Brave man.
Former Hamas man to ‘tell truth’ about Muhammad
JPost
20/06/2012
Ramallah-born Mosab Hassan Yousef has made enough enemies in the Palestinian territories to last a lifetime. The eldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the founders of Hamas, spent his early years as a Hamas activist and went through more than a few stints in Israeli prison.
But for ten years, Yousef was “the Green Prince,” a code name given to him by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), with whom he worked to prevent dozens of terrorist attacks during the second intifada, saving hundreds of Israeli lives.
Two years ago, Yousef – who now lives in the US – published the book Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue and Unthinkable Choices, in which he detailed his disillusionment with the violence inside Hamas and his decision to assist Israel from around 1996 to 2006.
Now 34, Yousef is a devout Christian who is open about his faith as well as his pessimism for the future of peace in the Middle East.
“This is not a time to surrender, this is a time to inspire the new generation,” said Yousef during a press conference on Tuesday organized by Media- Central. “I understand shame and sensitivity. The most shameful thing was to work for Israel, and I did it voluntarily, because I wanted to set an example that we must fight for freedom.”
The guiding principal throughout his tumultuous tenure, Yousef said, was his dedication to saving lives.
“Nobody knew of my existence, the only light I had in my life was, ‘how can I go wrong by saving a human life?’” said Yousef. “Yes, there are lots of politics involved and lots of national agendas and it was a very complicated situation, but it was about saving human beings. I had to trade culture, religion and identity – all this for the sake of humanity.”
“If I did something wrong in the eyes of many ignorant people, I am okay with that, and I hope one day they will be able to see this,” he added.
But Yousef, whose family disowned him, was not cowed by the enemies he created during his public revelation of his years as a Shin Bet double agent. Now, he is taking on an even bigger challenge: a movie depicting the life of Muhammad, Islam’s holiest prophet.
“Muslims don’t understand the real nature of Islam,” said Yousef, who said it is a fanatical religion that favors war over peace. He cited the Arab Spring’s failure to create meaningful change and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as proof that Islam is propelling Arab states backward rather than forward.
Yousef noted that he has the authority to criticize Islam because he comes from an Islamic background. He said he wants the world to know about what he says is “the truth” about Muhammad, Islam’s holiest prophet: that he glorified and encouraged murder as a form of worship, married a 9- year-old bride and valued violence.
He is working with Israeli film producer and actor Sam Feuer. Feuer played the role of Yosef Romano in the film Munich and is releasing the movie The First Grader in the fall. Feuer will produce both a feature film adaptation of Son of Hamas as well as the Muhammad movie, and insists that the film will be a “historical account” faithful to Muslim texts.
Depictions of Muhammad are forbidden according to Islamic tradition. The famous Danish cartoons of the prophet published in 2005 prompted riots across the Arab world in which more than 200 people were killed. The newspaper and the cartoonist also received multiple death threats.
But Yousef and Feuer insisted they are not frightened by the possibility of violence surrounding the film. Yousef frequently brushed off questions about his personal safety, especially in light of his decision to visit Israel as a guest of Likud MK Ayoub Kara. “I feel very safe,” he said repeatedly.
Yousef said the film would be a historical depiction of Muhammad’s life as told through Ibn Ishaq, an Arab historian from the eighth century who is believed to be one of the most reliable biographers of the prophet. Feuer said the movie has already interested sponsors and a major screenwriter who is in the process of creating the script.
Yousef added that he wants to free the world of “the absolute power of all religions,” starting with Islam. “It is time to bring Allah to the table and see [Islam] for what it is,” he said.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Sex work and the disabled
Very interesting Woman's Hour interview with Rachel Wotton, "an Australian sex worker, whose clients include people with disabilities. She is the subject of a documentary 'Scarlet Road' which is being screened at the Sheffield Documentary Festival this week. Rachel says it's often the parents of the client who initiate contact with her, on behalf of their adult child. … Rachel campaigns for the rights of people with disabilities and speaks at conferences on the subject all over the world."
It's a very moving 5/10 minute interview on this prog, go listen. Very morally challenging for any more conservative types who are against legalising prostitution.
Woman's Hour
BBC Radio 4
12/06/2012
(available on BBC iPlayer till 19/06)
It's a very moving 5/10 minute interview on this prog, go listen. Very morally challenging for any more conservative types who are against legalising prostitution.
Woman's Hour
BBC Radio 4
12/06/2012
(available on BBC iPlayer till 19/06)
Monday, June 11, 2012
Britain no longer rules the waves
It's still sometimes possible to be proud to be British in this day and age. Reading this is not one of those moments.
--------
Diamond Jubilee: The Queen no longer rules the waves
By Neil Tweedie and Thomas Harding
Daily Telegraph
01 Jun 2012
The Coronation was marked by a Spithead Review – but Her Majesty is being denied one now because the Royal Navy has been sunk by wave upon wave of spending cuts
For mile upon mile they stretched, their flag-bedecked ranks receding into the haze. The ships of the Royal Navy, 165 of them, drawn up at Spithead on June 26 1897 to mark the diamond jubilee of Victoria, for 60 years Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and her dominions beyond the seas, and, since 1876, Empress of India.
There were 21 battleships and 44 cruisers, their names conveying the confidence of a world-spanning Empire: Victorious, Renown, Powerful, Terrible, Majestic and Mars. A vast, intimidating presence intended to impress on friend and foe alike the continuing potency of the British behemoth. And what was more, the assembly of this great fleet had required the recall of not a single ship from the Mediterranean or the far-flung squadrons guarding the imperial sea lanes.
Jingoistic hyperbole was the order of the day. “If the British taxpayer does not feel more than a thrill of satisfaction at a sight so splendid and so inspiring,” gushed one newspaper, “he is no patriot and no true citizen.”
The Solent was a mass of small craft jammed with sunburned day-trippers, fussing around the black hulls of battleships riding at anchor. The pleasure boats parted only for the Royal Yacht Victoria and Albert. It carried the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, taking the salute from the quarterdeck on behalf of his mother. Victoria, 78, was exhausted by the jubilee celebrations and had opted to observe proceedings by telescope from Osborne House, her retreat on the Isle of Wight.
One hundred and fifteen years later and Britain is celebrating only the second diamond jubilee in its history. The occasion calls for a naval review, a staple of coronations and other great moments in the life of the nation, but it is not to be. The Royal Navy, the country’s saviour in two world wars, is a sorry shadow of its former self, so depleted by successive rounds of cuts that it can no longer muster a dozen ships for the occasion. So embarrassed are the ministers and civil servants at the Ministry of Defence who have overseen these disastrous reductions that they have quietly drawn a veil over the issue, hoping no one will notice the absence of a major role for the Senior Service in this week’s celebrations.
A serving commander in the Royal Navy, recently returned from operations, says the MoD has made it clear that no comment is to be made in public on the subject. “It would have been just too embarrassing,” he says. “There aren’t many ships and those we do have are a long way away. It was just too difficult to mount a spectacle worth having.” Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, the professional head of the Navy, says an attempt to stage a review would result only in national humiliation. “I suppose now we could get a couple of submarines out and five or six frigates and destroyers, but it would be very small and not very splendid,” he says. “That gives one a feel for how things have changed. Because the number of ships has reduced so dramatically the event would be too small to make a meaningful and sensible fleet review.”
The contrast with yesteryear is stark. Naval reviews have been held since 1415, when Henry V surveyed the fleet gathered for the invasion of France. In this century reviews have marked the coronation of George V in 1912, the mobilisation of the fleet in 1914, the coronation of George VI in 1937, the coronation of the present Queen in 1953, her silver jubilee in 1977 and the bicentenary of Trafalgar in 2005. The Queen’s golden jubilee was another casualty of defence cuts, with no review.
“A fleet review is an opportunity for the Queen to see her ships and sailors and for the men of the Royal Navy to pay their respects to the monarch,” says Steve Bush, editor of the naval directory British Warships & Auxiliaries. “It is an event of great tradition and spectacle. The Trafalgar review of 2005 saw more than 100 ships mustered but almost half were from overseas navies, the biggest being the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.” Since 2005 the Navy has lost its Harrier force and the ability to protect itself, and strike, from the air. Illustrious, its sole-remaining carrier, now operates only helicopters, as does the amphibious assault ship Ocean, the only other ''flat-top’’ in the fleet.
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, a career officer before marriage, must look back ruefully on June 15 1953, when they boarded the frigate Surprise to review the armada gathered off Spithead to mark the Coronation. The Navy was anything but short of carriers then, benefiting from the surge in construction during the Second World War. Eagle, Indomitable, Illustrious, Theseus and Perseus, lined the way, together with Canada’s Magnificent and Australia’s Sydney. Other carriers were away on operations, from the Mediterranean to the Far East. In all some 300 ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and minesweepers, took part in the review, overflown by some 300 aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm.
The fleet had shrunk dramatically by the silver jubilee of 1977 but was the third biggest behind the navies of the United States and Soviet Union. Two aircraft carriers, including Ark Royal, attended, with two cruisers, one assault ship, 17 destroyers, 18 frigates, 14 submarines and a host of minor vessels and auxiliaries. There was no need to flesh out the review with foreign vessels, just 18 attending.
And today? Allowing for inflation, Britain’s GDP is four times greater than in 1953 but the country appears incapable of maintaining a viable fleet. Today it comprises two helicopter carriers, 1 active assault ship, six destroyers, 13 frigates, 42 minor vessels and 13 auxiliaries. Take away escorts on operations or in refit and the Navy would, as Lord West says, struggle to field more than a handful for a review. But one thing our increasingly Ruritanian fleet is not short of is admirals. There are 28 full, vice and rear admirals, one per major combat unit, surely the most over-managed structure in the country.
“I don’t think it’s particularly likely that we could muster another fleet review,” says Sir Sandy Woodward, commander of the task force that in 1982 retook the Falklands. “A diamond jubilee review should be a grand thing.”
In contrast, the navies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are growing. Last year the Indian navy staged its presidential fleet review off Mumbai. There were 81 vessels, 10 more than the entire Royal Navy, including the carrier Viraat (ex British carrier Hermes). She still flies Sea Harriers, giving India a lead over its former naval mentor.
David Cameron must take his share of the blame for the parlous state of the Navy. It was he who did away with the carrier Ark Royal and the Harrier force, effectively ending the Navy’s ability to mount independent expeditionary operations – until the (alleged) introduction of a new carrier in 2020. He also did away with nine new RAF Nimrods as they were about to be introduced into service, denuding the fleet of long-range aerial surveillance and anti-submarine protection.
But governments of both shades are answerable. It can be argued that billions of pounds have been squandered reinforcing failure in Afghanistan, money that could have prevented the hollowing-out of the service, which guards the 95 per cent of British international trade conducted by sea.
There is also the question of procurement: the Navy, like the other services, is very bad at buying affordable and effective equipment. The new Type 45 destroyers cost £1 billion each but lack the land-attack capability of their cheaper American counterpart. Only six can be afforded. “Ministers have ordered cuts upon cuts in the number of ships and aeroplanes for the Navy,” says Tim Ripley of Jane’s Defence Weekly. “No matter how capable the weapons of today are, a ship can only be in one place at a time. This Government wants our armed forces to be smaller and to do less.”
After visiting the 1897 review, Rudyard Kipling was moved to compose the poem Recessional. The Empire was at its apogee but there were intimations of decline.
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Britain, a maritime nation dependent on the sea lanes, has allowed its blue-water navy to melt away. The reckoning awaits.
--------
Diamond Jubilee: The Queen no longer rules the waves
By Neil Tweedie and Thomas Harding
Daily Telegraph
01 Jun 2012
The Coronation was marked by a Spithead Review – but Her Majesty is being denied one now because the Royal Navy has been sunk by wave upon wave of spending cuts
For mile upon mile they stretched, their flag-bedecked ranks receding into the haze. The ships of the Royal Navy, 165 of them, drawn up at Spithead on June 26 1897 to mark the diamond jubilee of Victoria, for 60 years Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and her dominions beyond the seas, and, since 1876, Empress of India.
There were 21 battleships and 44 cruisers, their names conveying the confidence of a world-spanning Empire: Victorious, Renown, Powerful, Terrible, Majestic and Mars. A vast, intimidating presence intended to impress on friend and foe alike the continuing potency of the British behemoth. And what was more, the assembly of this great fleet had required the recall of not a single ship from the Mediterranean or the far-flung squadrons guarding the imperial sea lanes.
Jingoistic hyperbole was the order of the day. “If the British taxpayer does not feel more than a thrill of satisfaction at a sight so splendid and so inspiring,” gushed one newspaper, “he is no patriot and no true citizen.”
The Solent was a mass of small craft jammed with sunburned day-trippers, fussing around the black hulls of battleships riding at anchor. The pleasure boats parted only for the Royal Yacht Victoria and Albert. It carried the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, taking the salute from the quarterdeck on behalf of his mother. Victoria, 78, was exhausted by the jubilee celebrations and had opted to observe proceedings by telescope from Osborne House, her retreat on the Isle of Wight.
One hundred and fifteen years later and Britain is celebrating only the second diamond jubilee in its history. The occasion calls for a naval review, a staple of coronations and other great moments in the life of the nation, but it is not to be. The Royal Navy, the country’s saviour in two world wars, is a sorry shadow of its former self, so depleted by successive rounds of cuts that it can no longer muster a dozen ships for the occasion. So embarrassed are the ministers and civil servants at the Ministry of Defence who have overseen these disastrous reductions that they have quietly drawn a veil over the issue, hoping no one will notice the absence of a major role for the Senior Service in this week’s celebrations.
A serving commander in the Royal Navy, recently returned from operations, says the MoD has made it clear that no comment is to be made in public on the subject. “It would have been just too embarrassing,” he says. “There aren’t many ships and those we do have are a long way away. It was just too difficult to mount a spectacle worth having.” Lord West, a former First Sea Lord, the professional head of the Navy, says an attempt to stage a review would result only in national humiliation. “I suppose now we could get a couple of submarines out and five or six frigates and destroyers, but it would be very small and not very splendid,” he says. “That gives one a feel for how things have changed. Because the number of ships has reduced so dramatically the event would be too small to make a meaningful and sensible fleet review.”
The contrast with yesteryear is stark. Naval reviews have been held since 1415, when Henry V surveyed the fleet gathered for the invasion of France. In this century reviews have marked the coronation of George V in 1912, the mobilisation of the fleet in 1914, the coronation of George VI in 1937, the coronation of the present Queen in 1953, her silver jubilee in 1977 and the bicentenary of Trafalgar in 2005. The Queen’s golden jubilee was another casualty of defence cuts, with no review.
“A fleet review is an opportunity for the Queen to see her ships and sailors and for the men of the Royal Navy to pay their respects to the monarch,” says Steve Bush, editor of the naval directory British Warships & Auxiliaries. “It is an event of great tradition and spectacle. The Trafalgar review of 2005 saw more than 100 ships mustered but almost half were from overseas navies, the biggest being the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.” Since 2005 the Navy has lost its Harrier force and the ability to protect itself, and strike, from the air. Illustrious, its sole-remaining carrier, now operates only helicopters, as does the amphibious assault ship Ocean, the only other ''flat-top’’ in the fleet.
The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, a career officer before marriage, must look back ruefully on June 15 1953, when they boarded the frigate Surprise to review the armada gathered off Spithead to mark the Coronation. The Navy was anything but short of carriers then, benefiting from the surge in construction during the Second World War. Eagle, Indomitable, Illustrious, Theseus and Perseus, lined the way, together with Canada’s Magnificent and Australia’s Sydney. Other carriers were away on operations, from the Mediterranean to the Far East. In all some 300 ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and minesweepers, took part in the review, overflown by some 300 aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm.
The fleet had shrunk dramatically by the silver jubilee of 1977 but was the third biggest behind the navies of the United States and Soviet Union. Two aircraft carriers, including Ark Royal, attended, with two cruisers, one assault ship, 17 destroyers, 18 frigates, 14 submarines and a host of minor vessels and auxiliaries. There was no need to flesh out the review with foreign vessels, just 18 attending.
And today? Allowing for inflation, Britain’s GDP is four times greater than in 1953 but the country appears incapable of maintaining a viable fleet. Today it comprises two helicopter carriers, 1 active assault ship, six destroyers, 13 frigates, 42 minor vessels and 13 auxiliaries. Take away escorts on operations or in refit and the Navy would, as Lord West says, struggle to field more than a handful for a review. But one thing our increasingly Ruritanian fleet is not short of is admirals. There are 28 full, vice and rear admirals, one per major combat unit, surely the most over-managed structure in the country.
“I don’t think it’s particularly likely that we could muster another fleet review,” says Sir Sandy Woodward, commander of the task force that in 1982 retook the Falklands. “A diamond jubilee review should be a grand thing.”
In contrast, the navies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are growing. Last year the Indian navy staged its presidential fleet review off Mumbai. There were 81 vessels, 10 more than the entire Royal Navy, including the carrier Viraat (ex British carrier Hermes). She still flies Sea Harriers, giving India a lead over its former naval mentor.
David Cameron must take his share of the blame for the parlous state of the Navy. It was he who did away with the carrier Ark Royal and the Harrier force, effectively ending the Navy’s ability to mount independent expeditionary operations – until the (alleged) introduction of a new carrier in 2020. He also did away with nine new RAF Nimrods as they were about to be introduced into service, denuding the fleet of long-range aerial surveillance and anti-submarine protection.
But governments of both shades are answerable. It can be argued that billions of pounds have been squandered reinforcing failure in Afghanistan, money that could have prevented the hollowing-out of the service, which guards the 95 per cent of British international trade conducted by sea.
There is also the question of procurement: the Navy, like the other services, is very bad at buying affordable and effective equipment. The new Type 45 destroyers cost £1 billion each but lack the land-attack capability of their cheaper American counterpart. Only six can be afforded. “Ministers have ordered cuts upon cuts in the number of ships and aeroplanes for the Navy,” says Tim Ripley of Jane’s Defence Weekly. “No matter how capable the weapons of today are, a ship can only be in one place at a time. This Government wants our armed forces to be smaller and to do less.”
After visiting the 1897 review, Rudyard Kipling was moved to compose the poem Recessional. The Empire was at its apogee but there were intimations of decline.
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Britain, a maritime nation dependent on the sea lanes, has allowed its blue-water navy to melt away. The reckoning awaits.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Panorama's "Stadiums Of Hate" - exposing racism and anti-semitism in Poland and Ukraine
Panorama's "Stadiums Of Hate" - exposing racism and anti-semitism in Poland and Ukraine
Football365
John Nicholson and Alan Tyers
31/05/12
If you haven't seen this week's Panorama, we urge you to check it out. Euro 2012: Stadiums Of Hate (Mon, 8.30pm, BBC1) can be viewed on the iPlayer here.
...
Presenter Chris Rogers had spent a month going to games in Poland and the Ukraine to see what the matchday experience might be like. The first conclusion is that there are some truly horrible people in Poland and the Ukraine, and that some of them like going to the football and behaving like utter dicks.
Rogers' experiences in Poland seemed to centre on anti-Semitic chanting, graffiti and general objectionable behaviour. Derby games in both Lodz and Krakow showed both sets of fans chanting anti-Jewish slogans at each other.
As well as being vile and totally unacceptable, there was also a pathetic quality about the Polish stuff. It was clear that certain sections of support in lots of clubs hated Jews, and had apparently taken the word Jew to be a sort of all-purpose put-down or taunt, a bit like when a playground cottons on to the word 'gaylord' or 'retard'. "You're a Jew...no, you're a Jew...you're a Jewy Jew" etc. Which is not to say, of course, that these abusive words are not backed up by physical violence and intimidation on a daily basis, and nor should anyone with even one brain cell need reminding of their particular historical power in that part of Europe. All that said, this particular documentary had captured only verbal bad behaviour towards ethnic monitories in Poland. Either way, Britain's many Polish migrants must have been cringing.
Brainboxes of various allegiances apparently go around altering graffiti so 'Newcastle United' becomes 'Jewcastle' or 'Toon Army' becomes 'Jew-n Army' (Polish equivalents obviously; we're not saying the programme was exposing the hidden horror of Anti-Geordie persecution). The programme didn't take particular pains to elucidate if 'such-and-such a club are the worst offenders', and it seemed at times that pretty much each team was as bad as the next for having what we all like to tell ourselves is 'a minority of idiots'.
As is often the case when racists and hate crime-types are put on TV the overall effect is to show just of how utterly backward and sad these people are. There was a slight unintentional comedy with two different sets of arseholes all calling each 'Jew club' etc.
Two black players, Ugo Ukah - who was very briefly at QPR and was late of Widzew Lodz - and Prince Okachi, who still plays for Widzew, had predictably depressing accounts of racist abuse from the stands, from fellow players, and no support or intervention whatsoever from the authorities. Sol Campbell, a dignified and impressive talking head here, expressed dismay and real pain at the situation.
However, it has to be said that Kharkiv in the Ukraine made Lodz look like Greenwich Village. Rogers got some brilliant footage of a Metalist game with, he says, 2,000 fans giving it the always charming Nazi Salute. This was backed up with a grimly hilarious interview with a Colonel in the local police force claiming:
"Nazi salute? Oh, no no no no. These people were merely pointing at the opposing fans." If nothing else, you had to admire the truly world-class brass neck on display.
The footage of Metalist fans beating up on some visiting Indian students who were supporting the same team as them was disgusting; and when the programme got into meeting the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Ultras who practice knife-fighting and military combat techniques, Rogers was in full Donal MacIntrye territory. It looked like pretty scary stuff, as potentially serious as their pathetic little clubhouse with flags of fellow nasties around the world (SS Lazio...The Confederate Flag...The, erm, St George Cross with ENGLAND on it) was sad and laughable.
[more]
Football365
John Nicholson and Alan Tyers
31/05/12
If you haven't seen this week's Panorama, we urge you to check it out. Euro 2012: Stadiums Of Hate (Mon, 8.30pm, BBC1) can be viewed on the iPlayer here.
...
Presenter Chris Rogers had spent a month going to games in Poland and the Ukraine to see what the matchday experience might be like. The first conclusion is that there are some truly horrible people in Poland and the Ukraine, and that some of them like going to the football and behaving like utter dicks.
Rogers' experiences in Poland seemed to centre on anti-Semitic chanting, graffiti and general objectionable behaviour. Derby games in both Lodz and Krakow showed both sets of fans chanting anti-Jewish slogans at each other.
As well as being vile and totally unacceptable, there was also a pathetic quality about the Polish stuff. It was clear that certain sections of support in lots of clubs hated Jews, and had apparently taken the word Jew to be a sort of all-purpose put-down or taunt, a bit like when a playground cottons on to the word 'gaylord' or 'retard'. "You're a Jew...no, you're a Jew...you're a Jewy Jew" etc. Which is not to say, of course, that these abusive words are not backed up by physical violence and intimidation on a daily basis, and nor should anyone with even one brain cell need reminding of their particular historical power in that part of Europe. All that said, this particular documentary had captured only verbal bad behaviour towards ethnic monitories in Poland. Either way, Britain's many Polish migrants must have been cringing.
Brainboxes of various allegiances apparently go around altering graffiti so 'Newcastle United' becomes 'Jewcastle' or 'Toon Army' becomes 'Jew-n Army' (Polish equivalents obviously; we're not saying the programme was exposing the hidden horror of Anti-Geordie persecution). The programme didn't take particular pains to elucidate if 'such-and-such a club are the worst offenders', and it seemed at times that pretty much each team was as bad as the next for having what we all like to tell ourselves is 'a minority of idiots'.
As is often the case when racists and hate crime-types are put on TV the overall effect is to show just of how utterly backward and sad these people are. There was a slight unintentional comedy with two different sets of arseholes all calling each 'Jew club' etc.
Two black players, Ugo Ukah - who was very briefly at QPR and was late of Widzew Lodz - and Prince Okachi, who still plays for Widzew, had predictably depressing accounts of racist abuse from the stands, from fellow players, and no support or intervention whatsoever from the authorities. Sol Campbell, a dignified and impressive talking head here, expressed dismay and real pain at the situation.
However, it has to be said that Kharkiv in the Ukraine made Lodz look like Greenwich Village. Rogers got some brilliant footage of a Metalist game with, he says, 2,000 fans giving it the always charming Nazi Salute. This was backed up with a grimly hilarious interview with a Colonel in the local police force claiming:
"Nazi salute? Oh, no no no no. These people were merely pointing at the opposing fans." If nothing else, you had to admire the truly world-class brass neck on display.
The footage of Metalist fans beating up on some visiting Indian students who were supporting the same team as them was disgusting; and when the programme got into meeting the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi Ultras who practice knife-fighting and military combat techniques, Rogers was in full Donal MacIntrye territory. It looked like pretty scary stuff, as potentially serious as their pathetic little clubhouse with flags of fellow nasties around the world (SS Lazio...The Confederate Flag...The, erm, St George Cross with ENGLAND on it) was sad and laughable.
[more]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)