Diary
Another feminist tirade against men
27 June, 2008
Surely Harriet Harman can’t be serious? Is the woman having a laugh at our expense or just showing us the mind numbing depths of her incompetence? Or is she so in thrall to politically correct, victim culture that she no longer cares about adopting a rational view of the world? One has to suspect the latter, particularly when it comes to the issue of wage discrimination.
Yesterday Harman was busy outlining her plans to narrow the gender pay gap in Britain. But at the same time she was betraying her complete ignorance of economics, to say nothing of women’s issues (which is rather ironic). Commenting on Radio 4 about the fact that female part-time workers were apparently earning 40% less per hour than men in full time work, she made the following asinine observation: "Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It's not the case. It's entrenched discrimination. It's allowed to persist because it's all swept under the carpet."
Let’s look at this very carefully. Yes there is a gender pay gap in Britain, in fact across the Western World. Women’s full time hourly pay is less than that of men, as surveys never fail to indicate. And we should certainly agree with the principle that women should be paid the same as men for doing the same work. It would be deeply prejudicial as well as irrational to believe otherwise. To this end, Britain has long had tough anti discrimination laws and equal pay legislation which all employers are obliged to follow. The Equal Pay Act has been in force since 1970 in keeping with the radical equality agenda across the Western World.
So what does Ms Harman want us to deduce from the clear evidence of a pay gap? Do we conclude that Britain’s employers are so caught up in a misogynistic fervour that they are unscrupulously and illegally discriminating against women? If so, Ms. Harman and her chums are desperately needed to eradicate this terrible blight on civilisation. How can we build New Labour’s Jerusalem when there is such intolerance in our midst?
But if you feel this tidal wave of feminist anger is unjust, you are not alone. For the blindingly obvious truth is so obvious that even government ministers have missed it. The argument is relatively simple enough.
When women have babies, they decide (far more than men) to take time off work to rear them. Very often they return to work on a part time basis, often for several years, thus preventing themselves from climbing the work ladder that would otherwise bring financial rewards. In addition, the legal retirement age for men is 5 years older than for women, allowing them to clock up more hours in the workplace and higher levels of pay. In a meritocracy, this is reflected in the pay gap.
Of course there are always employers who flout laws and who refuse to employ or promote women with their future child rearing in mind. But this cannot be the whole explanation. Indeed in other countries, such as Sweden, where there are equally tough laws against unequal pay, you see the same pay gap as in Britain. Women are overwhelmingly more likely to stay at home for months and bring up babies, in turn sacrificing the advancement of their careers. In other words, lifestyle choice largely explains the differential earnings between the sexes. As June O’Neill at Baruch College said: “For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap."
Nor are Harman’s plans for ‘positive discrimination’ very promising either. Harman has proposed to ‘allow’ firms to give priority treatment to women and ethnic candidates when they apply for a job and all applicants are equally good. But this means that employers would be dealing with candidates on the basis of their skin colour and sex, rather than as individuals. It is using discrimination to counter discrimination and will provide a field day for human rights lawyers.
Still, no one can accuse Harriet Harman of being inconsistent. A booklet she co-authored in 1990, called ‘The Family Way’, set out to combat ‘traditionalist, stultifying concepts of the family’ which were ‘not confined to the right wing alone.’ It contained the following desultory reference to the male sex: ‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion." Does that not say it all?
topTowards a Scottish Caliphate?
25 June, 2008
Tomorrow, Scotland’s First minister, Alex Salmond, will help launch a new centre, the Scottish Islamic Foundation. The new organization ‘aims to promote the tenets of good citizenship’ according to official sources in Scotland. But as the excellent Centre for Social Cohesion has pointed out in its recent press briefing (you can view it on their website http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk), the Foundation is effectively a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been one of the world’s leading advocates of radical Islam since the 1920s. As the briefing indicates: ‘The leading members of the group, together with many of those who lead its events are closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.’
The SIF's chief executive is the youthful Osama Saeed, a man with close links to Salmond and with a promising future in the Scottish Parliament. But Saeed is no true Islamic moderate. To give him credit, he did condemn the terrorist attacks in Scotland last year and he has called for an end to forced marriages.
But then consider that on November 1st 2005 Saeed wrote an article in the Guardian in which he openly called for the reintroduction of the Islamic Caliphate. The restored caliphate, he insisted, was ‘entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions’ and was necessary to ‘create a peaceful and just society.’ Sharia law, he added for good measure, offered entirely legitimate punishments though, by a blatant act of dissimulation, he denied it had anything to do with stoning or amputation. At the time Saeed was a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, a British front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Centre for Social Cohesion quotes Saeed on his blog commenting on the Muslim Cartoon row from 2006:
The right to offend doesn't work on the playground and it shouldn't work on the international arena either. Even if there is a right to offend, surely there is also a right to be offended? And to complain and even boycott as a result. But the cartoons have nothing to do with ridiculing. You just don't do pictures of the Prophet, period. It's a cultural thing, accept it and respect it.
Like all Islamists, Saeed plots the takeover of Western institutions by stealth. If the West is to respect Islam, it must forego its most fundamental freedoms, including the freedom to offend, satirize and complain about the Islamic faith. It must also imbibe the minority grievance culture into which Islam has become increasingly immersed, such that any legitimate criticism of the faith becomes, by default, Islamophobic, racist or bigoted.
To this end, Saeed has even taken the BBC to task for reporting the homophobic views of the hatemonger Yusuf Al Qaradawi. And to accomplish this, he relies on useful idiots, like the hapless Salmond, to promote his extremist agenda. Fair enough, he does not support terrorism directed against his fellow Scots but he does advocate Sharia Law and the Caliphate under the banner of moderate Islam.
The Centre’s press briefing goes on to detail the links between other SIF figures and the Muslim Brotherhood. One of them is Kamal Helbawy, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain and a self confessed supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 1970s he was associated with WAMY, a Saudi funded Wahhabi organization that promoted hatred of non Muslims and advocated a separatist agenda. In an interview here http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?issue_id=3427, Helbawy blames government foreign policy and the British media for stoking up Islamic extremism!
The briefing continues: The Scottish Islamic Foundation appears to be aiming to become the Scottish government's default Muslim partner organisation, a role the Muslim Council of Britain previously fulfilled for the British government.’
With Alex Salmond providing his endorsement tomorrow, it is highly likely that SIF will be granted the privileged position they crave, close to the bosom of Scottish politics on the one hand while actively undermining Western values on the other. Despite so forcefully condemning Islamist violence, the Scottish Parliament is giving much needed ideological ammunition to Muslim fellow travellers who seek the same revolutionary ends as Al Qaeda but though non violent means. This is how Islamists are making such rapid advances in their global campaign against the West. And they are doing it with the connivance of our politicians. A rather pathetic spectacle.
topThe Law Lords ruling
24 June, 2008
The collapse of a £6 million Old Bailey murder trial today is entirely predictable in the wake of last week’s ruling by the Law Lords. The Lords had stated that defendants in criminal trials had the right to confront those who were giving evidence against them, including the right to know their identities and to cross examine them.
The Lords claimed that they were merely upholding a cardinal principle of English common law and that the current situation, where witnesses could give evidence under a cloak of anonymity, violated that principle. But as John Yates so cogently argued last week, this was a terrifying licence to free dozens of Britain’s most dangerous criminals.Of course it is a sacrosanct principle of our legal system that a man, all things being equal, has the right to confront his accusers in open court. No one would wish to dispute that. The Lords are also right that a guilty verdict based solely on the word of a witness who has not been cross examined is scarcely safe. Further corroborative evidence is imperative in such cases.
But in exceptional criminal trials, defendants are notorious for using fear and intimidation to silence others. It is in these cases that some form of anonymity should be offered to potential (and highly vulnerable) witnesses. If they are protected by screens and voice distortion technology, it is still open to the defendant to ask pertinent questions which the witness (still anonymous) will have to answer.
The alternative is that witnesses will be cowed into silence, paralyzed by the fear that if they were to testify openly in court, their lives would be at the mercy of the criminal underworld. If anonymity is removed, then a chilling message will be sent to Britain’s worst gangs: that as long as they intimidate all those with whom they come into contact, they will be able to murder and maim with impunity. Is this not therefore a case where common sense has been trampled into the dust by judicial absolutism?
It remains to be seen how Parliament deals with this emergency situation. But whatever is decided, expect to see more serious criminal trials collapse across the country at huge expense to the taxpayer.
topAnother illusory ceasefire
23 June, 2008
Once again the government of Ehud Olmert has succumbed to the illusion that appeasing its enemies is a workable policy. By agreeing to a 6 month ‘ceasefire’ with Hamas, they have given the militants carte blanche to rebuild their military infrastructure with the help of their Iranian friends. This ‘hudna’ is a tactical short term exercise for Hamas, not the prelude to reconciliation.
Instead of carrying out the kind of self defence operations for which the IDF is famous, Israel is beginning to acquiesce in the new Gazastan. And there is no guarantee that Corporal Schalit will be part of the bargain.
The Iranians must be delighted that they have opened up another dangerous front against the Jewish state, threatening the heart of Southern Israel in the event of a strike on their nuclear facilities. Quite how this is supposed to deter Ahmadinejad is not clear. This ceasefire that isn’t is therefore the last desperate gamble of Olmert’s administration.
But it is not his only desperate gamble. Some weeks ago, he began to entertain the laughable notion that the Syrians, a (former?) member of the axis of evil, could be coaxed away from their Iranian friends with the Golan Heights as bait. It was a strategy so puzzling that even the normally appeasement minded members of the State Department were scratching their heads. Yet there are precious few signs of a rift between the two countries, while there is every sign that the Syria-Iran-Hamas-Hezbullah axis of terror is stronger than ever.
All the while we are told to be thankful that talks between Israel and the PA are progressing, as if this compensates for appeasement elsewhere. Somehow, we are supposed to forget that Mahmoud Abbas won’t recognise Israel as a Jewish state and that he remains indifferent to the PA’s incitement against the Jews. This is the Alice in Wonderland school of peacemaking.
If recent history teaches anything, it is that our weakness, rather than our strength, provides the most potent tonic for extremists. Right now, amid the dying embers of the Olmert administration, Israel is inadvertently conveying a message of weakness to Syria, the Iranians and Hamas.
topBook Review: News of the World?
19 June, 2008
In 2006 Fleet Street was rocked by the trial at the Old Bailey of Clive Goodman, the News of the World’s royal correspondent. Goodman was charged with intercepting the voicemail of Princes William and Harry and other members of the Royal Household, contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. He received a 6 month sentence for his actions.
This apparently isolated case summed up so much of what was wrong with tabloid journalism. There was the arrogant disregard for personal privacy, a willingness to break the law to achieve the latest ‘scoop’ and sensational headlines that were designed, in the words of Goodman’s editor, to ‘destroy people’s lives.’
One is left asking when, if ever, this kind of shady subterfuge is justified. The answer, says Peter Burden in News of the World?, depends on whether a story is based on genuine public interest, not merely on what is ‘of interest to the public.’
Part of the author’s disapproval rests on the methods used to trap high profile celebrities. England rugby captain, Lawrence Dallaglio, is a case in point. Two News of the World reporters, pretending to be the executives of the Gillette razor company, offered Dallaglio a six figure contract for using his image for a promotion campaign. But they told him that he had to impress Gillette’s director in a social meeting later that day. After being plied with alcohol, Dallaglio began to make some wild and fantastic claims about taking drugs.
The headlines that followed painted him as a seedy drug dealer and were at wide variance with the facts. However as Burden points out, what is disturbing here is not so much the drug revelations, however unreliable, but the methods used to extract them.
More troubling still is the entrapment used on Joe Yorke, the 10th Earl of Hardwicke. A man of little wealth, Yorke ran a scooter business in London and kept a low profile away from the public gaze. A ‘News of the World’ team visited him and, disguised as businessmen, offered to purchase £100,000 of scooters.
Before the deal was signed, the group had an expensive meal at the Savoy that involved large quantities of drink. There the Earl was asked whether he could obtain cocaine for his customers and, to his shame, Yorke brought some from a local supplier.
Yorke found himself the subject of lurid newspaper headlines and subsequently received a suspended sentence for supplying drugs at Blackfriars Crown Court. For Burden, it is a scandal that the News team was ‘never called to account for aiding and abetting (their) victim in his crime.’ As he rightly says, inciting someone else to commit a crime is in itself a criminal act. That is why this form of entrapment is so questionable and why it must be used with some caution.
Burden gives his readers an engaging, at times shocking, expose of the darker side of tabloid journalism. But at times his tone of self righteous anger seems a trifle exaggerated. While the tabloids revel in bringing down celebrities to boost their circulation, they also expose genuine criminality, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.
The News of the World in particular has been responsible for exposing the affairs of public ‘family’ men including MP Mark Oaten, David Beckham and Mick Jagger. And thanks to its top investigative reporter, Mahzer Mahmoud (aka the Fake Sheikh), we now understand how Sophie, Countess of Wessex, was abusing her position as head of her PR firm, R–JH. Entrapment in the cases of Dallaglio and Yorke may seem unsavoury to some but those who live with publicity should be savvy enough to spot a ‘sting.’
Burden is right to say that journalists should clarify the boundaries of private and public in their work. A private life, including a person’s marriage, sexual relationships and hobbies, should be shielded from public exposure unless laws have been broken or some hypocrisy exposed. And the law should not be broken without an overriding public interest, though as that last term is so unclear, this debate will surely rumble on. Burden’s book is a valuable contribution to that debate.
topHelen Steer
London, UK
04/07/2008
I'm really glad you enjoyed this book. I work for the publishers, Eye Books, and wanted to call to your attention Peter's new blog about the issues raised in NOTW. Visit www.peterburden.net and join the discussion on press vs. privacy. Thanks again for reviewing the book.
If the Tories want to get tough on Qatada, they must address the elephant in the room: Our EU membership
18 June, 2008
Today’s news about the release on bail of Abu Qatada is final proof of the madness that has engulfed this country in the last decade. Qatada, for those not in the know, is an extremist Islamist fanatic who has been described as a ‘truly dangerous individual’ and ‘Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe’. He has links to some of the leading terrorists of the last 10 years, including Bin Laden’s no. 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and the late Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. His videos helped to inspire Mohammad Atta, leader of the lethal 9/11 attacks.
Despite being wanted in Jordan for a variety of terrorist crimes, our courts refuse to have him deported and now we cannot even keep him locked up. So this foreign born radical who clearly despises this country (apart from its generous welfare system) is allowed to stay here, courtesy of a bizarre human rights culture that values the rights of fanatics above those of innocent civilians.
No one should be fooled by the conditions of the control order. At least 7 people have absconded before on control orders and when they do, as with terror suspect Cerie Bullivant, they can be cleared of flouting their orders in any case. Qatada is free to resume a life on benefits while the heavy police presence outside his house will cost taxpayers dearly.
So much for the Government’s tough talk on deporting foreign born terror suspects! So much for Blair declaring that ‘the rules of the game had changed.’ What poppycock! It was all right wing rhetoric designed to serve the political needs of the moment and engage in point scoring over a weakened opposition.
The Conservatives now claim to be ‘offended’ at the decision to bail him. But would they have been any less powerless than the government? The real reason for Brown and co’s impotence is the stifling impact of EU membership and one of its manifestations, the European Convention on Human Rights. By signing up to this Convention, we are unable to legally deport anyone who ‘may’ face harm and torture abroad. Thus the memorandum of understanding signed with Jordan, whereby they agreed not to harm Qatada, has proven to be a hollow sham.
The Conservatives in the past have talked about withdrawing from the Convention while remaining committed to EU membership. But as Charlie Falconer astutely pointed out in 2006 here ‘it's a condition of being a member of the European Union that you sign up to the Convention.’
It seems that the promise to withdraw from the Convention was itself a political stunt with neither party grasping the essential point that Westminster is fundamentally subservient to Brussels on this matter. No amount of posturing can change that.
So as our political class jockeys for position on public policy, they remain firmly tethered to the Brussels bureaucrats who really shape our lives. And they tell us that EU membership is vital to this country’s interests? Pull the other one.
topThe EU will never take 'no' for an answer
17 June, 2008
Last night I attended an event organized by the think tank Open Europe in which I had the pleasure of hearing Declan Ganley, the Irish entrepreneur who led the campaign for Ireland’s recent no vote. Ganley spoke passionately about his arduous campaign against the Lisbon Treaty (that’s the Constitution to you and me).
He spoke of his pride in the Irish people for defying the intimidation and lying from Europe’s political elite and of his resolve to restore democracy to the European Union. A number of prominent Eurosceptics were present, including MPs David Heathcoat-Amory and Gisela Stuart as well as former Home Secretary, Lord Waddington.
In one respect, Ganley deserves great respect. He has fought a long and hard battle to open up the eyes of his people to the machinations common in Brussels. His passion for democracy and accountability is evident, as is his awareness of the powers Ireland would lose were it to sign the Treaty. Without his campaigning, the Irish no vote would not have been guaranteed.
Yet for all that, Ganley remains a high enthusiast for the European Union and this makes his proposals for the way forward somewhat unrealistic. He suggested that Europe now had to create a fresh Constitution, from scratch as it were, which respected the expressed democratic will of Europe’s national electorates.
A rather Panglossian vision Declan! What drives this fanatical EU project is the deepest distrust of the electorate. It is inherently anti populist, unaccountable and anti democratic in nature. And why?
Since the horrors of World War 2, the dream of European unity has been accompanied by a suspicion of ‘popular’ politics. It is as if, in 1945, a European intellectual elite sought forever to present a repetition of war by diplomatic means. They would create a federal supranational system that would effectively bypass ‘the people’ and their careless whims.
This would be achieved by superimposing a legalistic, bureaucratic European identity on nation states so as to curtail the power of those states in case they succumbed to the ‘corrosive’ disease of nationalism. But the European elite could never publicly own up to what they were doing so their project had to proceed by stealth, manipulation and subtle tricks. This is why, in the aftermath of the French and Dutch no votes in 2005, Merkel and co. turned the ‘dead’ Constitution into the live Lisbon Treaty. On this occasion, few people were fooled.
Asking those who drive the union to become more accountable is like demanding that New Labour end its culture of spin, or asking the BNP to be more tolerant of foreigners. It just isn’t going to happen.
topIreland's triumphant no vote
13 June, 2008
Let us first of all exult in the triumph. Ireland ’s ‘no’ vote sends a decisive signal to the EU that its Constitutional Treaty is just not welcome. Despite a disgraceful campaign of political bullying by the country’s political class (ironically Sinn Fein aside), the Irish people have refused to be cowed into submission. Like the French and Dutch before them, who voted against the EU Constitution in 2005, the Irish have refused to follow the script and rubber stamp the latest power grab by the EU.
This is symbolically important. There is a thundering chasm between the Brussels power machine and the electorates in whose name they claim to operate. And this democratic deficit has long been built into the entire project. The political elite in Europe are so terrified of popular votes, so scared of being held to account by the people, that they resort to bludgeoning through their legislation and directives, using sleight of hand where necessary. When they run up against ‘the people’, they receive a nasty surprise.
This also explains why the EU is bound to ignore this rejection and press ahead with ratifying as much of the Lisbon Treaty as possible. Just as Brussels ignored the French and Dutch no votes 3 years ago, so will they try and pretend that this one had never happened. Their only Plan B is to phase in elements of this treaty, using as much guile and stealth as they can. They will no doubt insist that member states abolish referendums altogether.
In Britain we have been denied a meaningful referendum on this issue. Were the British people to have voted, it is almost certain that there would have been another resounding no vote for Europe. But it is unlikely that any such vote could now be given as the process of ‘formal ratification’ will be shelved in favour of phasing in much of the Treaty.
We have to face facts. As long as we are EU members, we will be subservient to an arrogant, undemocratic political elite who believe they are permanently unaccountable and whose desire for power is insatiable. Our politicians will become increasingly irrelevant as they are forced to implement laws they did not discuss. There is therefore only one issue that now counts and that is whether or not we remain in the EU. It is about time we had that vote.
topDavid Davis' spectacular own goal
12 June, 2008
It is hard to know what to make of David Davis’ decision to resign from the Shadow Cabinet today. At first glance, one has to feel tremendous sympathy for the man. Here is a stalwart defender of liberties feeling the most intense frustration at our authoritarian government. He has rightly indicted the ‘state creep’ that has seen the expansion of surveillance cameras, more ‘snooping’ powers for local councils and other insidious measures. His opposition to ID cards and his vigorous attack on plans for 42 day detention also deserve merit.
But one has to ask what he is up to here? He says he wants to fight a by election on the 42 day detention issue. But already the Liberal Democrats have indicated they will not put up a candidate. This means that Mr. Davis is bound to win back his own seat fairly easily, which will scarcely represent any great achievement. His by election will also be an embarrassment to David Cameron who knows his party is fighting against the tide of public opinion. The Tories would rather be fighting by elections on predictable local issues, such as the economy, immigration and crime. In other words, they do not want an unnecessary fight on terror issues.
But above all, Davis will cause a wholly unnecessary rift with his own party. The Conservatives yesterday attacked plans to increase police powers and have already signalled their opposition to ID cards. The Tories have hardly ignored the issues that are concerning Mr. Davis. In any case, this by election is hardly going to persuade the Tories to alter the emphasis and direction of their home affairs policy. This risks being seen as an act of spectacular self indulgence by Mr. Davis, which scarcely does credit to the man.
Within the Shadow Cabinet Davis has been highly effective, helping to bring down several Home Secretaries. Had he stayed where he was, he could have become a towering Home Secretary with powers to reverse many of the policies he dislikes. It is hard to see him returning to the Shadow Cabinet if he wins this by election. His probable victory is likely to prove more Pyrrhic than he imagines.
topIt is authority that is demonized, not children
11 June, 2008
So this nation’s children are being demonized? A glance at the joint report by the UK’s Children’s commissioners this week here would leave you thinking that British children were a persecuted minority living in sub standard, Dickensian conditions. The authors of this blatantly self serving document have gone out of their way to highlight the problems faced by children, and their findings will be viewed by the UN in due course. But when one goes through the litany of complaints, it is hard to believe that any children pose a threat to the rest of society. Children come across as a victim class that is demonized by society’s authority figures, whether policemen, fathers or teachers. And it is the unwarranted attack on authority that lies at the heart of this disgraceful report.
Take this statement: ‘We believe there has been an increase in discrimination against children as a whole, exemplified by the growing use of the ‘Mosquito’ device…The signs in shop doors of “no school children” or “only two children at a time” are now common and reinforce the negative stereotypes that are held about children.’
Oh please. The whole point about mosquito devices and cautionary shop signs is that they are a response to growing concerns about anti social behaviour. Law abiding shopkeepers no doubt resort to these measures because of their frustration at the behaviour of some young people, and the failure of the police and families to control that behaviour. Of course, one can question using a device which fails to discriminate between individuals with different behaviour patterns. But to issue such dire complaints without appreciating the context is risible and grossly unfair.
But these are not the only adult figures to merit such negative scrutiny. Children are apparently under attack from an unholy set of forces at home and in school who commit the cardinal sin of trying to control unruly behaviour. The Commissioners rail against the ‘physical punishment of children’ and the fact that the government recently emphasised ‘a parent’s right to discipline.’ They would prefer the Scottish system where smacking is unlawful. Apparently reasonable chastisement is so abhorrent to these Commissioners that it should be outlawed by law, something that would, if adopted, lead to the criminalisation of parents.
But it gets worse. Children feel ‘increasingly pressurised by school exams’ which causes ‘increased anxiety and stress’. The report frets about a law which allows teachers ‘to use physical force to restrain or control pupils’ and rails against the use of permanent exclusions which ‘denies many children their right to education.’
But what exactly are schools supposed to do when pupils repeatedly attack teachers and students and disrupt the education of their fellow pupils? The notion that avoiding exclusions is the way to uphold children’s rights is patently absurd. It is to elevate the ‘right to education’ for a minority of disruptive children above the greater right of well behaved pupils to learn in a safe environment. The real concern is how few pupils are excluded and how many, once excluded, are then forcibly returned to their school.
This disturbing broadside against authority continues with an ill-tempered attack on ASBOs, breaches of which should not be made a criminal offence, say the authors. Instead the government is urged to follow the recommendations of the National Audit Office in issuing ‘informal warning letters’ to prevent offending. For good measure those who breach their ASBOs should not ‘have their right to privacy infringed as their details can be publicised in the media and in the local community.’
I’m sure Britain’s gangs are already quaking in their boots. Yes, ASBOs are largely ineffective but the notion that feral thugs and repeat offenders are more likely to be deterred by scraps of paper is just laughable. If social sanctions don’t work, neither will ‘informal warnings.’ And if we take away the right of the media (and the public) to expose those who harm others, we remove yet another powerful deterrent to criminality.
But then it is the media that has allegedly stoked up an irrational fear of children in the first place. Children, we are told, apparently dislike ‘media stereotypes’ with their ‘incessant portrayal of children as “thugs” and “yobs.” So how exactly should the media cover the current horrific spate of murders and stabbings? Should they ignore gang violence altogether in order to satisfy the dictates of political correctness? These commissioners seem to be living on a different planet. Indeed, one wonders why we even need Children’s Commissioners when they come up with such asinine suggestions.
The one benefit from this report is that it reveals very clearly the problems we are up against. The current outbreak of youth crime has resulted from a long term, catastrophic breakdown of authority at all levels: within the home, within schools, within the community and within the police. A global ‘rights without responsibilities’ culture has triumphed over common sense so that any attempt to use order, discipline and (if need be) force is condemned as immoral. Young people themselves are the worst victims of this. It is only by reasserting authority at every level that ‘all’ our young people can receive the guidance they need to follow a meaningful and law abiding life.
topBritain's 'Israel' problem
10 June, 2008
Israel’s ambassador, Ron Prosor, has a thoughtful article in today’s Daily Telegraph commenting on how this country has become a ‘hotbed of anti Israeli sentiment.’ Stating at the outset his admiration for those principles of ‘fairness, decency and common sense’ that have characterised Britain for centuries, he notes how ‘fairness is all too frequently absent’ when it comes to debating the Arab-Israeli context. He writes:
Israel faces an intensified campaign of delegitimisation, demonisation and double standards. Britain has become a hotbed for radical anti-Israeli views and a haven for disingenuous calls for a "one-state solution", a euphemistic name for a movement advocating Israel's destruction. Those who propagate this notion distort Israel's past while categorically denying Israel's right to exist as a liberal Jewish-democratic state. No other country in the world is constantly forced to justify its own existence.
Sadly, much of what Prosor writes is true. The movement to delegitimize Israel finds ready acceptance in sections of the media, the universities and bastions of ‘right minded’ opinion. It is fashionable to see Israel as an aggressor whose machinations are the root cause of the West’s current security threats. Israel’s attempts to defend itself from those intent on its destruction leave it singled out as a rogue state, hauled before the court of international opinion (such as the UN) and forced to defend its very existence. Other regimes of a less liberal disposition get an easier ride.
In particular, Britain has been a centre for the insidious boycott campaign which Prosor specifically mentions. This campaign has been seized upon by an alarming number of academics who believe that the traditions of free speech and thought must be made subservient to a distorted political agenda. Academia is further tarnished by the way that Islamists use university campuses to propagate their bigotry and prejudice, much of it directed against Jews and Zionism.
Prosor is less clear about the cause of all this and the answer is not as simple as one might think. When one reads the comments that follow his article, there is disturbing evidence of how bigotry and vile prejudice continue to inform this debate. Take these examples:
If it wasn't for the extremely powerful US/Israeli conspiracy then the rightful owners of the place would long ago have settled peacefully on their land again and the Middle East would be a far more saner and be in a more peaceful state than it is today. The Jews have much to answer for but are too well protected by vested interests than to have to obey the historic rules of the game.
Behaving like brutal bullies and tyrants, treating Palestinians like Untermenschen, and engaging in 'ethnic-cleasing' is hardly endearing. Is it?
Most well informed, liberal and peace loving people know that Mossad is as focused and single minded as the Gestapo and that the Jewish nation shows no altruism or love outside its own race.
When Israel ceases its invasion of Palestinian territory, withdraws to its UN recognised borders and allows the Palestinian State to function properly with free access between territories…then I will be perfectly happy to accept it as a country. Until then I see the place as a warmongering, racist state that is equally as bad as an Apartheid South Africa or a Nazi Germany.
Now I wouldn’t claim, even for one minute, that these views are representative of British mainstream opinion. But among this minority, note how easily the comparisons are drawn between Israel and Nazi Germany. Israel is never compared with socialist Romania or Putin’s Russia, always to the state most associated with the genocide of the Jews. The hidden pretext, namely that the Palestinians are the ‘new’ oppressed, is fairly clear. It is a depressing fact that the Israel-Palestine debate has been hijacked by those seeking ‘respectable’ cover for their own sickening Judaeophobia.
But this is not the whole truth. A tidal wave of anti Israeli sentiment has been aided and abetted by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation’s one sided, politically correct account of this conflict in which Israel’s ‘crimes’ are deemed to be at the heart of the Middle East’s ills. The coverage of the intifada as well as the Lebanon War (2006) showed this ever so clearly. And their distorted narrative borrows much from a concerted campaign of propaganda and distortion that has been propagated by Arab states since the 1970s in their war against the Jewish state.
Sensing their own military weakness in the 70s, the Arab world cleverly picked on a real Achilles Heel by waging a PR war of delegitmization against Israel. Israel, they claimed, was not a victim in 1948 but an illegal usurper with colonialist ambitions. Ignoring their own rhetoric from 1948 in which they had stated that Palestine was a part of historic Syria, the Arab PR machine went into overdrive, accusing the Jewish state of genocide, ethnic cleansing and every other sin under the sun.
It coincided with a transforming moment for the Western intelligensia. Great swathes of academia, the churches and much of the intellectual establishment were succumbing to the great onslaught of cultural Marxism in which anti Western and (particularly) anti American attitudes were paramount. As a Western militarized state, and an ally of America, Israel’s status was changed from victim to bourgeois oppressor overnight. This attitude remains with us today.
It is essential that we have a balanced, rational perspective on this most vital debate. Wrongs on all sides must be addressed and grievances overcome so that justice can finally prevail. But until we remove the paralyzing fog of prejudice and (wilful) ignorance, this will never happen, particularly in Britain.
topMc Cain's experience should triumph over Obama's frailty
09 June, 2008
Last weekend, the tiresome Hillary Clinton circus finally ground to a halt. Between gritted teeth, the former First Lady was able to muster sufficient faux grace to concede defeat to her formidable rival, Barack Obama. At last, Americans can concentrate on the battleground to come – and what a fascinating battleground it is.
Fashionable opinion suggests (and in Britain, hopes) that an Obama victory is there for the taking. The thinking goes that after 8 years of George Bush and his neo con wars, Americans will embrace a message of change, hope and optimism come November.
And there can be no better person to convey that message that the youthful, idealistic figure of Senator Obama who seems a latter day fusion of JFK and Martin Luther King. Obama has undoubted appeal and charisma. He is a formidable orator with an inspiring message and his words have struck a chord with large sections of the voting public.
Yet for all of that, my money is on John McCain. For one thing, a McCain Presidency would not mean 4 (or 8) more years of this discredited Republican administration. On a number of issues, whether campaign finance reform, immigration or tax cuts, Mc Cain has gained a reputation for being a tough minded independent willing to defy the party line. He was one of only 2 Republicans to vote against the comprehensive package of tax cuts put forward at an early stage of Bush’s first term. (He has since advocated a simpler tax regime which continues the Bush tax cuts but which also alleviates pressure on the middle classes.)
Earlier in the 1990s, Mc Cain became a public menace to the Establishment by attacking the influence of financial contributions on the political process. A decade earlier he annoyed Reagan’s Conservatives by voting against the Presidential veto on sanctions against South Africa. This ‘maverick’ style may help deflect the criticism that he has no new solutions for dealing with America’s economic woes.
But it is in foreign affairs that Mc Cain is the master. A man who has seen war close up, who spent over 5 years as a POW in Vietnam, can claim vital experience that his opponent lacks. It is Mc Cain who proposed the current troop surge in Iraq, a policy that appears to have quelled much of the sectarian and insurgent killing in the country. It is Mc Cain who has talked tough on Iran and Syria, declaring that there is no room for negotiation with rogue regimes. It is Mc Cain who has slammed the appeasement instincts of the United Nations, proposing instead a reformed League of Democracies.
By contrast, Obama’s statements on foreign policy betray a streak of naivety and inexperience that is breathtaking. Before his sudden ‘change of heart’ at last week’s AIPAC conference, Obama had said he was willing to sit down with America’s enemies, in Iran, Cuba and elsewhere. He advocated the removal of US troops from Iraq, in contrast to Mc Cain who had said he was willing to countenance a long term US presence to guarantee stability.
But there is little to negotiate with the Iranians that has not already been tried. For years, the EU3 tried to persuade the Iranians to abandon their nuclear programme, only to find that their agreement was torn to shreds by President Ahmadinjead. Nor would the instant removal of US troops from Iraq serve Iraq’s long term interests. Instead Obama’s populist suggestion would empower those groups who remain committed to transforming Iraq into a jihadist superstate.
The next 5 months will see a fascinating contest between these colourful personalities. The economy is bound to be at centre stage but it is on foreign policy that the big differences will emerge. America faces a multitude of enemies and in a time of crisis, you need a wise old head instead of youthful exuberance. That is why I think Mc Cain will win, rightly so.
topMore weasel words on Mugabe
6 June, 2008
A debate on last night’s Question Time revealed just how supine and clueless some of our ministers really are. As Zimbabwe’s ‘Bob the Butcher’ was taking his country to new levels of despotism by attacking foreign diplomats and suspending the distribution of food aid, David Milliband was asked why his government was so passive in the face of blatant thuggery.
Understandably he rejected the idea of military intervention, which would be well nigh impossible given Britain’s commitments elsewhere and the scandalous underfunding of our armed forces. Instead he said it was urgent that election monitors were put in place to observe the forthcoming elections for President.
Someone should have reminded the hapless foreign secretary that Mugabe lost the last election. More to the point, we all know that he lost. We don’t need teams of UN observers (who would probably side with Mugabe anyway) to remind us that this tyrant doesn’t play by the rules when it comes to the democratic process. He is a dictator, after all!
Like any totalitarian thug, he will cling to power by every means possible and by exploiting everyone possible. When the election monitors are sent in to observe round 2 of this pitiful farce, they are hardly going to surprise us when they reveal the widespread intimidation and abuse of Mr. Mugabe’s political opponents. This is the naivety of the League of Nations all over again.
But the panel’s Tory representative was no better. Lord Hurd was embarrassed when it was revealed that he was in the government (as foreign secretary) that awarded a knighthood to Mr. Mugabe in 1994. Lord Hurd stumbled as he attempted a rambling, rather pathetic justification for how this mass murderer could have been thus honoured. Mr. Mugabe, sorry Sir Robert, hosted a Commonwealth Conference years ago, something that apparently cancels out his campaign of mass murder in Matabeleland.
Lord Hurd then had the temerity to suggest that perhaps Britain could strip Mugabe of his knighthood as a punishment. Strip him of his knighthood? Come on Lord Hurd, are you really sure you want to antagonize Mugabe that much? Perhaps we should reach a deal and only relieve him of an honorary degree from some useless, faraway university. In the meantime, he’ll be quaking in his boots.
With our political class so gripped by this vapid diplomatic discourse, no wonder Mugabe pours scorn on this country. The Zimbabwean tyrant must be laughing all the way to his limo.
topA Britishness Day: or just another cheap New Labour gimmick?
4 June, 2008
The immigration minister, Liam Byrne, wants to turn the August Bank Holiday into a day of patriotic celebration. Byrne and his New Labour acolytes have spoken of having a special ‘Britishness day’, modelled on those in Australia and the US. Among other things, this might involve street carnivals, a speech by the Queen, and a visit to the local pub.
No wonder the Conversatives are dismissing this as a cheap political stunt. It is gestural politics at its very worst. Having cheapened the concept of Britishness and eroded our national identity for the last decade, Brown and co. want us to dance to their tune in a fit of patriotic zeal. How out of touch these politicians really are.
A Britishness Day organized by New Labour will be a simplistic exercise in political correctness, and one that fundamentally ignores the things that make us British. Bryne thinks this day will be a great chance to celebrate migration. He says: ‘In our heart we know Britain is richer and more interesting because of the contribution that migration brings.’ After all, he goes on to declare that we are not ‘a nation of Alf Garnetts.’
But we don’t need a government minister to tell us why migration matters and that we are not a nation of bigots. People in Britain are largely tolerant and welcoming of migrants. But they can also distinguish between a moderate influx of migrants and Labour’s disastrous experiment of mass immigration. Not that reflecting on immigration is specifically British in any case. Every country in the world has experienced immigration and every country, to a certain extent, has benefited from it. Celebrating immigration, like celebrating tolerance, honesty and diversity, says little about Britain and smacks instead of New Labour’s love affair with global human rights.
If a national population is surveyed on its best characteristics, they are bound to choose words like ‘honesty’ and ‘tolerance’. Which country’s folk are going to call themselves dishonest or intolerant?
A Britishness day is nothing but a gigantic con trick. New Labour has spent the last decade undermining the British ideal in every way it can. Tony Blair famously called Britain a new country that had to detach itself from ‘the forces of conservatism’. But some of those conservative forces had been integral parts of British life: the House of Lords, the Royal Navy, fox hunting. But anything that seemed ancient had to go in New Labour’s wholesale exercise in rebranding. What did it produce? The Millennium Dome.
Worse, this government has presided over a series of intolerable blows to national sovereignty. Labour’s obsessive Europhilia has resulted in a Constitutional Treaty which will strip Britain of dozens of vetoes and turn our elected politicians into an increasingly irrelevant force. Devolution has unleashed anti British sentiment across the border, creating the possibility that the union might crumble in the near future.
Meanwhile, the policy of mass immigration has continued on an alarming scale. Fired up by the ethos of multiculturalism, this government has helped to cement the ethnic ghettos that now divide cities in the heart of Britain. With these hammer blows to British identity, it is little wonder that this latest government proposal will be treated with scorn.
Above all, the government fails to understand that patriotism cannot be reduced to simple formulas. Being British is about more than formal ceremonies and official celebrations, even though these have often been opportunities for patriotic celebration. Patriotism is a feeling of love, devotion, loyalty and duty to something greater and wider than oneself, namely one’s patria or nation. You can’t implant an attachment to Britain by a meaningless day out in the August sunshine. You can’t teach Britishness through citizenship classes. New Labour, with its army of pen pushing, officious, interventionist nannies will never understand this.
Despite its feral addiction to controlling our lives, ministers will never be able to penetrate our hearts. For it is in the heart that the love of nation really resides.
This weekend: Reflections on the American elections.
topThe climate scaremongers haven’t won – just yet
2 June, 2008
A review of 'An Appeal to Reason.'It seems odd that while the climate lobby are continually hectoring us into reducing our carbon emissions, there has actually been no climate change this century. Figures from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction show that since 2001, there has been a lull in global temperature increase despite steadily rising carbon emissions. All the more reason then for caution in the face of persistent scaremongering.
The former Chancellor, Lord Lawson, might seem least qualified to speak on this topic. By his own admission, he is not an environmental scientist, nor does he have specialist knowledge of climatology. But this is no reason to dismiss his new book ‘An appeal to Reason’. Lawson is a sceptic asking difficult and pertinent questions about the science of climate change. He is also a renowned economist who understands the costs and benefits of remedial action.
Lord Lawson does not challenge the fact of warming though he believes it may not be solely due to human activity. In this sense, he is not the first critic to challenge the anthropocentric theory, nor will he be the last. Even the IPCC states that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing ‘most of the increases in global temperature’ and as the science develops, we may well find that our contribution diminishes further. Nonetheless global temperatures have undeniably risen in the last 50 years and human activity has certainly contributed towards this.
What Lawson does very effectively is to question the basis on which doomsday scenarios are so easily made. In order to paint a terrifying picture of a world ravaged by soaring temperatures, the IPCC relies on complex computer models that look ahead more than a century into the future. Indeed its 2007 report talks of ‘multi century warming’ while some outcomes occur over millennial time scales. One has to wonder how these predictions can be taken seriously when computers failed to predict the current lull in global warming. More to the point the timescale itself is absurd. As Lord Lawson rightly says: ’The very idea that we can look a millennium or more ahead, as a basis for serious policy decisions, is farcical.’
But even if the earth’s temperature does hot up by the 3-5% increase so widely predicted, not 'all' its consequences need be alarming. He calculates that even on the gloomiest of the IPCC’s scenarios, the effect of a century of unchecked global warming will be that people in the developing world will be 8.5 times better off than they now are, compared to 9.5 times better without warming. This is the kind of startling statistic that only a master economist could give us but it does put matters in some perspective.
Perhaps the biggest current problem we face is the received wisdom about the remedy, namely a Kyoto style global deal to cut carbon emissions. China and India are currently powering ahead with the development of carbon technologies. When you think about it, why shouldn’t they?
These nations are merely repeating the path trodden by Western nations in their quest for sustained economic growth. But it does mean that a 60% cut in carbon emissions in the West will be compensated for by increases elsewhere. Turning off the lights offers ‘feel good’ politics for the masses rather than a panacea for climate change. It allows governments to excuse the practice of tax increases but without guarantees about the outcome. Something is going wrong here.
It would be much better if we adapted technology so that we could all live in variable temperatures. This might involve any number of innovations from population transfer, nuclear power, agricultural development or solar power or others that are difficult at present to foresee. Human history is a story of adaptation to adversity, particularly environmental circumstances. Adaptation will be cheaper in the long run and involve fewer restrictions on individual freedom.
But then to even raise these issues in intellectual circles is to risk a ferocious backlash worthy of McCarthyism. Surely this is the real inconvenient truth about climate change. Scientific sceptics are dismissed as latter day heretics whose pockets are lined by the oil lobby and more often, they are referred to as ‘deniers’, a highly pejorative word with the most sinister connotations. No wonder that the IPCC has been transformed into, in Lawson’s words, ‘a politically correct alarmist pressure group.’
True, there is a scientific mainstream arguing for urgent action to tackle carbon emissions. Thanks to Lord Lawson, there is also an eminent champion of reason demanding a more cautious approach.
top