Diary

More window dressing on crime

31 March, 2008

It was hardly surprising to hear that 2 radicalised Muslims were given a premature get out of jail card last week under the government’s early release scheme. Yassin Nassari had been convicted of trying to smuggle missile blueprints into Britain while a second man was convicted of possessing a bomb making manual. Both men obviously posed a danger to the nation and were rightly imprisoned. Yet both are now free men who have served less than half their full sentences.

The intervention by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, to prevent any further early releases of terrorists, was a welcome but essentially ad hoc retreat, one which revealed the depths of incompetence stalking this administration. Did Straw and his officials not foresee that those implicated in terrorism might be released from prison early? The lack of foresight simply beggars belief. Yet the early release fiasco is but one manifestation of the crisis now affecting prisons and the justice system in Britain.

Last week I heard the Justice Secretary addressing the Royal Society of Arts on the subject of boosting confidence in the Criminal Justice System. He talked about specific initiatives, such as improving literacy in prisons and the government’s new Titan prisons, which would be built near offenders’ homes. Beyond that there were a series of rather vague promises to increase public knowledge of the workings of justice.

Not surprisingly, Straw failed to mention the root of the increasing lack of confidence in the whole system. The fact that our prisons are full to bursting point and that the only ways to relieve pressure have been either for criminals to be let out early or for those convicted to escape incarceration altogether. When you consider the high rates of re-offending among prisoners, especially for younger criminals aged 15-21, the picture becomes rather gloomy.

Straw glossed over the terrible increase in youth related violent crime and the prevalence of gang culture in certain parts of the country. He ignored the glaring failure of ASBOs and community sentencing with their high rates of re-offending.

He even had the temerity to suggest that the police service was in good shape because of increased recruitment, a disingenuous argument when you consider that the average officer spends more time in administration and form filling than in patrolling the streets. He ignored altogether the point that because of dictates from our European overlords in Brussels, the government is unable to deport criminals and terrorists to other shores if they are likely to suffer harm. These are glaring examples of the maladministration of justice in Britain today.

The Justice Secretary took refuge in the idea that if only citizens could become better acquainted with the criminal justice system, their confidence would be restored. But this misses the point. Certainly the public need to be convinced that the police are on their side, that prison is working to deter criminality (which it largely does not) and that as law abiding citizens, they are protected, as far as possible, from the lawless minority. As the saying goes, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

But engaging with the public through citizens forums is hardly going to solve the catalogue of problems mentioned above. Only root and branch reform and a shake up of failed policies can achieve that. Somehow I doubt that New Labour has the stomach to be so radical.

top

The NUT is plain NUTS

26 March, 2008

Teaching unions often talk pure waffle. Over a year ago the AUT led a spate of calls from lecturers for an academic boycott of Israel. They were followed by unions like the UCU who sought to use the moral high ground to take a decidedly nuanced, and very anti Israeli, view of the Middle East conflict. So today’s pronouncement by the NUT that schools should refuse to circulate Army recruitment "propaganda" to students comes as little surprise. It is just another sad example of how some of our public institutions have been hijacked by a twisted, left of centre ideology that panders to political correctness. This much is clear when you listen to the comments of one of the teachers who spoke at the NUT conference:

"Let's just try and imagine what that recruitment material would have to say were it not to be misleading. We would have material from the MoD saying 'Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people's countries. Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries. Join the Army and be sent, probably poorly equipped, into situations where people try and shoot you and kill you because you are occupying their countries.”

It simply doesn’t occur to this individual that his demand for censorship is based on his own rigid hostility to the recent conflicts in which Britain has been involved, notably Iraq. Never mind that this is a contentious issue with opinions still divided about the wisdom of our participation, this teacher demands that we (and our students) view this conflict through his own left wing tinted spectacles. Worse, the bad conduct of some troops in that theatre of war damns the whole force in his eyes, which is exceptionally blinkered.

In any case, the suggestion that the MOD reflect the full horrors of war in their recruitment videos in order to provide ‘balance’ is just a little puerile. It is like demanding that teaching recruitment videos reveal classroom pandemonium or the growing number of assaults on teachers. It is like insisting that NHS recruitment videos reveal how many nurses are attacked each year, or the extent of MRSA. No organization would comply with such lunacy because recruitment would instantly cease.

Perhaps MOD videos do glamorize features of war; it rather depends on your perspective. But it is still up to students, of a certain age, to make informed decisions about their own future careers. Choice, after all, is supposed to be a key component of our education system. But choice for the NUT means deciding what choices are acceptable within their own politically correct parameters. That is obscene.

The NUT has picked on the military because it is a soft target for the left who continue to despise militarism. Teachers, like other professionals, are naturally entitled to their own views on any subject. But what they are not entitled to do is foist politically partisan views on other people, including their own students. The initials of this teaching union therefore seem rather appropriate.

top

The World looks on while Tibet burns

24 March, 2008

Nancy Pelosi deserves some credit for her stance on Tibet last week. While other world leaders watched China’s onslaught on Tibetans with studied silence, Pelosi was forthright in her condemnation. Visiting the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, she declared:

“The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world. If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China and the Chinese in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out on human rights.”

Tibet is indeed a ‘challenge to the conscience of the world’ and the failure to raise it with the Chinese represents the very loss of moral authority Pelosi speaks of. During the recent crackdown there were signs of diplomatic concern but they amounted to very little in reality. There were meaningless calls for ‘restraint’, though whether the Tibetans should be as restrained as the Chinese is a different matter.

But beneath the veneer of unease, no one really wanted to upset this Asian economic powerhouse too much. Not the UN General Assembly, not the EU, not even our beloved ‘son of the manse’ Gordon Brown. During the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Beijing, Tibet was not on the agenda. One suspects that the same leaders who call for human rights were just too concerned for their own nation’s well being. They did not want to lose their share of this emerging economic colossus.

Of course the great opportunity to humble China comes this summer. A mass boycott by athletes would at last send a message of moral support to Tibet, even if it would achieve nothing in concrete terms. But no such thing seems likely to happen. Too many people are hiding behind the view that holding the Olympics in Beijing will somehow be good for democracy and human rights because it will highlight the issues of concern in China: one party rule, Tibet, Taiwan, human rights abuses and so on. If we didn’t hold the Olympics there, so the argument goes, we would be letting the dissidents down.

Of course, this is a lot of disingenuous, self serving waffle. At best, the Chinese will brush aside our concern with human rights as self indulgent liberal hot air. At worst, it will worsen things for the political dissidents in question. The Chinese should never have been allowed to host these games in the first place, just as Zimbabwe should have no place in international cricket. But try telling that to the morally compromised titans of the International Olympic Committee.

Thus Beijing will continue to perpetrate crimes against their own citizens and against the long suffering citizens of Tibet while the world watches from the sidelines. Beijing will continue to prop up corrupt African regimes, such as the Sudanese, in order to fund their gigantic industrial boom while the West looks the other way. Call it economic appeasement or plain cowardice. Either way, it is pretty nasty. As the Tibetans will tell you.

top

The McCann case and the problems of modern journalism

19 March, 2008

No one should doubt the significance of the Express Group’s forced contrition yesterday. The decision to publish a public apology to Kate and Gerry McCann, following months of devastating headlines, represents a humiliating climbdown as well as a stark admission of judgmental failure. To my mind, it is an extremely welcome development.

The handling of the McCann story shows up so clearly what is wrong in Fleet Street today: lazy journalism, the recycling of information from unchecked sources, the trial by media of (as yet) innocent figures who have suffered gross defamation as a result.

Consider the facts. No one knows for sure exactly what happened to Madeleine McCann, beyond the fact that she disappeared from a hotel room in Portugal. No one knows who took the girl, what subsequently happened to her and who was responsible for her abduction.

Yet despite this ignorance, feral headline grabbers have given us a mass of contradictory stories: One minute Madeleine was ‘probably’ alive and coming home by Christmas, the next she was ‘probably’ dead; one minute she was the victim of parental poisoning, the next her parents were the hapless victims of inept policing. Sympathy for the McCann’s swung rapidly to suspicion with fickle ease.

Many of the headlines were based on ‘sources’ supposedly close to the investigation but it was obvious that little independent fact checking or investigation was done. For the sake of cheap copy, the story was strung out endlessly without the critical investigation that might have given it some substance.

This is the kind of issue that is discussed in Nick Davies’ latest book ‘Flat Earth News.’ A Guardian journalist with over 30 years experience, Davies has just written this explosive polemic which could permanently alter the way we see the global media. This author pulls no punches. His is a “corrupted profession” immersed in “falsehood, distortion and propaganda” and which desperately needs a thorough deep clean.

Most British papers, he argues, are not producing journalism but churnalism, which he defines as “the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked second hand material, much of it designed to service the political or commercial interests of those who provide it.” This second hand material comes from different sources, primarily the Press Association but also commercial PR companies who are desperate to promote the interests of their clients.

A study commissioned by the University of Cardiff in 2005 looked at over 2,000 stories that appeared over a fortnight in 5 of Britain’s leading newspapers. To their astonishment they found that only 12% of the stories resulted from original research carried out by reporters. In 60% of cases, the print stories consisted wholly or mainly of wire copy and/or PR material which had not been checked.

Davies rightly comments that, “Journalism without checking is like a human body without an immune system”. The danger exemplified by the McCann case is that false stories are circulated as if they were factual and that journalists no longer discharge the function for which they are indispensable.

In recent years two extended news narratives have exposed the shortcomings Davies refers to. Before 2000, there was a global media (and political) frenzy surrounding the Millennium Bug. For years newspaper headlines were alarmist. Newsweek predicted ‘the day the world crashes’ and the Evening Standard claimed that 999 services faced meltdown in 2000, to cite just 2 examples.

But on 1st January 2000, the world failed to crash and ambulances operated just as normal. This was a case where scaremongering journalists “spontaneously hopped on board a global flight of fiction which took off and left a few sad facts standing flat footed and forgotten in its wake.”

The second case concerned Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, the casus belli for the 2003 war. Here Davies is on shakier ground. Some papers and commentators consistently defied the Bush/Blair case for war, providing a powerful and sustained critique of the Anglo-American war plans. It is true that the 45 minute claim received sensational headlines across the globe when more detailed questioning might have cast doubts on government spin. But to blame the media for stoking the flames of war is grossly unfair and inaccurate.

Journalists have also been manipulated by the powerful engine of PR. Davies talks about the case of 3 extravagant City bankers, who after making millions from dodgy deals with Enron, were ordered to be extradited to America in 2004. But after the men contacted Bell Yard Communications, a company specialising in ‘public reputation management’, the PR machine went into operation.

Now they were three unfortunate victims of injustice, wrongfully extradited because the SFO had refused to prosecute them in Britain. Three self indulgent crooks became ‘The Nat West three’ with the media collectively lapping up the PR “like a baby fastening on to a teat.”

As Davies says, commercial pressure is to blame for much of this. Put simply, journalists are chasing an increasingly flow of stories with inadequate time and resources. With the internet providing instant news gratification, the end result is that when editors demand quick stories and front page leads, reporters often lack the necessary time for rigorous research.

His revelations on ‘the dark Arts’ are the most disturbing of all. Here he shows how most of Britain’s quality papers have been willing accomplices in the illegal acquisition of confidential information. He talks of the Sunday Times reporters who routinely offered cash bribes to civil servants and police officers in return for confidential information.

He shows how figures on the Mail were given access to the social security database containing information on 72,000,000 citizens and were even able to obtain health records on their chosen targets. Yet at the same time both papers were merrily exposing government sleaze and corruption with their usual sanctimonious tone. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The book has its shortcomings. While Davies is unrelenting in unmasking poor practice, he is less generous to the journalists who uphold their profession’s central values. Plenty of brave reporters who carry out important investigative missions rarely receive the praise they deserve.

There are also occasions when his righteous fury is a little misplaced. He condemns the omission by the global media of a vast array of stories, including the surge in global poverty, the inequality within developed nations and some of the more obscure African conflicts. Even when disputes are covered in news features, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, they often lack historical analysis and context. But what Davies ignores is that lengthy economic and social analysis is the stuff of academia, not everyday newsprint. Its omission, though regrettable, is surely understandable.

Despite its limitations, this is a powerful read which will challenge the way you see the world through the lens of the global media. No reporter or editor should ignore it.

top

No Mr. Powell, we should never speak to Al Qaeda

16 March, 2008

How staggeringly naïve can political advisors get? Yesterday Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff from 1995 to 2007, declared that Western governments should keep open channels of communication with Islamist terror groups, including Al Qaeda. Despite acknowledging that it would be “very difficult for democratic governments to do - talk to a terrorist movement that's killing your people," he went on: “If I was in government now I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al-Qaeda."

But this notion is absurd. Where exactly would the talks begin? What issues would be discussed? Al Qaeda is a movement dedicated to overthrowing Western (or pro Western) governments within the area it claims as the Islamic world. They seek to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, which was abolished in 1924, and spread the rule of fanatical Islam across the globe. Al Qaeda is at war with any societies that separate church from state, and which pass on the most fundamental and (to us) sacred freedoms to their citizens. Al Qaeda's campaign to unseat Western governments and replace them with theocracies ruled by ayatollahs is completely at variance with our most sacred values. Put simply, their demands are non negotiable.

Even Powell seems to admit this in his interview: “There's nothing to say to al-Qaida and they've got nothing to say to us at the moment, but at some stage you're going to have to come to a political solution as well as a security solution.”

Well this is certainly true in Northern Ireland, which Powell has used as a template for thinking about Islamism. In Northern Ireland, it was possible to contemplate a viable political settlement and a process of negotiation, if only the IRA abandoned the path of extremism and violence. After all, despite the intense religious bigotry on both sides, this was a political and constitutional quarrel, not a religious one. But this is not the case with Al Qaeda. Their global jihadist campaign rests on a violent, but not implausible, interpretation of Islamic doctrine. Here religion does play the key role.

The FCO have been quick to dismiss Powell’s ideas. “It is inconceivable that HMG would ever seek to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation with a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda."

But if a dialogue with Al Qaeda is inconceivable, why have the FCO not ruled out contacts with Hamas, another extreme Islamist group masquerading as the saviours of the Palestinians? Why have they not slammed the informal contacts made by the Afghan government with the Taleban? If there is a better case of mixed messages, I would like to hear it.

top

Taxing questions for the Tories

13 March, 2008

In 2005 a poll showed that Labour was comfortably ahead of the Tories on the question of economic competence. With the Blair/Brown duumvirate was on its last legs and the Tory renaissance but a distant dream, 40% of people in this poll trusted Labour to deliver economic stability as opposed to 29% for the Tories. Fast forward to 2008 and when the same question was posed to another sample group recently, the figures had changed. Labour had gone down to 27% but the Tories, though ahead, were only on 29%.

As we know, opinion polls and surveys should always be taken with a pinch of the proverbial salt. But the fact that the Tories are not comfortably ahead of an unsuccessful Labour government must be deeply troubling. As the Major government tottered along amid sleaze, incompetence and rows over Europe, Blair’s Labour enjoyed a surge in the opinion polls. Cameron’s Conservatives can claim no such thing.

On the economy, never mind the traditional Tory issues of crime and immigration, the Tories ought to be comfortably ahead. The last 6 months has witnessed the debacle of Northern Rock with a major financial institution taken into nationalisation, an episode completely alien to Britain’s image as a financial centre of the world.

We are suffering from penal rates of taxation, increasing inflationary pressures, low rates of growth and an inflated housing market with consequences for our standard of living. This government’s feral addiction to public spending has seen enormous increases in public debt at the taxpayer’s expense. Never mind binge drinking, this government’s twin obsessions of binge borrowing and binge spending show no signs of abating.

But in yesterday’s budget, Alastair Darling did nothing to tackle the monster of public spending. He offered a tax revenue budget that included further penalties for motorists and drinkers. He tinkered round the economic edges in the hope that the economic cycle would bring good fortune in later years. To borrow a phrase from Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, Darling hoped that prosperity would soon be around the corner. In truth, our hapless Chancellor, even if he had the boldness to carry out some much needed belt tightening, would have been rudely slapped down by his boss in no. 10.

So with this economic carcrash unfolding around us, why are the Tories not more trusted on the economy? The answer is that they are committed to the same high tax, public spending spree being entertained by the government. Osborne and co continue to promise that they will match Brown’s spending plans for the first 3 years of a Tory government. Instead of promising to cut the public sector (abolishing some useless quangos would be a start) which could lead to much needed tax cuts, the Tories harp on about ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ which is a phrase no one quite understands any more. This represents a startling lack of boldness from the opposition.

With such large swathes of the voting public turning their backs on the 2 main parties, partly in the belief (misguided or not) that there is so little difference between them on the major issues of the day, there is a great opportunity for the Tories to bolster their image as a tax cutting party that is friendly to business and the working man. They have a chance to be radical on the economy, just as they have been on welfare reform and family policy. Instead they have lapsed into an unhealthy form of consensus politics. The mass of floating voters can be forgiven for thinking ‘A plague on both their houses.’top

Surrender is not an option (review)

10 March, 2008

Internationalism seems to be all the rage these days. Whether the crisis is African genocide or global warming, there is an unwavering faith that only the UN or some ‘global’ institution has the moral clout to intervene. The assertion of unilateral power in conflict resolution is deemed invalid, immoral and unjust.

Such is the scale of this assault on nation states, particularly America, that the West now faces a terminal crisis in dealing with the Islamic jhadist onslaught and the rogue states promoting it. This is a dominant theme in John Bolton’s new political memoir, ‘Surrender is not an option.’

As a former US ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton is best known for his combative media appearances and his uncompromising defence of the Bush administration. This book adopts his hard hitting style as he zealously exposes those individuals and groups who, through inefficiency or corruption, undermine America and Western security.

He describes a United Nations that is institutionally unwilling to reform, dominated by countries that pursue separate and often conflicting agendas. He has scorn for bodies like the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council, both of which are dedicated to criticizing American power and vilifying Israel. The HRC’s decision in 2006 to permanently monitor Israel’s human rights abuses, deliberately sidestepping the world’s dictatorships, is rightly condemned as grotesque.

While ambassador, Bolton witnessed at first hand the UN’s paralyzing disease of “moral equivalency” which he defined as “the view that an act of aggression and a response in self defence had the same moral implications.” This was evident during the 2006 Lebanon war when Kofi Annan called for a ‘ceasefire’ between Israel and Hezbollah, effectively equating a sovereign, democratic state with an illegally armed paramilitary group. Yet eventually, and to Bolton’s disdain, his own country succumbed to international pressure and brokered a ceasefire.

Bolton brilliantly dissects the UN’s bureaucratic inertia, particularly over the tragedy of Darfur. For years the world witnessed what Colin Powell called ‘genocide’ as Arab backed Janjaweed mercilessly attacked innocent civilians in the region. But slaughter and ethnic cleansing scarcely spurred the UN to any form of effective intervention. After protracted debate, the Council produced a watered down resolution calling for a UN force to be sent to Sudan, provided that the Sudanese government gave its consent. But Khartoum refused while the Janjaweed continued their offensive against the innocent.

As Bolton rightly observed, “there was no chance of success if any of the parties to a dispute dug in their heels and refused to cooperate.” By contrast the author warms to the idea of unilateral interventionism, as in the case of Somalia where American firepower helped to rout Islamic militias that were destabilizing the country.

What Bolton can never stomach is timid, lily livered diplomacy in dealing with tyrannical rogue states. As a key figure in the Bush administration, Bolton tried to persuade reluctant American diplomats that North Korea would never voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons programme. As he observes in the book, Pyongyang was violating an agreement signed in 1994 according to which North Korea would shut down its nuclear power plants in return for heavy fuel oil.

With a delicious lack of subtlety, he condemns “the High Minded” internationalists who were prepared to stake their credibility on the vague promises of leader Kim il Jung. Their strategy was tantamount to a “prayer to negotiate the North out of its nuclear weapons” when it was abundantly clear that good will was all one way. But that is how appeasement works – and why it invariably fails.

Bolton shows his dismay for Europe’s appeasers too, particularly over their dealings with Iran. He talks of how the Iranians pursued a clandestine nuclear programme while the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany) sought in vain to negotiate its termination. In one chapter he described his frustrating attempts to win a harder line approach on Iran, only to find that his initiatives were scuppered by Europe’s “three tenors.” Their “diplomatic frolic” was, he said, “based on nothing but air” but it “gave Iran breathing space to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.” Neville Chamberlain would be laughing in his grave.

Bolton revels in the enemies he has made. After a speech in 2003, when he condemned the gross human rights violations in North Korea, he was denounced by the North Koreans rather undiplomatically as “human scum”. But Bolton reflects, “this was probably the highest accolade I received during all my service in the Bush years.”

When it comes to his detractors, however, he in unsparing in his contempt. Kofi Annan emerges as a sanctimonious but demanding ‘secular pope’, for whom dissent is heresy. Dafna Linzer, a writer on the Washington Post who once wrote a critical article on Bolton, is accused as having a “sloppy and inaccurate approach to journalism” and a “lack of professionalism”. Syria is the “Al Capone” of the Middle East while Hugo Chavez is a “bully” and “troublemaker.” With language like this, you can understand why Bolton is such a divisive figure.

If there is a criticism, it is that the book often reads like a daily diary of meetings and interviews, sometimes described in laborious detail. For those unfamiliar with Washington politics, there may be too much to digest here on a first reading. He also glosses over the murkier issues of the Bush era, such as Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and Abu Ghraib. Nonetheless, this is an insightful portrait of political incompetence at the highest level, written by a towering defender of Western values. That alone makes it a compelling read.

top

Don't be charitable to politicized charities

7 March, 2008

Yesterday’s depraved attack on students in Jerusalem comes one day after a group of leading aid agencies condemn Israeli policy in Gaza. Describing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as the worst for 40 years, the groups cite a number of problems: Gazan dependence on food aid, hospital power cuts, water and sewage problems, illiteracy and severe unemployment to name a few. None of this is particularly controversial or factually incorrect. Gaza is indeed in economic turmoil in every respect cited in this report. But here comes the sting. The main cause of this looming catastrophe is Israel, described in the report as the ‘occupying power.’

‘Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens, but as the occupying power in Gaza it also has a legal duty to ensure Gazans have access to food, clean water, electricity and medical care…Punishing the entire Gazan population by denying them these basic human rights is utterly indefensible.’

This warped, bigoted, utterly one sided analysis simply flies in the face of reality. Firstly, the charge of collective punishment is applied here to only one side. No mention is made of the collective punishment of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are forced into underground shelters whenever rockets are fired from Gaza. Nor do they seem concerned that Hamas cites its missile launchers in civilian areas, so that when Israel retaliates in self defence, civilians will inevitably become casualties. This human shield policy is disgusting, illegal and immoral - yet it is scarcely of any concern to these do-gooding Christian agencies.

Secondly, Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza. The mere fact that the Jewish state has limited control of Gaza (i.e. it controls its airspace and coast) for entirely understandable security reasons does not make it the legal occupier. Hamas now controls this territory and has been the recipient of enormous overseas aid since 2006. The aid agencies must therefore direct their complaint to Hamas, not to Israel.

Thirdly, the Israeli blockade has only ever been imposed on Gaza because of the attacks from that territory directed by Hamas. Israel continues to supply most of Gaza’s electricity though some weeks ago, in response to the rockets, it reduced its supply by 25% to make life ‘inconvenient’ for Palestinians. Nonetheless there was enough of a supply to ensure that hospitals could function effectively.

In any case, Israel would be fully entitled to cut off electricity and gas to its adversary in Gaza. Under article 23 of the 4th Geneva Convention here, a country must ‘allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary.’ It should also ‘permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.’

There is no mention here of supplying electricity and gas. The key point is that Israel must not interfere with the supply of essential goods by another party, nor does Gaza’s dependence on Israeli supplies create a legal duty for Israel to continue that supply.

The political agenda in this report is on open display when Daleep Mukarji, a director of Christian Aid, called for talks with Hamas. On the Christian Aid website it says: “Dialogue is indeed the way forward, not violence. However, this must be part of an inclusive process that involves all parties, including Hamas, as non-engagement has been proven to bring only humanitarian disaster and increased anger and alienation among Palestinians, rather than increased Israeli security.”

So this is what it comes to. Israel should be served up on a plate to its enemies in order to give the people of Gaza a better future. Never mind that the anti semitic Hamas are dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, never mind that their incompetence and malicious warmongering has led to this (legal) blockade, never mind that Hamas cynically exploits the suffering of innocent civilians by using them as human shields, and that they have the tacit support of much of the West, it is Israel that must take the fall. This is biased hatemongering, pure and simple.

Far from giving us a neutral account of a humanitarian crisis, these charities, which include Amnesty International and Christian Aid, have produced a piece of distorted, left wing propaganda which has been treated as if it were the gospel truth. What ought to concern us is how easily these humanitarian agencies receive red carpet treatment for their propaganda simply because they are charities. It is a political 'halo effect.'

This politicized tract should be seen for what it is and treated with the disdain it deserves.

top

A black day for Parliament

08 March, 2008

So it was a day of disgrace for the House of Commons. Some MPs, bravely defying their superiors, voted with the Tories for a referendum on the EU Constitution. The rest, through a mixture of indifference and spinelessness, decided to take the line of least resistance. The rebels surely deserve credit for their stance but otherwise this was an utterly shameful episode in our political history. William Hague was right when he said: ‘The unavoidable implication is that politicians are not trustworthy, that Parliament does not see itself as accountable and votes do not necessarily matter.’ If voter apathy increases at the next election, no politician should dare ask why.

So what does the future hold? The Tories have been offering mixed messages about what they would do in the event that the Lisbon treaty was ratified. Rather unhelpfully, David Cameron has refused to say whether he would offer a referendum in the event that the Tories come to power. Let us assume that he won’t. The only way for the people of this country to regain their true national independence and for Parliament to re-assert its sovereignty (most laws come from Europe) would be to hold a referendum on staying in the EU. This would surely settle the issue once and for all and show that politicians really were listening to a vast mass of disillusioned voters. And if the people of this island maintain their good sense, they will vote us out of this dreadful organization, once and for all.

top

The referendum question that refuses to die

7 March, 2008

Today should be one of the defining moments in our recent Parliamentary history, a day that re-establishes the supremacy of our legislature in the face of executive pressure. Today MPs are debating a Tory amendment to the EU Constitution demanding a national referendum. A similar Labour amendment has been drawn up by Labour’s Ian Davidson.

All along, Gordon Brown has been running scared on this issue. Labour whips appear to have put the frighteners on wavering MPs. One has been warned that he faces effective de-selection unless he votes with the government. Nor are these disgraceful anti democratic forces confined to New Labour ranks. The fanatical EU-phile, Nick Clegg, has warned his own wavering MPs to toe the line or face the stern hand of political retribution.

Brown and Clegg have clearly learnt valuable lessons from their EU’s taskmasters. They have adopted the EU’s lily livered contempt for the democratic process and accepted the line that if the people don’t give you the answer you require, you ignore them altogether. Translated into the politics of Westminster, this means that if you suspect that MPs will defy demands for a EU superstate, you must curtail their right of independent opinion. What we face is nothing less than the neutralizing of Parliament by an arrogant executive that knows it cannot win its arguments through fair means.

The Tories can be expected (Ken Clarke aside) to vote for the amendment. So the referendum amendment will only pass if Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs defy their whips and vote bravely in the face of intimidation. Arguably it is in their political interests to do so for some MPs with a slender majority will face a stern test at the next election if they ignore grass roots feeling on Europe. But if they fail, trust in our political elite will erode even further with terrible implications for this country.

Over 60 years a Tory MP made the following observation in a speech to the House of Commons:

‘What is the use of sending Members to the House of Commons who say just the popular things of the moment, and merely endeavour to give satisfaction to the Government whips by cheering loudly every ministerial platitude…People talk about our Parliamentary institutions and Parliamentary democracy; but if these are to survive, it will not be because the Constituencies return tame, docile, subservient Members, and try to stamp out ever form of independent judgment.’

This was Winston Churchill’s eloquent and impassioned plea for tolerance of opinion on the fundamental issues of the day. His sentiment matters now more than ever before.

top

Israel’s war against terror – and lies

3 March, 2008

It seems like the inevitable confrontation with Hamas has been delayed in Gaza. Following an escalation of the rocket attacks on Ashkelon and Sderot, Israel looked set for a major military operation to curb their enemy’s endless attacks. Now the tanks have been mysteriously withdrawn – though for how long is anybody’s guess. Most Israelis will surely feel that their only realistic choice is to destroy the infrastructure of terror in Gaza.

While Israel has struggled to defend its citizens from attack, the usual morally compromised tone of international diplomacy has been sounded across the world. Over the weekend, Ban Ki Moon called for ‘restraint’ in Gaza. The EU slammed the ‘recent disproportionate use of force by the Israel Defence Forces.’ The BBC (the Biased Broadcasting Corporation) coverage focused on the ‘pounding’ of Gaza in response to rocket attacks but carefully emphasized the larger number of Palestinian deaths, as if that constituted an inherent moral difference between the two sides.

Today the Guardian condemned Israel’s ‘collective punishment’ which was punishing ‘civilians on both sides.’ The Independent slammed the unequal deaths on both sides in this fashion: ‘Between 54 and 61 killed on the Palestinian side in a single day. On the other side, two dead, both soldiers. Can this be termed a fight?’ It won’t be long before we hear the words ‘cycle of violence’ being used, as they were throughout the second intifada.’

But there is no cycle of violence and the notion of moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel is perverse. How can there be any equivalence between a legitimate government defending its major cities from attack and the actions of an internationally proscribed terrorist group? To draw moral conclusions about each side judged simply by a tally of body bags is to engage in the most puerile form of moral reasoning. It is not even primary school level ethics. Indeed to speak of ‘two sides’ in this conflict is equally wrong for it makes a false equation between a democracy and a rogue entity.

And what exactly does proportionality mean? If militants fire rockets into Israel from built up areas, it is right under the laws of war for Israel to destroy those rocket launchers. If they are fired from hospitals, the same thing applies. If terrorists were to fire lethal weapons at Bristol and Manchester from some base in Belgium, forcing entire populations into underground shelters 3 times a day, and if the Belgian government encouraged those attacks, what choice would our government have but to destroy the bases themselves, with all the attendant casualties that would entail? What else but a state of war would exist between the two countries?

Judged another way, would it be more reasonable (or proportionate) for the Israelis to develop their own home made devices and crudely and indiscriminately fire thousands of these into Gaza? This copy cat action uses the same level of force but it is immoral and surely illegal. As long as Israel’s actions are confined to curbing rocket attacks and provided that she does everything in her power to minimize civilian casualties, she is hardly violating international law. Of course, there will always, tragically, be innocent victims in the carnage. But this is war – what else do we expect?

Naturally the UN, with its iniquitous history of anti Israeli bias, would deem Israel to be the aggressor here. But to hear the White House spokesman saying that the violence ‘needs to stop’ and that ‘talks need to resume’ is disturbing. Hamas’ strategy relies on the propaganda value of Palestinian casualties. They would dearly love to hear world leaders calling for ‘restraint’ and ‘proportionality’ for this, the clarion call of compromise and retreat, will make demands for a ceasefire seem irresistible.

But a ceasefire, or hudna, would be the worst outcome for Israel and the region. It would give the Islamists breathing space and much needed time to build up their weapons for a future round of conflict. It will do nothing to promote long term stability.

When Condoleezza Rice visits Jerusalem tomorrow, she should choose her words very carefully. If the US puts the squeeze on Israel and compromises her right to self defence, a great deal more than Bush’s legacy will be at stake.

top

The Prince’s tour

02 March, 2008

It is hard not to have mixed feelings about Prince Harry’s tour of Afghanistan. Clearly the Prince has shown immense courage in wanting to brave the heat of battle in one of the most dangerous places on earth. He clearly feels that as a soldier, he must serve alongside the other 11,000 British forces facing the danger of the Taleban and his sense of duty is admirable. It is heartening for the Queen, and no doubt Royalists everywhere, that Harry has shared the risks faced by his fellow soldiers without complaint, increasing the bonds that exist between the monarchy and the people. In the end, he served nearly 2 months without his safety being compromised. That said, the MoD could hardly have known what effect his presence would have on other soldiers. If he had been discovered, it is hard to argue that his comrades would not have faced increased dangers from the Taleban who would have seen the capture of a Prince as a significant PR coup. This was a dangerous gamble to take in the circumstances. It is heartening that the Prince has returned safe and well but in future, more care should be taken with his deployment.

top

March Entries

• More window dressing on crime
• The NUT is plain NUTS
• The World looks on while Tibet burns
• The McCann case and the problems of modern journalism
• No Mr. Powell, we should never speak to Al Qaeda
• Taxing questions for the Tories
• Surrender is not an option (review)
• Don't be charitable to politicized charities
• A black day for Parliament
• The referendum question that refuses to die
• Israel’s war against terror – and lies
• The Prince’s tour

Archive

• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• May 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• August 2007
• September 2007
• October 2007
• November 2007
• December 2007
• January 2008
• February 2008
• March 2008
• April 2008
• May 2008
• June 2008
• July 2008
• August 2008
• September 2008
• October 2008
• November 2008
• December 2008
• January 2009
• February 2009
• March 2009
• April 2009
• May 2009
• June 2009
• July 2009
• August 2009
• September 2009
• October 2009
• November 2009
• December 2009
• January 2010
• February 2010
• March 2010
• April 2010
• May 2010
• June 2010
• July 2010
• August 2010
• September 2010

Related links

• Richard Millett's Blog
• oyvagoy
• Robin Shepherd Online