Ever seen a picture of a woman being buried up to her neck prior to being stoned? Well there's one here. You also see the Amnesty ad (slogan: "In Iran, stoning a person to death is not against the law. Using the wrong stone is.") where they show guidelines as to the right size of stone to use (it's the Goldilocks principle).
Tehran’s Killing Fields
FrontPageMagazine.com
January 27, 2005
Women sentenced to death by stoning are buried in the ground up to their necks. Iranian law regulates the size of the stones used by the executioner crowd; stones cannot be big enough to kill the sentenced woman too quickly, as the purpose of this barbaric ritual is to inflict as much pain as possible before death. On the other hand, stones cannot be too small, as each blow must be dramatically painful.
In a particularly gruesome execution carried out in 1993 in the city of Arak, a woman was to be stoned to death in front of her husband and two young children. After the stoning began, the woman was able to free herself from the hole in the ground, escaping death. According to Shariah laws, in such cases the woman must be let go, as her death sentence was revoked by divine intervention. Ten minutes after the failed stoning, however, the poor woman was chased down, apprehended and summarily executed anyway, by a firing squad.
While stoning captures the imagination of Westerners as the most barbaric act committed under Shariah laws, other forms of sentencing perpetrated by the Islamic Republic are just as horrific. For example, Iran employs several types of body mutilation, from the amputation of hands, arms and legs to the macabre procedure of plucking out the eyeballs of the sentenced without the use of anesthetics. Several photos exist to document such occurrences, in dossiers kept by human rights organizations.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Report from the Rally for Freedom of Expression
A fun day out of speeches and rain. It’s been a long time since I’ve been on a demo. So long in fact, that the last time I was on a march people were still chanting ‘Maggie, Maggie, Maggie – Out! Out! Out!’ This was somewhat different. V. civilised. No exhortations to buy the Socialist Worker.
It was a small crowd. The first couple of speeches were by Dr. Evan Harris (Lib Dem) and Peter Tatchell. Both spoke eloquently about their support for freedom of speech, though both drew the line at incitement to hatred and/or violence. (Remember Tatchell was all for prosecuting Beenie Man over his lyrics) I’ve actually got a lot of time for Tatchell. A friend said he’d written to him complaining about a particular article he’d written and he said he got a very sweet and well-reasoned reply. Both speeches were good (Tatchell more or less posted his in advance – you can read it here) and both made a point of criticising Sir Iqbal Sacranie – the general thrust being that they defend his right to criticise homosexuals and wish that he in turn would defend their right to criticise Islam. Harris also castigated Charles Clarke for his letter to Imams in which he made party political capital out of the defeat of the Religious Hatred Bill. Throughout the afternoon there was frequent reference to the MoToons, Religious Hatred Bill, ‘glorification of terrorism’, Jerry Springer and Bezhti.
There was a moment of excitement when one of the organisers told the crowd that a man had been questioned by the police for holding a banner with one of the MoToons on it. A friend of said man made a short speech and held the offending banner aloft passing it round the crowd with a cry of ‘They can’t arrest all of us.’ The banner was duly passed round. I should point out that there had been a controversial 11th hour request for rallyers to not display the cartoons which caused an inevitable bunching up of panties (read the comments). In the end I think the support for the MoToon when it was passed around showed that the rally had not become the ‘anti-cartoon’ protest that some had feared. There was also an uncomfortable moment when an effigy of Blair with a swastika round his neck attracted the attention of stewards but I was too far away to see exactly what was going on (or indeed the text accompanying the effigy). But in any event, the effigy was held up for a while.
While we’re on the subject of banners, most were rather po-faced quotations but there were some more imaginative homemade ones:
“Infidel Bloggers Alliance”
A picture of Zoidberg from Futurama under the heading “Toons for Freedom of Expression”
Danish flags with “Londoners stand with you”
Tatchell carried a rather fetching “Love Muslims – Hate Religious Tyrants”
“Toonophobia”
“He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.”
And my favourite: “Free to offend – please don’t behead me!”
There was also a nice moment of traditional British silliness when a man dressed as a bullfighter ran around with a Danish flag shouting “Fight the fundamentalist bull” to the sound of hearty applause.
More speeches followed and despite the rain the crowd remained solid. (Police estimate 250, organisers 600 – personally I think the police may be nearer the mark.) Other speakers included Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society - unsurprisingly he was focussed on blasphemy laws, Religious Hatred, and the (by now de riguer) Motoons, Springer opera and Bezhti play.
The next speaker was an Iraqi, identified only as Ali. He described life under Saddam and told of a man who got 7 years, just for dreaming of a coup. He said that not only did they not have freedom of speech, they did not have freedom to dream. He supported the invasion and expressed his support for the democratic voices in Iraq who want freedom of expression and warned of an ongoing battle against theocracy and totalitarianism. He told us he was a practising Muslim, but denounced the idea of a prophet who would ask you to kill in his name. He also had a neat joke about freedom of thought giving female suicide bombers the right to ask for 72 men when they get to paradise. (Maybe you had to be there. But it got a big laugh.)
The most surprising speech was by Labi Siffre. He’s actually quite the activist, so it shouldn’t have been that surprising, but till today I only knew him for recording ‘It Must be Love (later a big hit for Madness) and also the main sample in Eminem’s ‘My Name Is’. Anyway, he made a great speech, the theme of which was ‘not all beliefs are worthy of respect’ and included the line ‘I reject the argument that “because I am sincere, I must be right”’.
The most hardcore speech came from Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance. He was the first (and only) speaker to mention Nick Griffin, Abu Hamza and David Irving, names that did not exactly provoke any rousing cheers. (I did spot one guy wearing a sandwich board about Irving, but I couldn’t read all of it from where I was. May have been a bit nutty.) Nonetheless, his general point was very well received, namely that many people displayed ‘a selective attitude to free speech’ and were rather ‘defending a range of permissible expressions’.
There were a couple more speeches but those were the highlights. Very peaceful. Low key policing (though L. was pretty sure they were photographing the crowd, which is a little worrying.) I have to say that the two hours flew by and that it felt really good to be there.
And when it was all over my youngest son got to say ‘hello’ to a policeman and try on his helmet.
It was a small crowd. The first couple of speeches were by Dr. Evan Harris (Lib Dem) and Peter Tatchell. Both spoke eloquently about their support for freedom of speech, though both drew the line at incitement to hatred and/or violence. (Remember Tatchell was all for prosecuting Beenie Man over his lyrics) I’ve actually got a lot of time for Tatchell. A friend said he’d written to him complaining about a particular article he’d written and he said he got a very sweet and well-reasoned reply. Both speeches were good (Tatchell more or less posted his in advance – you can read it here) and both made a point of criticising Sir Iqbal Sacranie – the general thrust being that they defend his right to criticise homosexuals and wish that he in turn would defend their right to criticise Islam. Harris also castigated Charles Clarke for his letter to Imams in which he made party political capital out of the defeat of the Religious Hatred Bill. Throughout the afternoon there was frequent reference to the MoToons, Religious Hatred Bill, ‘glorification of terrorism’, Jerry Springer and Bezhti.
There was a moment of excitement when one of the organisers told the crowd that a man had been questioned by the police for holding a banner with one of the MoToons on it. A friend of said man made a short speech and held the offending banner aloft passing it round the crowd with a cry of ‘They can’t arrest all of us.’ The banner was duly passed round. I should point out that there had been a controversial 11th hour request for rallyers to not display the cartoons which caused an inevitable bunching up of panties (read the comments). In the end I think the support for the MoToon when it was passed around showed that the rally had not become the ‘anti-cartoon’ protest that some had feared. There was also an uncomfortable moment when an effigy of Blair with a swastika round his neck attracted the attention of stewards but I was too far away to see exactly what was going on (or indeed the text accompanying the effigy). But in any event, the effigy was held up for a while.
While we’re on the subject of banners, most were rather po-faced quotations but there were some more imaginative homemade ones:
“Infidel Bloggers Alliance”
A picture of Zoidberg from Futurama under the heading “Toons for Freedom of Expression”
Danish flags with “Londoners stand with you”
Tatchell carried a rather fetching “Love Muslims – Hate Religious Tyrants”
“Toonophobia”
“He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.”
And my favourite: “Free to offend – please don’t behead me!”
There was also a nice moment of traditional British silliness when a man dressed as a bullfighter ran around with a Danish flag shouting “Fight the fundamentalist bull” to the sound of hearty applause.
More speeches followed and despite the rain the crowd remained solid. (Police estimate 250, organisers 600 – personally I think the police may be nearer the mark.) Other speakers included Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society - unsurprisingly he was focussed on blasphemy laws, Religious Hatred, and the (by now de riguer) Motoons, Springer opera and Bezhti play.
The next speaker was an Iraqi, identified only as Ali. He described life under Saddam and told of a man who got 7 years, just for dreaming of a coup. He said that not only did they not have freedom of speech, they did not have freedom to dream. He supported the invasion and expressed his support for the democratic voices in Iraq who want freedom of expression and warned of an ongoing battle against theocracy and totalitarianism. He told us he was a practising Muslim, but denounced the idea of a prophet who would ask you to kill in his name. He also had a neat joke about freedom of thought giving female suicide bombers the right to ask for 72 men when they get to paradise. (Maybe you had to be there. But it got a big laugh.)
The most surprising speech was by Labi Siffre. He’s actually quite the activist, so it shouldn’t have been that surprising, but till today I only knew him for recording ‘It Must be Love (later a big hit for Madness) and also the main sample in Eminem’s ‘My Name Is’. Anyway, he made a great speech, the theme of which was ‘not all beliefs are worthy of respect’ and included the line ‘I reject the argument that “because I am sincere, I must be right”’.
The most hardcore speech came from Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance. He was the first (and only) speaker to mention Nick Griffin, Abu Hamza and David Irving, names that did not exactly provoke any rousing cheers. (I did spot one guy wearing a sandwich board about Irving, but I couldn’t read all of it from where I was. May have been a bit nutty.) Nonetheless, his general point was very well received, namely that many people displayed ‘a selective attitude to free speech’ and were rather ‘defending a range of permissible expressions’.
There were a couple more speeches but those were the highlights. Very peaceful. Low key policing (though L. was pretty sure they were photographing the crowd, which is a little worrying.) I have to say that the two hours flew by and that it felt really good to be there.
And when it was all over my youngest son got to say ‘hello’ to a policeman and try on his helmet.
Moussaoui al-Qaeda trial - FBI in dock for criminal ineptitude
Be afraid... be very afraid....
Al-Qaeda trial lands FBI in dock for criminal ineptitude
The Times
March 25, 2006
THEY filed into court three weeks ago — the grieving families, the press, the curious public, the jury — expecting to see the Bush Administration lay out in devastating detail why Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in the US for his connection to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, should be put to death.
What they have witnessed is a dark tragicomedy, a courtroom farce with the FBI and the Government revealed in excruciating detail as the Keystone Kops, and Moussaoui himself, hood-eyed, thickly bearded and constantly ranting, an onlooker as blunder has followed blunder.
Displaying an exceptional level of incompetence, prosecutors have managed to put the Government in the dock on charges of criminal ineptitude and cronyism, while the self-confessed al-Qaeda terrorist and disciple of Osama bin Laden they are desperate to execute sits on the sidelines, with every chance of reaching old age.
...
This week a wealth of new evidence of how the FBI bungled the Moussaoui investigation became so Pythonesque in its absurdity that even the victims’ families were roaring with laughter.
Into the witness box stepped Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui. He was called by the prosecution but became the star witness of the defence.
He said that he warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was an al-Qaeda operative who might be plotting to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building. He said that he was regularly thwarted by two superiors, David Frasca and Michael Maltbie, from obtaining a warrant to search Moussaoui’s flat. He accused the men of being criminally negligent.
Mr Maltbie told him that getting a warrant, which could be troublesome, might harm his — Maltbie’s — career prospects. Mr Maltbie has since been promoted.
Al-Qaeda trial lands FBI in dock for criminal ineptitude
The Times
March 25, 2006
THEY filed into court three weeks ago — the grieving families, the press, the curious public, the jury — expecting to see the Bush Administration lay out in devastating detail why Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in the US for his connection to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, should be put to death.
What they have witnessed is a dark tragicomedy, a courtroom farce with the FBI and the Government revealed in excruciating detail as the Keystone Kops, and Moussaoui himself, hood-eyed, thickly bearded and constantly ranting, an onlooker as blunder has followed blunder.
Displaying an exceptional level of incompetence, prosecutors have managed to put the Government in the dock on charges of criminal ineptitude and cronyism, while the self-confessed al-Qaeda terrorist and disciple of Osama bin Laden they are desperate to execute sits on the sidelines, with every chance of reaching old age.
...
This week a wealth of new evidence of how the FBI bungled the Moussaoui investigation became so Pythonesque in its absurdity that even the victims’ families were roaring with laughter.
Into the witness box stepped Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui. He was called by the prosecution but became the star witness of the defence.
He said that he warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was an al-Qaeda operative who might be plotting to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building. He said that he was regularly thwarted by two superiors, David Frasca and Michael Maltbie, from obtaining a warrant to search Moussaoui’s flat. He accused the men of being criminally negligent.
Mr Maltbie told him that getting a warrant, which could be troublesome, might harm his — Maltbie’s — career prospects. Mr Maltbie has since been promoted.
Released Iraq hostages 'refuse to help their rescuers'
I reckon they should hand Kember and the other two hostages back.
Released hostages 'refuse to help their rescuers'
Telegraph
25/03/2006
The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday. The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages. Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.
...
Previous hostages have been questioned on everything from what shoes their kidnappers wore to the number of mobile phones they had. The pacifist Christian Peacemaker Teams with which the men were visiting Iraq is opposed to the coalition's presence and has accused it of illegally detaining thousands of Iraqis.
Jan Benvie, 51, an Edinburgh teacher who is due to go to Iraq with the organisation this summer, said: "We make clear that if we are kidnapped we do not want there to be force or any form of violence used to release us."
Although the CPTs has welcomed the men's release, it has not thanked the rescuers in any of its statements. It blamed the kidnapping on the presence of foreign troops in the country, which was "responsible for so much pain and suffering in Iraq today".
Released hostages 'refuse to help their rescuers'
Telegraph
25/03/2006
The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday. The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages. Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.
...
Previous hostages have been questioned on everything from what shoes their kidnappers wore to the number of mobile phones they had. The pacifist Christian Peacemaker Teams with which the men were visiting Iraq is opposed to the coalition's presence and has accused it of illegally detaining thousands of Iraqis.
Jan Benvie, 51, an Edinburgh teacher who is due to go to Iraq with the organisation this summer, said: "We make clear that if we are kidnapped we do not want there to be force or any form of violence used to release us."
Although the CPTs has welcomed the men's release, it has not thanked the rescuers in any of its statements. It blamed the kidnapping on the presence of foreign troops in the country, which was "responsible for so much pain and suffering in Iraq today".
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Palestinian-Israeli War: Where It Came From, and How to End It - Pipes
Superb article from Pipes, some excerpts below:
The Palestinian-Israeli War: Where It Came From, and How to End It
Daniel Pipes
The Commonwealth
March 2006
What went wrong with Oslo?
There was an assumption that the Palestinians would follow the leadership: If Yasser Arafat signed a document, others in the Palestinian leadership – the Palestinian body-politic more broadly – would likewise accept Israel's existence. Trouble was, first, that the leadership didn't really accept Israel. Look at areas where the leadership had control – television stations, political rhetoric, schoolbooks; while they were on the one hand shaking hands and making deals with Israelis, they on the other hand continued the message that Israel must be destroyed. Symbolic of this would be the maps. Every map produced showed a Palestine instead of an Israel, not alongside it.
Second mistake was to believe that governments or authorities can deliver their populations. If one looks at not just the Palestinian-Israeli accord but the Egyptian and Jordanian accords as well, we see a population – Egyptian, Jordanian or Palestinian – fairly passive and inclined to allow its leadership to take steps on its behalf. Once an agreement has been signed with Israel, the population becomes far more engaged, far more fervently anti-Zionist. It's as though the populations were saying to the leadership, You have our proxy – but when the leadership signed an agreement with Israel, that proxy was taken back.
I lived in Egypt in the 1970s. Before the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Egyptians were not that engaged in this problem. After it, they became far more engaged. Songs like "I Hate Israel" became blockbuster hits. Giving money to organizations that would engage in activities – violent and otherwise – against Israel became far more common.
The net result of the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was to produce a population of Palestinians that was more vehemently anti-Israel than before. The hope of destroying Israel acquired more traction, seen in words and in actions, in text and in maps. The muted Palestinian mood of 1993 turned into the enraged ambition of 2000. A population not so confident about its prospects – the Iraqis had just lost their war, the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Palestinians were in a precarious situation; they wanted to destroy Israel, but they could see no means of achieving it. By the year 2000, due to the diplomacy, to Israeli concessions, one found a Palestinian population that was truly inspired, that saw within its grasp the destruction of Israel.
What we might do better in the future
To look to the future requires us to acknowledge the faulty presumptions that underlay Oslo. First, that the Palestinians did in fact accept Israel; and second, that the elites could take a softer line and have this accepted more broadly. We must resolve not to make the same mistakes. Instead – and this is my key point – we must make popular Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence the primary goal. We must work, in other words, for what is now assumed.
The consensus view is that Palestinians have accepted Israel. That lies in the future. Survey research consistently shows that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of Palestinians, both within the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, have come to the conclusion that Israel's there and permanent. Interestingly, 15 to 20 percent of Israeli Jews believe that Palestinians have accepted Israel. Americans, when asked if the Palestinians have accepted Israel, about 20 percent say that Arafat sought a small state living alongside Israel. How might this be resolved?
I'm a historian, so I look at the historical record – how conflicts have been resolved in the 20th century. Over and over again, international conflicts are resolved not through mediation and compromise and good will, but through one side coming to the conclusion that it can no longer achieve its goals. The Germans lost in World War I, but they lost without being convinced that they had. They turned to Hitler and tried a second time. In the Second World War, the Allies made clear to the Germans that they had lost. The Korean War ended 50 years ago, but neither the North nor the South came to the conclusion that they could not prevail, and as a result, it could start up again at any time. The Arabs and Israelis fought time after time, yet neither side came to the conclusion it had lost. Iraq and Iran fought for eight years; neither side came to the conclusion it had lost.
....
Q: The notion of political correctness aside, is it not incumbent to be doubly careful in terms of the rhetoric used? Is it not possible that even Muslims who might agree with a great deal of what you're saying feel targeted and identified by some of the things you're saying – and that, perhaps, you tend to drive away some of the people who perhaps you need to support this moderation?
A: It's not for me to say whether my words are driving people away or not. But it is far more difficult to deal with the situation we have now, where there are pious statements made that No, there's no discrimination, there's no special attention paid to Muslims, there's no profiling – whereas in fact, everyone knows there is. That is more insidious than having a situation where one is forthright and says, Well, reluctantly, painfully, we must take these steps. It is in the interest of us all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Let us take these steps sensibly, intelligently, politely and knowledgeably, but let's take these steps because these steps are being taken in any case.
Many of the Muslim organizations protest that Muslims are being singled out and the authorities invariably say, No, no, no. I say, Yes, yes, yes. Let's not lie.
Q: Is it possible some Palestinians will say, "We have a vested interest in building a society and economy for ourselves"?
A: Yes, some will say that here's an opportunity. But this is not a predominant reaction. Look at the response to the Israeli withdrawal – leaving behind houses, fields and agriculture infrastructure with the intent that this could be used by the Palestinians. This was destroyed within hours. There was no interest in building the economy; there was interest in stamping the Palestinian victory over the Israelis, burning synagogues, desecrating synagogues. Was that about fixing the economy and the society and the polity and the culture? No, it's about winning.
The Israelis are fooling themselves if they think that they can finesse the Palestinians into forgetting that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. They are intent on destroying Israel, and if that means giving up their children as suicide bombers, having a lower standard of living, living under autocracy, they will take it. What they need to be convinced is: You're going to achieve nothing by it. This is where the United States and its allies can be so helpful, to send a signal that is steady and unremitting to the Palestinians: Forget it, you can't win this. Then the Palestinians might have second thoughts more quickly than they will if the outside world doesn't send that signal.
The Palestinian-Israeli War: Where It Came From, and How to End It
Daniel Pipes
The Commonwealth
March 2006
What went wrong with Oslo?
There was an assumption that the Palestinians would follow the leadership: If Yasser Arafat signed a document, others in the Palestinian leadership – the Palestinian body-politic more broadly – would likewise accept Israel's existence. Trouble was, first, that the leadership didn't really accept Israel. Look at areas where the leadership had control – television stations, political rhetoric, schoolbooks; while they were on the one hand shaking hands and making deals with Israelis, they on the other hand continued the message that Israel must be destroyed. Symbolic of this would be the maps. Every map produced showed a Palestine instead of an Israel, not alongside it.
Second mistake was to believe that governments or authorities can deliver their populations. If one looks at not just the Palestinian-Israeli accord but the Egyptian and Jordanian accords as well, we see a population – Egyptian, Jordanian or Palestinian – fairly passive and inclined to allow its leadership to take steps on its behalf. Once an agreement has been signed with Israel, the population becomes far more engaged, far more fervently anti-Zionist. It's as though the populations were saying to the leadership, You have our proxy – but when the leadership signed an agreement with Israel, that proxy was taken back.
I lived in Egypt in the 1970s. Before the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Egyptians were not that engaged in this problem. After it, they became far more engaged. Songs like "I Hate Israel" became blockbuster hits. Giving money to organizations that would engage in activities – violent and otherwise – against Israel became far more common.
The net result of the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was to produce a population of Palestinians that was more vehemently anti-Israel than before. The hope of destroying Israel acquired more traction, seen in words and in actions, in text and in maps. The muted Palestinian mood of 1993 turned into the enraged ambition of 2000. A population not so confident about its prospects – the Iraqis had just lost their war, the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Palestinians were in a precarious situation; they wanted to destroy Israel, but they could see no means of achieving it. By the year 2000, due to the diplomacy, to Israeli concessions, one found a Palestinian population that was truly inspired, that saw within its grasp the destruction of Israel.
What we might do better in the future
To look to the future requires us to acknowledge the faulty presumptions that underlay Oslo. First, that the Palestinians did in fact accept Israel; and second, that the elites could take a softer line and have this accepted more broadly. We must resolve not to make the same mistakes. Instead – and this is my key point – we must make popular Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence the primary goal. We must work, in other words, for what is now assumed.
The consensus view is that Palestinians have accepted Israel. That lies in the future. Survey research consistently shows that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of Palestinians, both within the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, have come to the conclusion that Israel's there and permanent. Interestingly, 15 to 20 percent of Israeli Jews believe that Palestinians have accepted Israel. Americans, when asked if the Palestinians have accepted Israel, about 20 percent say that Arafat sought a small state living alongside Israel. How might this be resolved?
I'm a historian, so I look at the historical record – how conflicts have been resolved in the 20th century. Over and over again, international conflicts are resolved not through mediation and compromise and good will, but through one side coming to the conclusion that it can no longer achieve its goals. The Germans lost in World War I, but they lost without being convinced that they had. They turned to Hitler and tried a second time. In the Second World War, the Allies made clear to the Germans that they had lost. The Korean War ended 50 years ago, but neither the North nor the South came to the conclusion that they could not prevail, and as a result, it could start up again at any time. The Arabs and Israelis fought time after time, yet neither side came to the conclusion it had lost. Iraq and Iran fought for eight years; neither side came to the conclusion it had lost.
....
Q: The notion of political correctness aside, is it not incumbent to be doubly careful in terms of the rhetoric used? Is it not possible that even Muslims who might agree with a great deal of what you're saying feel targeted and identified by some of the things you're saying – and that, perhaps, you tend to drive away some of the people who perhaps you need to support this moderation?
A: It's not for me to say whether my words are driving people away or not. But it is far more difficult to deal with the situation we have now, where there are pious statements made that No, there's no discrimination, there's no special attention paid to Muslims, there's no profiling – whereas in fact, everyone knows there is. That is more insidious than having a situation where one is forthright and says, Well, reluctantly, painfully, we must take these steps. It is in the interest of us all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Let us take these steps sensibly, intelligently, politely and knowledgeably, but let's take these steps because these steps are being taken in any case.
Many of the Muslim organizations protest that Muslims are being singled out and the authorities invariably say, No, no, no. I say, Yes, yes, yes. Let's not lie.
Q: Is it possible some Palestinians will say, "We have a vested interest in building a society and economy for ourselves"?
A: Yes, some will say that here's an opportunity. But this is not a predominant reaction. Look at the response to the Israeli withdrawal – leaving behind houses, fields and agriculture infrastructure with the intent that this could be used by the Palestinians. This was destroyed within hours. There was no interest in building the economy; there was interest in stamping the Palestinian victory over the Israelis, burning synagogues, desecrating synagogues. Was that about fixing the economy and the society and the polity and the culture? No, it's about winning.
The Israelis are fooling themselves if they think that they can finesse the Palestinians into forgetting that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. They are intent on destroying Israel, and if that means giving up their children as suicide bombers, having a lower standard of living, living under autocracy, they will take it. What they need to be convinced is: You're going to achieve nothing by it. This is where the United States and its allies can be so helpful, to send a signal that is steady and unremitting to the Palestinians: Forget it, you can't win this. Then the Palestinians might have second thoughts more quickly than they will if the outside world doesn't send that signal.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
No comments about dragging people kicking and screaming into the 15th century, please. After all, they're not gonna torture the guy, so fair dos.
Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
Times Online
March 20, 2006
An Afghan who has renounced his Islamic faith for Christianity faces the death penalty under Afghan law in a throwback to the brutal Taleban regime. Abdul Rahman, 41, is being prosecuted for an "attack on Islam", for which the punishment under Afghanistan's draft constitution, is death by hanging. The charge comes as Britain prepares to send 3,300 nominally Christian paratroopers to stabilise the troubled south of the country.
Mr Rahman converted to Christianity over 14 years ago, but his situation was bought to the attention of the authorities after he tried to gain custody of his daughters who had been living with their grandparents. His parents then denounced him as a convert and on arrest he was found to be carrying a Bible."The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.
"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.
------------------------
Afghan's openness about his Christianity went too far
March 20, 2006
Chicago Tribune
Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister."We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail. "There's no need to see him."
Afghan faces death penalty for Christian faith
Times Online
March 20, 2006
An Afghan who has renounced his Islamic faith for Christianity faces the death penalty under Afghan law in a throwback to the brutal Taleban regime. Abdul Rahman, 41, is being prosecuted for an "attack on Islam", for which the punishment under Afghanistan's draft constitution, is death by hanging. The charge comes as Britain prepares to send 3,300 nominally Christian paratroopers to stabilise the troubled south of the country.
Mr Rahman converted to Christianity over 14 years ago, but his situation was bought to the attention of the authorities after he tried to gain custody of his daughters who had been living with their grandparents. His parents then denounced him as a convert and on arrest he was found to be carrying a Bible."The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.
"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.
------------------------
Afghan's openness about his Christianity went too far
March 20, 2006
Chicago Tribune
Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister."We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail. "There's no need to see him."
Sweden here we come...
Polly Toynbee looks at Sweden with envious eyes. Worth a look (though I'm not sure how much Sweden's natural resources may distort the picture.) Criticism welcome.
Blair's party is crying out for Gordon the Viking
Following the inspiration of the Swedish model will turn Brown from a great chancellor into a genuine Labour leader
Blair's party is crying out for Gordon the Viking
Following the inspiration of the Swedish model will turn Brown from a great chancellor into a genuine Labour leader
Douglas Alexander, the Europe minister close to Brown, is just back from Sweden, where a close-fought election is seeing conservatives playing the same game - pretending to shadow the Social Democrats on every policy, while in reality planning ideological tax-andspending cuts with privatisations, as they did when last, briefly, in office. "Sweden," Alexander says, "has an economic and social model that proves the Conservatives entirely wrong. With a growth rate of 3.5%, and unemployment falling to near 5%, they are doing superbly in the global economy. No, I'm not saying we are heading for their higher tax rates, but they show how to prosper with strong public spending."
No, Brown will not turn Swedish in one spasm. It took the Social Democrats nearly 70 unbroken years of steady progressive government to reach this civilised state of relative equality, high living standards, excellent public services - and high happiness ratings. It needs citizens who want to travel that way. It needs trust in government, which semi-anarchic Britain and its poisonous rightwing, anti-state press forever undermines. (Yes, scandals all governments have, in Sweden too.)
In praise of Belarus...
This caught my eye, because it seemed to be, shall we say, counter-intuitive. Comments from people who actually know something about the issues would be most welcome.
Less bizarre than it seems
The landslide in Belarus reflects its demonised leader's refusal to back market fundamentalism
Mark Almond in Minsk
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Guardian
Less bizarre than it seems
The landslide in Belarus reflects its demonised leader's refusal to back market fundamentalism
Mark Almond in Minsk
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Guardian
[...] Although the west has never batted an eyelid about accepting a 97% vote obtained by a favourite such as Georgia's rose-revolutionary President Saakashvili, at first sight four-fifths voting for one candidate seems hard to credit. But if you look at the socioeconomic reality of Belarus and compare it with its ex-communist neighbours, as Belarussians do, then the result is not so bizarre.
No communist-era throwback, Belarus has an evolving market economy. But the market is orientated towards serving the needs of the bulk of the population, not a tiny class of nouveaux riches and their western advisers and money launderers. Unlike in Georgia or Ukraine, officials are not getting richer as ordinary folk get poorer. The absence of endemic corruption among civil servants and police is one reason why the wave of so-called "coloured revolutions" stopped before Minsk. [...]
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sorbonne needs a lesson in economics
I'm sure everybody is aware of the riots in france over the proposed changes to employment laws. In Friday's Telegraph Jeff Randall made a well reasoned arguement for why the French students reaction is misguided. Although I know it's not fashionable to celebrate Thatcher's achievements I believe by her deregulation of business and through her battles with the Unions we are in some ways all her beneficiaries.
Sorbonne needs a lesson in basic A-level economics
Jeff Randall
The Telegraph
Sorbonne needs a lesson in basic A-level economics
Jeff Randall
The Telegraph
Sunday, March 19, 2006
'Political Numskulls'
Niall Ferguson in the Sunday Telegraph critises the US congress's decision to block a company from the United Arab Emirates from aquiring the facilities in some American Ports.
The White House strongly supported the United Arab Emirates company in question and opposed Congress's decision (President Bush argued Congress was being deeply prejudiced). Ferguson makes the point that the US's economy (and by extension it's very expensive foreign policy) is extremely dependent on foreign capital. Congress's decision has sent out a very counter productive message.
Here's a sample of the article:
"The outbreak of world war in 1914 led to an immediate breakdown in international trade. Even before that, a backlash against free trade and migration had begun, as one state after another moved to raise tariffs or restrict immigration, trends that reached their disastrous nadir in the 1930s. Call it a globotomy. For it was deliberate action by the Numskulls themselves that severed the world's neural pathways.
Today the Numskulls doing the most to lobotomise the global mind are to be found (not for the first time in history) in the US Congress. Earlier this month, Senators effectively blocked a company based in the United Arab Emirates from acquiring facilities in American ports on the ground that their employees might help Islamist
terrorists.
Not content with this insult to Middle Eastern investors, the same body last week came within a hair's breadth of defaulting on the federal debt, voting by just four votes to increase the legal debt ceiling. Given that around half that debt is held abroad, this was playing with financial fire.
Never in the history of the world economy has one advanced economy been as reliant on inflows of foreign capital as the United States today. It's that international overdraft which allows Our Man to keep sucking in and consuming foreign goodies. Unfortunately, the Numskulls in Congress seem more worried about impending mid-term elections than the stability of the global economy."
And here's the Ferguson piece in full:
If avian flu doesn't get us, the political Numskulls will
Niall Ferguson
The Sunday Telegraph
The White House strongly supported the United Arab Emirates company in question and opposed Congress's decision (President Bush argued Congress was being deeply prejudiced). Ferguson makes the point that the US's economy (and by extension it's very expensive foreign policy) is extremely dependent on foreign capital. Congress's decision has sent out a very counter productive message.
Here's a sample of the article:
"The outbreak of world war in 1914 led to an immediate breakdown in international trade. Even before that, a backlash against free trade and migration had begun, as one state after another moved to raise tariffs or restrict immigration, trends that reached their disastrous nadir in the 1930s. Call it a globotomy. For it was deliberate action by the Numskulls themselves that severed the world's neural pathways.
Today the Numskulls doing the most to lobotomise the global mind are to be found (not for the first time in history) in the US Congress. Earlier this month, Senators effectively blocked a company based in the United Arab Emirates from acquiring facilities in American ports on the ground that their employees might help Islamist
terrorists.
Not content with this insult to Middle Eastern investors, the same body last week came within a hair's breadth of defaulting on the federal debt, voting by just four votes to increase the legal debt ceiling. Given that around half that debt is held abroad, this was playing with financial fire.
Never in the history of the world economy has one advanced economy been as reliant on inflows of foreign capital as the United States today. It's that international overdraft which allows Our Man to keep sucking in and consuming foreign goodies. Unfortunately, the Numskulls in Congress seem more worried about impending mid-term elections than the stability of the global economy."
And here's the Ferguson piece in full:
If avian flu doesn't get us, the political Numskulls will
Niall Ferguson
The Sunday Telegraph
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Saddam's delusions
Fascinating insight into the Saddam regime, essential Iraq War reading. Also contains an accidentally funny comment about sodomy.
Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside
Foreign Affairs
May/June 2006
When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.
Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq's ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack.
...
This constant stream of false reporting undoubtedly accounts for why many of Saddam's calculations on operational, strategic, and political issues made perfect sense to him. According to Aziz, "The people in the Military Industrial Commission were liars. They lied to you, and they lied to Saddam. They were always saying that they were producing or procuring special weapons so that they could get favors out of Saddam -- money, cars, everything -- but they were liars. If they did all of this business and brought in all of these secret weapons, why didn't [the weapons] work?"
Members of the Military Industrial Commission were not the only liars. Bending the truth was particularly common among the most trusted members of Saddam's inner circle -- especially when negative news might reflect poorly on the teller's abilities or reputation. According to one former high-ranking Baath Party official, "Saddam had an idea about Iraq's conventional and potential unconventional capabilities, but never an accurate one because of the extensive lying occurring in that area. Many reports were falsified. The ministers attempted to convey a positive perspective with reports, which were forwarded to Saddam's secretary, who in turn passed them up to Saddam." In the years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, everyone around Saddam understood that his need to hear only good news was constantly growing and that it was in their best interest to feed that hunger.
A 1982 incident vividly illustrated the danger of telling Saddam what he did not want to hear. At one low point during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam asked his ministers for candid advice. With some temerity, the minister of health, Riyadh Ibrahim, suggested that Saddam temporarily step down and resume the presidency after peace was established. Saddam had him carted away immediately. The next day, pieces of the minister's chopped-up body were delivered to his wife. According to Abd al-Tawab Mullah Huwaysh, the head of the Military Industrial Commission and a relative of the murdered minister, "This powerfully concentrated the attention of the other ministers, who were unanimous in their insistence that Saddam remain in power."
...
After 1991, Saddam's confidence in his military commanders steadily eroded, while his confidence in his own abilities as a military genius strengthened. Like a number of other despots in history who dabbled in military affairs, Saddam began to issue a seemingly endless stream of banal instructions. He could not resist giving detailed training guidance.
Dozens of surviving memoranda echo the style and content of a 2002 top-secret document titled "Training Guidance to the Republican Guard." These documents all hint at the kind of guidance military officers received from Saddam on a regular basis. One chapter of the "training guidance" document, called "Notes and Directions Given by Saddam Hussein to His Elite Soldiers to Cover the Tactics of War," charged officers to do the following: "Train in a way that allows you to defeat your enemy; train all units' members in swimming; train your soldiers to climb palm trees so that they may use these places for navigation and sniper shooting; and train on smart weapons."
...
These failures of discipline elicited a harsh response from the regime. Punishments of errant militiamen included having one's hands amputated for theft, being tossed off a tower for sodomy, being whipped a hundred times for sexual harassment, having one's tongue cut out for lying, and being stoned for various other infractions. It was only a matter of time before military failure also became punishable as a criminal offense.
...
For many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere (although they adamantly insisted that they had no direct knowledge of WMD programs). Coalition interviewers discovered that this belief was based on the fact that Iraq had possessed and used WMD in the past and might need them again; on the plausibility of secret, compartmentalized WMD programs existing given how the Iraqi regime worked; and on the fact that so many Western governments believed such programs existed.
Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside
Foreign Affairs
May/June 2006
When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.
Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1987, was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD but claims that many within Iraq's ruling circle never stopped believing that the weapons still existed. Even at the highest echelons of the regime, when it came to WMD there was always some element of doubt about the truth. According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about the weapons during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack.
...
This constant stream of false reporting undoubtedly accounts for why many of Saddam's calculations on operational, strategic, and political issues made perfect sense to him. According to Aziz, "The people in the Military Industrial Commission were liars. They lied to you, and they lied to Saddam. They were always saying that they were producing or procuring special weapons so that they could get favors out of Saddam -- money, cars, everything -- but they were liars. If they did all of this business and brought in all of these secret weapons, why didn't [the weapons] work?"
Members of the Military Industrial Commission were not the only liars. Bending the truth was particularly common among the most trusted members of Saddam's inner circle -- especially when negative news might reflect poorly on the teller's abilities or reputation. According to one former high-ranking Baath Party official, "Saddam had an idea about Iraq's conventional and potential unconventional capabilities, but never an accurate one because of the extensive lying occurring in that area. Many reports were falsified. The ministers attempted to convey a positive perspective with reports, which were forwarded to Saddam's secretary, who in turn passed them up to Saddam." In the years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, everyone around Saddam understood that his need to hear only good news was constantly growing and that it was in their best interest to feed that hunger.
A 1982 incident vividly illustrated the danger of telling Saddam what he did not want to hear. At one low point during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam asked his ministers for candid advice. With some temerity, the minister of health, Riyadh Ibrahim, suggested that Saddam temporarily step down and resume the presidency after peace was established. Saddam had him carted away immediately. The next day, pieces of the minister's chopped-up body were delivered to his wife. According to Abd al-Tawab Mullah Huwaysh, the head of the Military Industrial Commission and a relative of the murdered minister, "This powerfully concentrated the attention of the other ministers, who were unanimous in their insistence that Saddam remain in power."
...
After 1991, Saddam's confidence in his military commanders steadily eroded, while his confidence in his own abilities as a military genius strengthened. Like a number of other despots in history who dabbled in military affairs, Saddam began to issue a seemingly endless stream of banal instructions. He could not resist giving detailed training guidance.
Dozens of surviving memoranda echo the style and content of a 2002 top-secret document titled "Training Guidance to the Republican Guard." These documents all hint at the kind of guidance military officers received from Saddam on a regular basis. One chapter of the "training guidance" document, called "Notes and Directions Given by Saddam Hussein to His Elite Soldiers to Cover the Tactics of War," charged officers to do the following: "Train in a way that allows you to defeat your enemy; train all units' members in swimming; train your soldiers to climb palm trees so that they may use these places for navigation and sniper shooting; and train on smart weapons."
...
These failures of discipline elicited a harsh response from the regime. Punishments of errant militiamen included having one's hands amputated for theft, being tossed off a tower for sodomy, being whipped a hundred times for sexual harassment, having one's tongue cut out for lying, and being stoned for various other infractions. It was only a matter of time before military failure also became punishable as a criminal offense.
...
For many months after the fall of Baghdad, a number of senior Iraqi officials in coalition custody continued to believe it possible that Iraq still possessed a WMD capability hidden away somewhere (although they adamantly insisted that they had no direct knowledge of WMD programs). Coalition interviewers discovered that this belief was based on the fact that Iraq had possessed and used WMD in the past and might need them again; on the plausibility of secret, compartmentalized WMD programs existing given how the Iraqi regime worked; and on the fact that so many Western governments believed such programs existed.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Jericho jail assault
Well done The Guardian, for managing to begin an editorial with a story of Palestinian deceit and ending it with a ringing "it's all Israel's fault".
The walls of Jericho
The Guardian
Leader
March 15, 2006
The walls of Jericho
The Guardian
Leader
March 15, 2006
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Bloggers of the World Unite!
Rupert Murdoch heralds a 'second great age of discovery' and says that power is 'moving from the old elite to bloggers'.
Internet means end for media barons, says Murdoch
The Guardian
"Far from mourning its passing, he evangelised about a digital future that would put that power in the hands of those already launching a blog every second, sharing photos and music online and downloading television programmes on demand. "A new generation of media consumers has risen demanding content delivered when they want it, how they want it, and very much as they want it," he said. Indicating he had little desire to slow down despite his advancing years, he told the 603-year-old guild that he was looking forward, not back.
"It is difficult, indeed dangerous, to underestimate the huge changes this revolution will bring or the power of developing technologies to build and destroy - not just companies but whole countries."
The owner of Fox News added: "Never has the flow of information and ideas, of hard news and reasoned comment, been more important. The force of our democratic beliefs is a key weapon in the war against religious fanaticism and the terrorism it breeds." "
Internet means end for media barons, says Murdoch
The Guardian
"Far from mourning its passing, he evangelised about a digital future that would put that power in the hands of those already launching a blog every second, sharing photos and music online and downloading television programmes on demand. "A new generation of media consumers has risen demanding content delivered when they want it, how they want it, and very much as they want it," he said. Indicating he had little desire to slow down despite his advancing years, he told the 603-year-old guild that he was looking forward, not back.
"It is difficult, indeed dangerous, to underestimate the huge changes this revolution will bring or the power of developing technologies to build and destroy - not just companies but whole countries."
The owner of Fox News added: "Never has the flow of information and ideas, of hard news and reasoned comment, been more important. The force of our democratic beliefs is a key weapon in the war against religious fanaticism and the terrorism it breeds." "
Monday, March 13, 2006
Rally for Freedom of Expression
A new campaign for Freedom of Expression is holding a rally in Trafalgar Square between 2:00pm and 4:00pm on Saturday March 25th 2006.
Here's the statement of principle:
“The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time.
The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock.
We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.
We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.”
See you there? Please forward details to like-minded friends.
http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com
http://www.secularism.org.uk/marchforfreeexpressionwillyoubet.html
Here's the statement of principle:
“The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time.
The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock.
We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.
We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.”
See you there? Please forward details to like-minded friends.
http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com
http://www.secularism.org.uk/marchforfreeexpressionwillyoubet.html
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
The Last Bus to Tehran
Here's a Nick Cohen piece about oppression in Tehran. It's an old article that came out around the time of the Danish Cartoon riots. However it's an interesting look at another news story that got lost in the media storm. I've cut and pasted some highlights but it's worth following the link and reading it in full.
The Last Bus To Tehran
'For three weeks, there have been demonstrations across the planet about a great injustice done to Muslims. After baton-wielding cops inflicted dozens of injuries, the fear of death is in the air. George W Bush’s State Department has warned of ’systematic oppression’, while secularists and fundamentalists have revealed their mutually incompatible values. Since you ask, I am not talking about the global menace of Scandinavian cartoonists that has so terrified our fearless free press, but mass arrests in Iran.'
'Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the US State Department and British Foreign Office have all protested. Trade unions, Iranian exiles and gay groups have demonstrated. Yet the media have barely noticed. The failure is due in part to my trade’s perennial inability to walk and chew gum at the same time: we consider stories one by one and today’s story is Muslim anger with cartoonists.'
'I’m not saying it isn’t newsworthy, but you shouldn’t forget that it was manufactured by hard-line Danish imams who hawked the cartoons round the Muslim world for four months (and, somewhat blasphemously, added obscene drawings of their own). The religious right and Syrian Baathists welcomed them and proved yet again that they need to incite frenzies to legitimise arbitrary power.'
The Last Bus To Tehran
'For three weeks, there have been demonstrations across the planet about a great injustice done to Muslims. After baton-wielding cops inflicted dozens of injuries, the fear of death is in the air. George W Bush’s State Department has warned of ’systematic oppression’, while secularists and fundamentalists have revealed their mutually incompatible values. Since you ask, I am not talking about the global menace of Scandinavian cartoonists that has so terrified our fearless free press, but mass arrests in Iran.'
'Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the US State Department and British Foreign Office have all protested. Trade unions, Iranian exiles and gay groups have demonstrated. Yet the media have barely noticed. The failure is due in part to my trade’s perennial inability to walk and chew gum at the same time: we consider stories one by one and today’s story is Muslim anger with cartoonists.'
'I’m not saying it isn’t newsworthy, but you shouldn’t forget that it was manufactured by hard-line Danish imams who hawked the cartoons round the Muslim world for four months (and, somewhat blasphemously, added obscene drawings of their own). The religious right and Syrian Baathists welcomed them and proved yet again that they need to incite frenzies to legitimise arbitrary power.'
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The NHS's £900 million overdraft
So the crowning achievement of new Labour, the NHS, isn't in such great shape after all. Despite the absolutely unprecedented levels of investment latest figures suggest the National Health service may have overspent by a record breaking £900 million!
Incidently, the fact that the NHS boss is standing down has nothing to do with any of this according to the Government. hmm, just a coincidence then.
And if you want to get really depressed visit the NHS Blog Doctor's website for an inside view of the national health service from a working doctor. Here's an extract:
"I, Dr John Crippen, now publicly to admit to an action of gullibility, of the most credulous stupidity, an action which had the most dire consequence and an action for which I expect to spend many years in purgatory. I was not alone in this action. There were others. Several million others. This gives me comfort. It goes, perhaps, to mitigation, but it is no excuse.
In 1997 I voted for Tony Blair.
I believed him. I believed in him. He was a decent man, a man who was going to make a difference to the two things I care most about in this country. Healthcare and education. Well, he has certainly made a difference. But not in the way I hoped.
The standard of health care, despite all the millions poured in by Gordon Brown, is worse than it has ever been in my lifetime. When I started as a doctor, I could genuinely say to patients that they really did not need private health insurance. Better bed and breakfast perhaps, but the NHS still delivered. Now I tell people to keep up their BUPA payments whatever the cost. Sell your daughters into the slave trade if necessary, but do not forgo private medical insurance."
Why is there no grown up debate about the NHS among our Politicians. And why this terror at contemplating NOT making the NHS free at the point of entry. As the good doctor says in his blog:
"Healthcare “free at the point of entry” into the system. Why? Healthcare is important. But it is not as important as nutrition, as food. Why is food not “free at the point of entry” into the supermarket?"
Rebuttals welcome.
Incidently, the fact that the NHS boss is standing down has nothing to do with any of this according to the Government. hmm, just a coincidence then.
And if you want to get really depressed visit the NHS Blog Doctor's website for an inside view of the national health service from a working doctor. Here's an extract:
"I, Dr John Crippen, now publicly to admit to an action of gullibility, of the most credulous stupidity, an action which had the most dire consequence and an action for which I expect to spend many years in purgatory. I was not alone in this action. There were others. Several million others. This gives me comfort. It goes, perhaps, to mitigation, but it is no excuse.
In 1997 I voted for Tony Blair.
I believed him. I believed in him. He was a decent man, a man who was going to make a difference to the two things I care most about in this country. Healthcare and education. Well, he has certainly made a difference. But not in the way I hoped.
The standard of health care, despite all the millions poured in by Gordon Brown, is worse than it has ever been in my lifetime. When I started as a doctor, I could genuinely say to patients that they really did not need private health insurance. Better bed and breakfast perhaps, but the NHS still delivered. Now I tell people to keep up their BUPA payments whatever the cost. Sell your daughters into the slave trade if necessary, but do not forgo private medical insurance."
Why is there no grown up debate about the NHS among our Politicians. And why this terror at contemplating NOT making the NHS free at the point of entry. As the good doctor says in his blog:
"Healthcare “free at the point of entry” into the system. Why? Healthcare is important. But it is not as important as nutrition, as food. Why is food not “free at the point of entry” into the supermarket?"
Rebuttals welcome.
The dangers of political Islam
An interesting article on political Islam from the excellent New Republic. By the way, if you have time it's well worth reading the readers' comments in 'Discuss this article' section.
'The dangers of political Islam'
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
The New Republic
'The dangers of political Islam'
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
The New Republic
The muddled thinking over freedom of speech
An article by Melanie Phillips on the recent 'muddled' free speech debate over the Danish Cartoons, the Irving trial and Livingston's suspension. As someone who has found himself quite muddled and confused by this whole debate I admire her clarity and conviction on this issue.
Muddled thinking over freedom of speech
"In every case, the controversy has been defined as over where the line should be drawn between protecting freedom of speech and preventing the giving of offence. But other issues are at play here too. And it is the assumption that treating these cases differently means double standards which has caused the confusion.
If we think it was wrong to have tried to censor the Danish cartoons, then we must think it was wrong to jail Irving. Right? Wrong. If we think it was right to jail Irving, then we should have supported the law against incitement to religious hatred before it was all but neutered by a Commons revolt. Right? Wrong.
If we were against the law against incitement to religious hatred because it threatened to shut down democratic debate, then we must be against the ‘undemocratic’ suspension of Ken Livingstone. Right? Wrong."
Muddled thinking over freedom of speech
"In every case, the controversy has been defined as over where the line should be drawn between protecting freedom of speech and preventing the giving of offence. But other issues are at play here too. And it is the assumption that treating these cases differently means double standards which has caused the confusion.
If we think it was wrong to have tried to censor the Danish cartoons, then we must think it was wrong to jail Irving. Right? Wrong. If we think it was right to jail Irving, then we should have supported the law against incitement to religious hatred before it was all but neutered by a Commons revolt. Right? Wrong.
If we were against the law against incitement to religious hatred because it threatened to shut down democratic debate, then we must be against the ‘undemocratic’ suspension of Ken Livingstone. Right? Wrong."
Monday, March 06, 2006
'What America needs now...'
Here's a typically good piece on Bush by Niall Ferguson:
'What America needs now is a mighty blast of fire and Gladstone'
'What America needs now is a mighty blast of fire and Gladstone'
The strange silence of the archbishop
Another excellent must-read article from Nick Cohen in the Observer:
"Arson, rape, massacres ... and the strange silence of the archbishop"
Nick Cohen
The Observer
"Arson, rape, massacres ... and the strange silence of the archbishop"
Nick Cohen
The Observer
A fun day out in Westminster with Hizb ut-Tahrir...
An account of the Hizb ut-Tahrir Westminster 'open day', hosted by Clare Short can be found at Harry's Place. It's well worth a read.
...from pig to man, and from man to pig...
A perhaps unnecessarily oblique (and not entirely fair) heading for what is in fact a rather simple political quiz. There are twenty quotes - the goal is the identify the political party each one belongs to.
Whose line is it anyway?
David Cameron this week unveiled his statement of Tory beliefs. But can you tell which are his values, and which come from the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos?
Whose line is it anyway?
David Cameron this week unveiled his statement of Tory beliefs. But can you tell which are his values, and which come from the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos?
Friday, March 03, 2006
Cultural Relativism (& Mental hygiene)
Excellent post on Cultural Relativism from the Daily Ablution (which now has a permanent link direct from our front page.)
Cultural Equivalence is Self-Hatred - Now We Must All Hate Ourselves
Cultural Equivalence is Self-Hatred - Now We Must All Hate Ourselves
Several days ago, a (disapproving) commenter made a point that I've been mulling over ever since. I can't remember the exact wording, and I'm not going to take the trouble to scroll through all the comments to find it, but it was something to the effect that the bigotry that has in the past expressed itself as racism now takes the form of "culturism" - the evil, misguided view that some cultures are morally superior to others in an absolute sense - and that this new bigotry must be resisted, as racism was.
Of course, the leftist notion that "all cultures are equal" has been around for quite a while, but the commenter in question did provide a useful service in reminding us of the next step on the agenda of the arbiters of what's deemed proper thinking - having won the day with their altogether laudable stance against the social acceptability of racism (even the left is correct at times), they now seek to impose a stigma equivalent to that of "racist" upon those who argue that some cultures are inherently superior to others.
To my mind, the argument of cultural equivalence is rather easily rebutted, along the following lines:
- Every culture must surely consist of both good and bad characteristics; and,
- It is so unlikely as to be impossible that the proportion of good to bad in every culture on earth is precisely equal, given that they're so "diverse"; ergo, some cultures are superior to others.
Of course, this argument assumes a moral hierarchy, something that the relativists eschew. So the following approach might prove more productive:
- "Is your position really that the culture of present-day AmeriKKKa, based as it is on a noxious combination of rampant consumerism, environmental destruction and fascist cultural imperialism, comprises the moral equivalent of that of the blamelessly pure at-one-with-Gaia Native Americans? "
Any rebuttal along these lines is likely to bring to light the fact that the argument of cultural equivalence is actually acting as a sort of intellectual facade, as at this point its exponent is likely to change tack - and in so doing reveal their real stance; namely, that our (Western) culture is the evil one, to which almost (?) all others are superior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)