Diary
If you buy one anti Zionist lie, you buy the rest
29 April, 2008
On May 8th Israelis will celebrate the 60th anniversary of their nation, a nation whose identity was forged in a struggle against persecution and terror. It should be an opportunity to celebrate an incredible feat, the survival of the Middle East’s only true democracy despite the best efforts of its many enemies.
Yet we all know that this runs counter to the conventional wisdom. The popular political image of Israel is that it is the illegal oppressor and occupier of ‘Palestine’ and that its past colonialist sins must first be rectified before Zionism can be embraced. Some of Israel’s fiercest detractors buttress their critique by quoting Israel’s ‘new historians’, a self appointed anti Zionist clique who are determined to vilify the Israeli state at all costs.
Johann Hari is no stranger to any of this. In an opinion piece in yesterday’s Independent, he offered a typically vicious, one sided portrait of Israeli ills that, he said, ought to prick the celebratory mood on May 8th. After discussing the iniquities of the Palestinian sewer system, Hari goes on to make a series of quite extraordinary claims about Israel’s bad faith towards the Arabs.
In his view, the 1948 ‘naqba’ or catastrophe involved marauding colonial Zionists literally wiping ‘indigenous’ Palestinians off the map. The early Zionists believed that they were moving to a ‘land without people for a people without a land’, Hari claims. As a result, the Zionists drew up plans to remove the Arabs from the nascent Jewish state, requiring just one opportune moment to fulfill their expansionist aims. In 1948 that moment arrived, he argued, leading to the ‘ethnical cleansing’ of some 800,000 Palestinians. These native inhabitants, he goes on to say, were ‘completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews.’ He quotes Ilan Pappe (more on him later) to buttress this outrageous claim.
What his article proves is that if you believe one distortion, you are an easy sucker for the rest. They do not exist in isolation for they are all part of one all embracing false narrative.
Take the 'naqba'. While it is true that tens of thousands of Arab Palestinians were forcibly removed from their towns in 1948 as a result of the first Arab-Israeli war, a larger number fled as a result of rumours or at the behest of Arab states. Nor would this exodus have occurred had the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership accepted the UN offer of partition which was designed to create a 2 state settlement. The Zionists accepted partition in November 47; the Arabs wholeheartedly rejected it.
Hari too ignores the mass expulsion of Jews from Arab countries between 1948-9. The charge of ethnic cleansing is particularly vicious, with its connotations of mass killing and racial persecution. The fact that Israel today has an 'ethnically' Arab population of over 1 million with voting rights and equality before the law tells its own story.
Hari then cites the old canard about the ‘Palestinians’ being innocent of the ‘hellish crimes against the Jews.’ Perhaps he should remind himself about Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Palestine. This much venerated figure (even among many Palestinians today) spent much of the war years in Berlin begging Hitler to apply the Final Solution to Palestine and recruiting Muslims to form SS units in the Balkans. He was subsequently condemned for war crimes after the war.
In view of what Hari has said it is hardly surprising that he is an intellectual bedfellow of Ilan Pappe. Pappe is an utterly discredited ‘academic’ whose anti Zionist prejudices are well known in his home country. Renowned Israeli historian Benny Morris, himself a trenchant critic of Israeli behaviour in 1948, has said this of Pappe’s work:
'Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication.’ Pappe’s ‘A History of Modern Palestine’ is ‘awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. [...] The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe's historical methodology and his political proclivities.’
The same could be said of Mr. Hari.
topBrown's credibility in tatters
24 April, 2008
Such is the Prime Minister’s lack of integrity that he could not even be honest about his ‘u turn’ yesterday. The offer of compensation to pensioners and childless low paid workers, backdated to the start of this financial year, might have averted a planned backbench rebellion but it will scarcely lighten the pain of the poor. Many lower paid workers don't claim tax credits, suffering from the famous British disease of apathy. Nonetheless the scale of Brown’s retreat is unlikely to alleviate the mounting frustration on Labour backbenches.
First, this issue has revealed the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. The last budget was an economic dog’s breakfast with its gratuitous assault on lower paid single workers. The last thing they expected was to be paying more money to the Treasury each month under a ‘Labour’ government. His initial mistake was then compounded by claming that only a few thousand people would be affected by the tax changes. The figure is closer to 5 million, rather a staggering discrepancy.
Second, the PM's protracted defiance in the face of Labour rebels tells its own story. Gordon Brown's version of Custer’s last stand has ended with a fuzzy compromise but the price has been a haemorrhage in personal authority. To quote Tony Benn, he has been a weathercock and not a signpost.
Third, Brown has shown contempt for the electorate, which is politically fatal. Cameron rightly pointed out in yesterday's bitter Commons exchanges that the Brown about turn was designed to see off Labour rebels, rather than help the poor. The Prime Minister chose to duck the issue, instead launching an intemperate and absurd attack on the Conservatives. This has made him look arrogant and out of touch. Last year, Brown insulted the electorate’s intelligence when he suggested that his cancellation of a summer election had nothing to do with changing opinion polls. Even Labour supporters were puzzled.
This is no longer about the 10p tax rate or Labour’s record on tackling poverty. It is about a government that shows little purpose and no sense of coherent direction. From one issue to the next, the government vacillates, dithers and capitulates. Worse, Labour is alienating its core constituents. Millions of people today are asking the same question as Nick Clegg did yesterday: Just what is Gordon Brown for?
Brown’s personal failings come at a time of deepening frustration with the big tax, big spend, big state philosophy of New Labour. Whereas a decade ago, people might have put up with having reduced disposable income, now they seem to be less forgiving.With rampant energy and food inflation, higher mortgage bills and an inflated housing market, the last thing hard working families need is an increase in the tax burden. People can see that the vast increase in public spending has failed to bring a proportionate reward and this latest tax hike, for some, is the final straw. The times are a changing.
Labour’s turmoil ought to be an open target for the Tories. Yet in the long term, there is no guarantee that people will be better off under David Cameron. According to Philip Hammond, shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, there will be no tax reductions in the first term of a Conservative administration. This means that people might have to wait until 2015 until they see their tax burden reduced.
The Tories are victims of the Labour propaganda that if you cut taxes, you destroy the NHS and until they break free from this warped thinking and present an alternative case for lower taxes, they will merely repeat the failed statist solutions offered since 1997. Worse, by presenting a consensus on economic questions, they are not giving people a real choice on the most fundamental issue of the day.
The great worry for the Tories is that if they don’t regain the initiative on tax, Gordon Brown certainly will and that can only mean 5 more years of misery. After all Labour has perpetrated one of the biggest con tricks of the last decade by stealing the Tories’ political clothes. It is time David Cameron regained them.
topFor the EU, there is no England
24 April, 2008
For those who doubt that EU officials wish to destroy the last vestige of our national independence, there is further damning proof. According to a report in yesterday’s Telegraph, England has been removed from a new map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats. The map clearly shows England divided into 3 zones, each of which incorporates other areas from neighbouring regions.
‘The "Manche" region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales. The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany. A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the "Channel Sea.’
The report goes on to say that each zone will be granted a ‘transnational regional assembly’ but without ‘extensive powers.’ None of this comes as a surprise. Given that the EU is a giant long term project designed by European elites to demolish national sovereignty, and that it involves a one way shift of power from member states to Brussels, this map merely symbolizes their aspirations for Continental hegemony.
The report quoted German ministers saying the plan sought to “permanently overcome old borders" at a time when the ‘Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum.’ The very same Constitution that isn’t a Constitution, that is merely a tidying up exercise in the fabric of European politics. Now we see that this Constitution is a prelude to a redrawing of the map in which individual countries no longer exist.
These Eurocrats won’t rest until nationhood is a thing of the past and laws prevent any mention of countries, national ties or borders. This is no hysterical fit of the imagination but a sad reflection of the EU’s insatiable political appetite and our own politicians’ appalling timidity. Just one more compelling reason for this country withdrawing from the EU once and for all.
topHappy St George's Day
23 April, 2008
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands,-- This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the Countenance Divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark Satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold: Bring me my arrows of desire: Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire. I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land.
topAnother useful idiot for Hamas
22 April, 2008
Jimmy Carter’s well publicized visit to Syria has given Hamas the perfect PR opportunity. Here is a respected elder statesman, Noble Prize winner and noted critic of the Bush administration giving credence to an internationally proscribed terrorist outfit. He is the perfect conduit for the smooth flow of Hamas lies through the arteries of the global media.
Already their ostensible peace feelers have been interpreted in some quarters (the BBC not surprisingly) as a political breakthrough which ought to be taken seriously. The only stumbling block in their eyes is the inevitable brick wall from an intransigent Israel, symbolized by their ‘defiant’ refusal to meet Carter in Jerusalem yesterday.
According to Jimmy Carter, Hamas was prepared to recognize a two state deal brokered by the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas. The former President made these comments in Israel yesterday:
‘They said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians and they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace, provided the agreements negotiated by prime minister Olmert and President Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians for their overall approval, even though Hamas might disagree with some terms of the agreement.’
Really? And Adolf Hitler offered his European neighbours a long term peace deal after invading the Rhineland in 1936 so what’s new? Of course yesterday’s offer was a clever chimera. Hamas themselves were quick to deny that they would recognize the Jewish state in the event of a two state deal. As their leader in exile put it: ‘We agree to a state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognizing Israel.’
How could it be otherwise? What the venerable Mr. Carter should have done is look carefully at the Hamas Charter which calls explicitly for the eradication of Jewish sovereignty from every square inch of what is now Israel. Under their interpretation of religious law, there can be no compromise, no dialogue and no negotiation on this question.
Thus Carter’s statement that Hamas would ‘accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace’ is a fiction. In effect, Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza brokered by another group but without fundamentally renouncing their ambition to destroy Israel. They would see the new Palestinian entity as just another front from which to continue their attritional war against Israelis. This time Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be under fire, not just Sderot.
Nor were Hamas prepared to offer a ceasefire as even Carter himself admitted. At best their ‘hudna’ would be a ‘temporary’ cessation of hostilities, legitimised by Islamic law, allowing them to consolidate their strength before another round of fighting.
Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis before them, Hamas are reliant on useful idiots to spread their insidious propaganda in the West. Given his own venomous anti Israeli views, Jimmy Carter is the perfect specimen.
(Useful idiot – a term, originally used of Bolshevik sympathisers in the West, referring to someone who naively and foolishly endorses the views of dictators and their policies).
topAnother useful idiot for Hamas
22 April, 2008
Jimmy Carter’s well publicized visit to Syria has given Hamas the perfect PR opportunity. Here is a respected elder statesman, Noble Prize winner and noted critic of the Bush administration giving credence to an internationally proscribed terrorist outfit. He is the perfect conduit for the smooth flow of Hamas lies through the arteries of the global media.
Already their ostensible peace feelers have been interpreted in some quarters (the BBC not surprisingly) as a political breakthrough which ought to be taken seriously. The only stumbling block in their eyes is the inevitable brick wall from an intransigent Israel, symbolized by their ‘defiant’ refusal to meet Carter in Jerusalem yesterday.
According to Jimmy Carter, Hamas was prepared to recognize a two state deal brokered by the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas. The former President made these comments in Israel yesterday:
‘They said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders if approved by Palestinians and they would accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace, provided the agreements negotiated by prime minister Olmert and President Abbas were submitted to the Palestinians for their overall approval, even though Hamas might disagree with some terms of the agreement.’
Really? And Adolf Hitler offered his European neighbours a long term peace deal after invading the Rhineland in 1936 so what’s new? Of course yesterday’s offer was a clever chimera. Hamas themselves were quick to deny that they would recognize the Jewish state in the event of a two state deal. As their leader in exile put it: ‘We agree to a state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements but without recognizing Israel.’
How could it be otherwise? What the venerable Mr. Carter should have done is look carefully at the Hamas Charter which calls explicitly for the eradication of Jewish sovereignty from every square inch of what is now Israel. Under their interpretation of religious law, there can be no compromise, no dialogue and no negotiation on this question.
Thus Carter’s statement that Hamas would ‘accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbour next door in peace’ is a fiction. In effect, Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza brokered by another group but without fundamentally renouncing their ambition to destroy Israel. They would see the new Palestinian entity as just another front from which to continue their attritional war against Israelis. This time Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be under fire, not just Sderot.
Nor were Hamas prepared to offer a ceasefire as even Carter himself admitted. At best their ‘hudna’ would be a ‘temporary’ cessation of hostilities, legitimised by Islamic law, allowing them to consolidate their strength before another round of fighting.
Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis before them, Hamas are reliant on useful idiots to spread their insidious propaganda in the West. Given his own venomous anti Israeli views, Jimmy Carter is the perfect specimen.
(Useful idiot – a term, originally used of Bolshevik sympathisers in the West, referring to someone who naively and foolishly endorses the views of dictators and their policies).
topWhy I am voting for Boris on May 1st
19 April, 2008
With a fortnight to go until the Mayoral elections, Ken Livingstone’s campaign team are getting increasingly desperate. This week a group has been set up to mobilize London’s sizeable Muslim population for the election battle ahead. But Muslims 4 Ken is no innocuous campaign team. It is an ethnically partisan organization using a crude American style smear campaign to vilify Ken’s chief opponent, Boris Johnson.
They have enlisted Dr. Azzam Tamimi, Hamas’ chief representative in the UK who has rather hysterically called for Israel’s destruction and who has claimed that he would idolize the chance to become a suicide bomber. And while Boris Johnson can hardly claim to be the King of tact, his own record in giving offence is nothing compared to the Mayor.
The Muslims 4 Ken website contains evidence of Boris Johnson’s alleged prejudices against the Muslim community. This comment from an email seems to sum up their argument:
‘We must not sit by and allow Boris Johnson to become the next Mayor and stir up more Islamophobia against London’s Muslims.’
In the same email in which this inflammatory comment appeared, Muslims are urged to remember that the BNP has asked its supporters to name Johnson as their second preferred candidate. This is nothing but a despicable form of guilt by association as Johnson has never endorsed the BNP.
Now Johnson is no angel when it comes to verbal indelicacies. Yes, he did offer forthright (and much needed) criticism of Islam after 7/7, though he has always been careful to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. He famously offended Liverpudlians after a Spectator editorial (which he signed off) condemned their ‘vicarious victimhood’, and less famously, was criticized by the good people of Portsmouth after calling it ‘one of the most depressed towns in Southern England.’ Some of his utterances have drawn their fair share of disapprobation and, combined with his fairly maverick verbal style, one can understand the trepidation some feel at the prospect of a Johnson mayoralty.
But Johnson has nothing on Livingstone in this regard. Last year Red Ken compared the treatment of Muslims in Britain to that of Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, a comparison which would be laughable were it not so grotesque. We all remember how he compared Oliver Finegold, a Jewish reporter, to a concentration camp guard and of how he told the Reuben Brothers to go back to where they came from.
It is also difficult to forget his sickening embrace of Sheikh Qaradawi, the glorifier of Palestinian suicide bombings, wife beatings and homophobic murder. For good measure, the American ambassador to the UK was described as a ‘chiselling little crook’ and more offence was caused when Livingstone said he longed for the day when the Saudi royal family were ‘swinging from lamp posts.’
Of course there are plenty of other reasons for booting Red Ken out. His outrageous proposed extension to the congestion charge is a gratuitous tax on the well off which will barely dent London’s (and Britain’s) carbon emissions. For Ken, green is most definitely the new red. Then there is his glib dismissal of inner city violence, his outrageous visits to Latin American dictators and his suspect endorsement of Sir Ian Blair. All good reasons for believing that Livingstone is no longer fit for office.
By contrast, Johnson has long eschewed the extension of statism, preferring smaller government, reduced bureaucracy and less government interference. His articles in the Daily Telegraph are littered with laments for how the ubiquitous health and safety culture has stifled individual freedom. It remains to be seen how much his conservative vision can be translated into the politics of the Metropolis. Nonetheless his proposal to scrap the £25 congestion charge is a step in the right direction.
For these, and other reasons, I will be voting for Boris Johnson on May 1st.
topThe 'both ways' Prime Minister
16 April, 2008
For all his tough rhetoric, Gordon Brown seems to have put his faith in an ‘African solution’ to Zimbabwe. Despite describing the country’s current plight as ‘appalling’, Brown seems resigned to trusting in Zimbabwe’s neighbours, rather than calling for meaningful international intervention. He will raise the issue at the UN today where he is spending the next 2 days, and have talks with other regional leaders. But that is about it. As a report in The Times said yesterday: ‘The Prime Minister’s stance will dismay those calling for the international community to take a tough line against the Mugabe regime.’
Indeed it will. Consider the fact that in recent days, the 14 nation Southern African Development Community (SADC), which met to discuss the Zimbabwean situation, failed to declare an emergency there. They merely called for the immediate release of election results which, after 14 days, remain firmly under police ‘protection’. The SADC is a paper tiger in every sense of the word and the notion that these neighbours can alter Mugabe’s tyrannical rule is illusory.
To be fair, Brown has condemned Mugabe’s rule on several occasions. Yet by ruling out international intervention in this current crisis, Brown has effectively adopted a laissez faire approach to the Zimbabwean crisis. Trusting in an African solution to Mugabe is like trusting in an Iraqi solution to Saddam Hussein, or a German solution to Hitler. Dictators rarely give up the royal jelly of power, especially when they are surrounded by an unholy collection of fawning admirers and fellow dictators. On this issue, Brown lacks courage, boldness and imagination.
Yet this lack of courage, boldness and resolution also typifies Gordon Brown’s leadership. This was the Prime Minister who dithered on an election and then lied about his reasons for cancelling it. This was the man who embraced the EU Constitution yet refused to attend the signing ceremony. This was the ‘Son of the Manse’ who kowtowed to the Chinese by allowing the Olympic torch into Downing Street, yet refused to hold it. He ruled out meeting Mugabe at an EU-Africa summit, yet sent a British representative in his place. He tries to have things both ways, but confuses nobody.
topHow our politicians are undermining national security.
10 April, 2008
Two judicial decisions in the last 24 hours have highlighted how the government is losing control of the nation’s security. Yesterday the Court of appeal decided that it would be wrong to deport Abu Qatada to Libya as he was likely to face the prospect of torture. It is yet another grievous self inflicted wound in our desperate battle against jihadist Islam.
The decision makes a mockery of the ‘memoranda of understanding’ that were signed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks together with Tony Blair’s promises to ‘get tough’ on radical preachers. Indeed labelling the decision perverse would be the understatement of the year. Abu Qatada has been called Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man and is seen as a major terror mastermind. Yet we cannot deport this man from our shores because it would infringe his human rights. Note, his human rights, not the human rights of the law abiding ‘kuffars’ who seek protection from mass murdering Islamists.
On a separate matter, a judge today ruled that the Serious Fraud Office illegally dropped the probe into alleged bribery and corruption in the arms deals between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems. There was reportedly ‘irresistible’ pressure from the former Prime Minister on the SFO to stop the investigation following threats made by Saudi Prince Bandar. Bandar had reportedly threatened not only to scupper what remained of the al Yamamah arms deal, affecting thousands of British jobs, but to stop the flow of intelligence in the war on terror. This might have led, said investigators, to another 9/11 on British streets. According to the government’s lawyers, Blair and co had little choice but to cave in to Saudi intimidation and terminate the SFO probe.
First you have the small matter of an unconstitutional ministerial interference in the legal process. Worse than this are the security implications. The government has long championed the Saudi government as a force for peace and stability in the Middle East and as a key player in the war against Al Qaeda. Indeed it is true that the Saudi royal family has been a target for Islamic militants and yes, some terrorists have been captured by Saudi forces in recent years. But if the price we pay for this co-operation is that our ‘ally’ can viciously blackmail us and, at the drop of a hat, put British lives in danger, we are in the most serious danger.
As Lord Justice Moses put it today, the government has effectively said: ‘The law is powerless to protect our own sovereignty. No lawyer or court can protect one of the essential features of sovereignty, which is control over one's own domestic criminal law system."
It is often tempting to blame judges for loopy decisions like the one involving Qatada. But this would somewhat miss the point. What we are really dealing with here are craven, misguided politicians who are fundamentally jeopardizing this country’s security. The Court of Appeal upheld Qatada’s deportation appeal on the basis that he might face harm abroad. But this is simply the logical consequence of Britain signing the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty that expressly forbids member states from deporting individuals to countries where they may be tortured or harmed. It is yet another example of how a faceless EU bureaucracy sets the agenda for British politics and how our timid Westminster elite have signed away their power to govern this country.
Timid is the word that also describes the government’s surrender to Saudi blackmail. Instead of proclaiming the Saudis as allies in the war on terror, the government should explain how much terror still emanates from the Saudis via their lavishly funded schools and mosques. Instead of bending over backwards to placate filthy rich, corrupt princes in Riyadh, the government ought to maintain its steadfast commitment to the rule of law. But political cowardice has forced their surrender to both Saudi billionaires and the ever expanding bureaucracy in Brussels.
Who needs misguided judges with this lot in control?
topThe shaming of academia
09 April, 2008
Some months ago the Archbishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, courted controversy by describing some British towns with Muslim populations as ‘no go areas.’ He warned of the alarming rise in separatist demands from the Muslim community and how these demands, if met, would result in increasing social fragmentation and extremism. Some weeks later, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered his infamous Sharia speech in which he talked of the ‘inevitability’ of Sharia law in Britain and the need for ‘parallel jurisdiction.’ It was as heartening to hear the truth from one bishop as it was depressing to hear misrepresentation from the other.
But if you thought that Britain alone was plagued by institutional paralysis in the face of Islamic separatism, think again. For the last 2 months a huge controversy has raged in America about the extent to which the demands of a religious minority (Muslims) can be accommodated in a public place. The issue centres on the so called ‘Harvard 6’, a small group of religious Muslim women who asked the authorities to ban men from going to one of the university’s gyms for 6 hours in the week. They argued that as their religion banned them from removing head clothing in the presence of men, they should have sole access to the gym during those 6 hours. On 4th February the authorities agreed and since that date, no men have been allowed in the gym during those hours.
The authorities are incredibly naïve not to have expected a backlash. As things stand, this is an appalling decision that flies in the face of anti discrimination legislation and brings back haunting and painful memories of segregation. It is simply not good enough to assert that there are other gyms available at Harvard, or that men can use this particular gym outside the 6 hour exclusion period. The university’s facilities should be available to every student on the same basis. That is the whole point of an institution offering ‘free and equal access’, regardless of its students’ background, sex, ethnicity and, yes, religion. This is a form of religious inspired segregation in the name of an intolerant faith.
Of course universities should try and accommodate the reasonable requests of religious minorities. Kitchens and canteens, for example, should try and provide halal and kosher food which meets the religious requirements of Muslims and Jews. After all, halal meat can be eaten by anyone, just as people of any faith (or none) should feel free to attend a religious minority’s prayer meeting.
But here the authorities are denying a resource to one group of students and effectively foisting one group’s religious values on to other people. This is a form of religious fundamentalism in which the authorities are pandering to the separatist demands of one group to the detriment of the majority. It is allowing one minority to monopolize public space according to certain religious rules and values, effectively turning that space into a private one. This is shameful for an academic institution that prides itself on combating intolerance and irrational discrimination.
topTibetans are too peaceful for the international community
7 April, 2008
Yesterday I attended the Free Tibet rally that was held opposite Downing Street, as the Olympic torch passed through Whitehall. The huge assembled throng was (mostly) well behaved and in good cheer and while the protesters were animated, there was never a hint of an impending riot. Yes, there were scuffles that broke out and yes people were arrested for public order offences. While one should condemn those of a more militant disposition, their behaviour only marred an otherwise spirited occasion.
In a sense, this is pretty much what we have come to expect from the Tibetan movement; that their supporters protest politely and then go back home without alarming the authorities. Think about it, when was the last time you heard of Tibetan suicide bombers blasting a café in Beijing? When did you last hear the Dalai Lama call for violent ‘resistance’ against China or explain that murdering civilians was a necessary part of his liberation struggle? You haven’t and that tells its own story. The recent violence in Tibet seems to be an exception.
There is something genuinely uplifting about using non violence to counter injustice and adversity. One thinks of the way that Martin Luther King championed non militancy during the Civil Rights movement despite the injustice meted out to his fellow Black Americans. His tactic of non violent non co-operation won the movement support from non Blacks while belligerent governors in the South instantly ceded the moral high ground to their foes.
But with Tibet, this pacific disposition is also (sadly) a drawback. The decision not to use indiscriminate violence has seen their cause pushed below the radar of international attention. Few presidents and prime ministers deem Tibet to be a matter of overriding urgency.
Thus our spineless government ministers call for ‘restraint’ in Tibet, as if they were chastising 2 ill mannered schoolchildren brawling in the playground. In reality, our government is bending over backwards to placate a Chinese regime which is obsessively sensitive to Tibetan protesters and which has threatened to scupper London’s own Olympic rally in 2012. This is the wrong kind of appeasement towards the wrong kind of people and history is always at hand to remind us of the consequences. They aren’t pretty.
By contrast, consider the attention lavished on the Palestinian movement in the last 3 decades despite their record of incessant hijackings, bombings and acts of terror. The Palestinians literally bombed their way to the negotiating table and the worse their atrocities, the more urgently their cause was taken up. In effect, the more Arafat escalated his terror campaign, the more he seduced people into trying to ‘win him over.’ Violence can be glamorous even for the good hearted. As Charles Moore pointed out in yesterday’s Telegraph, the same thing took place in Northern Ireland.
Of course I am not suggesting, even for a minute, that Tibetan campaigners should abandon their peaceful ways. Non violent protest gives their cause added legitimacy and provides moral, as well as political reasons, for supporting independence. But the adage that only those who shout loudest get heard has a clear political application.
But there are disturbing consequences for giving so much attention to the most violent causes in the world. As Moore points out, it can only give disincentives to new political movements to behave properly. Why should any liberation movement not kill and maim innocents when the rewards for barbarity are so great? Why abide by the law when no one listens? It seems that taking the moral high ground is only a ‘moral’ option these days.
topFitna
4 April, 2008
I have just seen Geert Wilders’ mini documentary ‘Fitna.’ This controversial 15 minute film was released on Live Leak, then hastily withdrawn for a day before being re-released without certain ‘offensive’ material.
In some ways Fitna is a valuable piece of filmmaking. Wilders reveals all too graphically the nature of the current Islamist threat which can be seen in terror attacks across the world. With an emotional soundtrack playing in the background, the film shows some truly disturbing footage, including emotional scenes from 9/11.
He exposes some of the worst manifestations of radical Islam, including several vicious hate speeches in which Islamists vent their fury at Western democracy, abortion and sexual tolerance. President Ahmadinejad comes across (rightly) as a jihadist who craves regional domination. He also reveals how vicious anti Semitism lies at the heart of this deranged ideology. Thus he shows three year olds being interviewed on Arab television who call Jews ‘the sons of pigs and apes’ and who then trace their belief to the Koran. Muslims carry posters praising Hitler and others are shown performing the Nazi salute.
But Wilders also embeds this fanaticism and hatemongering in a specifically Koranic context. At different stages, the film provides examples of belligerent verses from the Koran which mandate ‘jihad against non Muslims’ or which call for the ‘smiting’ of the unbelievers. Wilders clearly believes that the Islamic faith is inherently responsible for this appalling violence.
But valuable as this is, 'Fitna' is not the same as the excellent ‘Obsession.’ For one thing it suffers from a lack of expert witnesses with an intimate knowledge of radical Islam. ‘Obsession’ featured several interviews with eminent historians, ex Islamists and political commentators who provided in depth analysis of the issues being discussed.
Secondly ‘Fitna’ lacks much needed nuance and balance. Wilders claims that the ‘Islamic ideology’ has to be defeated, just as Nazism and Communism were brought to their knees in the previous 60 years. But here Wilders is wrong to suggest that Islam is a monolithic faith that mandates only one message, whether of violence or of peace.
As I have argued before, if we declare that Islam as a whole is the enemy, rather than one interpretation of it, we would be launching a wholly unwinnable battle of ideas. We would be alienating many fair minded, non Islamist Muslims who are just as concerned as non Muslims about the malign influence of Islamist radicalism. If Wilders thought it necessary merely to ban certain passages from the Koran, why would he call for defeat of the ‘Islamic’ ideology? By contrast, ‘Obsession’ made the point that Islamism was but one interpretation of Islam, albeit a highly plausible one. Wilders appears to disagree and this undermines his thesis.
topArticle in today's Society Guardian
2 April, 2008
For those who are interested, I have an article in the Guardian today on the subject of prison reform and the work of the Koestler award scheme. The scheme has been running for over 45 years and aims to tap into the creative instincts of prisoners by getting them to produce and then exhibit works of art.
I have spoken to a number of authorities for their opinions on the scheme, all of whom agree that it has beneficial consequences for those who take part. The article can be viewed online here
topThe case for mass immigration demolished
1 April, 2008
I doubt if there has been a more devastating indictment of government policy for many years. A House of Lords Economic Committee has concluded, after 9 months of rigorous, painstaking research, that mass immigration has failed to bring Britain any significant economic benefit. Their report comprehensively explodes all the myths that have been put about by government propagandists for the last decade.
The claim that immigrants have boosted economic growth is misleading they say. As the number of immigrants increases, it is obvious that there will be higher GDP but as the authors conclude, the only significant measure of economic growth is GDP per capita. Nor can mass immigration solve the pensions timebomb because new immigrants grow old and claim pensions just like the rest of us.
Furthermore, immigration cannot be relied on to fill ‘the vacancies which indigenous workers do not want to fill.’ With a greater number of immigrants in the country, there is added pressure on public services which in turn creates additional vacancies that have to be filled by more immigrants.
This is no right wing rant by a group of narrow minded Little Englanders. Sitting on the Committee were two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, several captains of industry and the eminent economist, Lord Layard. These are individuals with unrivalled experience and authority whose voice deserves to be heard.
The report warns that at current levels of immigration, the population will expand to nearly 70 million by 2030. The social consequences of this demographic experiment will be immense: unprecedented pressures on education, health, housing and local services while the ramifications for social cohesion are surely greater. That is why immigration remains the no 1 long term political issue facing Britain today and why all the political parties are becoming fixated by it.
The government has now promised a points based clamp down on unskilled labour from outside the EU. The Conservatives have talked about the same thing. There is also a need to bring in ‘skilled’ workers from across the world who can enrich our economy and society in so many ways. But both parties must heed this report and guarantee to limit future immigration to a nationally sustainable level i.e. an annual guarantee of a net zero increase in the size of the population. But for that to be possible, both parties have to start a national debate on our continuing membership of the EU and its rules on Continental migration. For the inhabitants of a small overcrowded island, this can only be reasonable.
top