is apparently that were demand for a faith school exists, one should be created. Does this mean if enough people in a community created a new faith, lets call it Jedi Sons of the Muesli (why not?), then a school based on this faith would be opened? Demand from a small section of society shouldn't cause the values of the whole society to be overturned.
Faith schools don't let children, in an educational context, learn about other faiths which they may have little contact with and increase an association of loyalty to authority with loyalty to religion. How a Christian schools and a Muslim school in the same town are going to see eye to eye is totally beyond me.
If religions want to fund education, let them, but let them do so within secular schools and by giving the money to a central authority.
Some people may reply to this stating that they went to a Church schools and haven't, for example, turned out ultra-religious. This includes me, for my primary schools was CofE. However, it is not you I am worried about. It is the parents who have no choice but to send their child to a faith school as it is the only one in the area, and it is the children taught only their religious values, not others.
I hope the government will reverse their support for Church schools before we see creationism taught over evolution and the first Maddras opened.

The Cartoon Row

2006-02-06T19:25:00.000Z

See the below blog for my inital views on this.
'Slay those who insult Islam' '7/7 is on its way' 'Europe you will pay 9/11 is on its way'
And so on.
Sometimes its tempting just to get the BNP and all Muslim extremists and let them fight it out on an oil rig in the North Sea. Then sink the oil rig anyway- no martyrs come from accidents.
The protestors who chanted the above slogans in London earlier this week... here comes the paradox of living in a liberal democracy. The instituions and the democractic way of live must be preserved, and part of this comes from allowing those in a democracy to express their views. Therefore, we don't have the right to stiffle these views completely- let them have their protests, but any laws broken and they need to be arrested and prosecuted (under conspiracy to murder)
Now its time to express some dissapointment on part of the British Press. Please, one of the mainstream papers (NOT a right-wing one like the Daily Mail doing it just to piss people off), please publish the pictures. The Guardian should be appalued for providing a link at the bottom of their articles regarding the cartoon that show the pictures themselves (but in an external website). If the Muslim community is as moderate and condemming of the placards as Sir Iqbal Sacranie claims, then no violent protests will take place- certainly no burning of embassies (which you just do not get to do).
Hypocricy is a terrible by-production of human passion- burning flags, let alone whole embassies is equal to the offence caused by the cartoons, and in addition, have a quick glance at what some of the Middle Eastern press refers to Jews as.
The cartoons are published, and yes this makes life harder, it makes tensions greater. But perhaps we do these things anyway, because though it may not be easy, it seems to be the right thing to do. However I still have faith- faith that the most important gulf is not between two civlizations, but between moderate Muslims and their more reactionary cousins. Now is the time of former.

Danish-Muhammad Row

2006-02-01T01:01:00.000Z

As you may have noticed, an arguement has emerged between Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark and certain Arabic countries, regarding their cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Islam bans any such images. Certain nations have become a bit missed off at this, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinan Terriotories and Libya. They have demanded that the Danish government punish the paper (the paper has already said sorry).
In Iraq, children were walking over the flag, in Palestine (which relies partly on EU aid) they stormed the EU offices and the good-old flag burning as well, not to mention the recalling and summoning of various diplomatic officials.
The government doesn't punish the media for being nasty to people. It seems odd that burning a flag is acceptable but a cartoon is not. Sadly this seems to show the gulf between Western liberal democracies and certain countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The West shouldn't back down to any religion which attempts itself to clamp down on freedom of speech and expression. Nor can governments-particularly those who are not democratically elected-attempt to even suggest domestic policy to a well established liberal democracy.
On a similar note, the British government suffered a defeat on the religious hatred bill. Good stuff (not that I like to see Labour doing that dreadfully)
I am not being, in the above comment, specfically anti-Muslim or any Muslim country, simply anti any religion which attempts to impose its will on freedom of speech.

Unity and Diversity

2006-01-24T11:10:00.000Z

Hello all. Haven't posted anything here for a while, but some thoughts struck me yesterday.
What the world and in particular the West seems to now be faced with his a delicate balancing act, between unity on the one hand and diversity on the other.
Unity is obviously important to any nation-a sense of loyalty decreases civil disobedience, increases a feeling of community and citizenship.
Diversity is important as people must be allowed to be individual, to practice religion freely and have certain human rights allowing, for example, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
How can these 2 concepts work together? When you unify a country, some sacrifices must be made regarding diversity which may include some erosion of human rights; if you allow a country to be diverse, the run the risk of separates movements and clear, damaging divisions in a society.
If we want to make sure British citizens don't blow each other up again, then a balance must be found.
This can also be seen on another level; I was talking with two friends with regards to Venice, and whether, for example, preservation of the local culture should allow restrictions on foreign tourists buying out the locals. Preservation of cultures is needed-but also is, for example, worldwide (or as much as we can get) democracy, therefore interference will be necessary. The destruction of cultures is perhaps the worst part of globalization, interdependence the best. I sure don't have the answer, hopefully at some point the global village will find it.
Unity and diversity... not a bad mantra that....

World Poverty

2005-06-25T23:17:00.000+01:00

Lets look at the facts, yes G8:
30,000 children dying, every die. Could be prevented
£12,000 to a scottish farmer to raise a cow. Thats one cow. 1. cow.
And they'll just keep on dying, and dying and dying.
This is what the governments have to do:

The European Union must abolish, completely and with no exceptions, the entire Common Agriculture Policy. CAP is the worst policy in the world at the moment and I will not tolerate it any longer. The governments must risk the wrath of their citizens and put an end to this backward, countryside-pleasing policy.

The American government must put an end to all farm subsidies.

The African Union must speak out against corruption in all African regmies.

The 0.7% GDP package must be met, and doubled twice over the next ten years.

All third world debt must be cancelled, straight away and with no exceptions.

Those countries in Africa yet to accept democracy must be bloody forced to, even if that involes U.N peacekeepers. In particular, peace in the Congo, the defeat of the Lords Liberation Army in Uganda, the removal of the government in the Sudan, the restoration of a cenetral government in Somalia, the removal of Robert Mugagbe's regieme and religious cohesion in Nigeria must be achivied.

Some would call me idealistic, in total comparison to the title of this blog and its description. But I feel strongly enough about this to put it down anyway.
To the 8 men and their advisers. I know you think these targets unrealistic, that their are too many trade barriers, that your electorate won't take it in. Inform they if they aren't already.

If you do this, you will be remembered, in office or out, as some of the bravest, most courageous, world-changing people of the 21st century, of eternity. The foundation starts here. Please, don't let us down, but more importantly, don't let them down. Time, as you can see from the image, is running out.

Iranian Elections: 2nd Round

2005-06-19T21:24:00.000+01:00

This was so NOT meant to happen!!! As I stated before, it is now VITAL than Iranians back Rafsanjani or all the hard one freedoms over the past 8 years will be rolled back by Ahmadinejad.
I urge ALL Iranians to use their vote, not to stay indoors and make assumptions about the result-after all, this one was certainly a surprise. Especially the young, those who have their eyes open to the world will suffer under an Ahmadinejad Presidency.
VOTE

Iranian Elections

2005-06-16T21:22:00.000+01:00

Much as I would like Mostafa Moin to become Iranian President and challenge the hardliners, Iranian voters have to be pragmatic at this crucial stage. Due to the unlikelyhood of any candidate recieving 50%+ of the vote, here is my advice: In the first round, vote Moin. If he doesn't get through, vote for Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani against a more convservative candidate, who is bound to be in any 2-way race. However, on the chance that Moin does get through... well then its up to those in Iran to decide.
Whatever happens, I urge the young people of Iran to use their vote. This is one of the few times they can really make a difference. I know it may seem as if the hardliners cannot be challenged, but they can. You have the backing of the world behind, and the blessing of every democracy. Any resistance is worth it.

Pakistan Rape Case

2005-06-14T20:17:00.000+01:00

I've been following this case for a while now. Mukhtar Mai was raped on the orders of a tribal council in 2002. The Pakistan government are now restricing her movement out of the country, after Amnesty International have invited her to America. They claim the court case needs to be finished before she can leave.
As a close and important ally to the US in the contiuing hunt for Bin Laden and the security situation in Afganistan, the West needs to put pressure on countries such as Pakistan for more women's rights and a clamp down on such arachic practices. If a country wants to help the West, they should put meet certain criteria. True, when we're talking about stopping terriosm we need to be pragmatic, but these countries need the West as much as we need them.
It is fantastic than an illteriate women as emerged as a leader for women's rights, and I applaued her bravery and courage in standing up to this.

The Start

2005-06-14T03:04:00.000+01:00

Hello there all, and welcome to Realpolitik.
This is the start of a new blog I hope to keep going for a while, just general comments on life, the universe but it'll probably mainly be political stuff.
Just for the record, I'm based in the UK but I'll mostly be talking about worldwide things.
This is just the introduction and just the start, and if you do want to contact me or post anything here, please feel free to do so! Whatever you like... though politics related would be nice.
I'm only just getting the hang of all this technical stuff though, so bear with me
Speak to you soon.

Lebanon Elections

2005-06-13T19:30:00.000+01:00

A great achievement, the 3rd round results from the Lebanon elections are in, and again its an anti-Syrian candidate, Michel Aoun, who has done really well. The final round is next Sunday.
This is great for the Middle East, the process of democratisation there is one I approach with caution. We should bear in mind what Saudi Arabia would be like if direct elections were held-something along the lines of the Iraqi insurgency, only with the world's largest supply of oil.
I'm not against Syria as such, but its good that they've left the country?
Here's a talking point; would Syrian troops have left, therefore allowing free elections in the country, if it hadn't been for the American invasion of Iraq and the pressure they put on Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria?
Hope to hear from you on this