The Bewilderness

There's a message for all of us

Parvez Ahmed, Chairman of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) opined on the publication of the cartoons. They were placed within the debate on Islamophobia: with unfounded comparisons between anti-semitism and a rising prejudice against Islam. The whole of the article emphasises why the cartoons are offensive and downplays the violent reaction.

A tasteless caricature of a religious personality, whose life has informed and guided billions of people for more than 1,400 years, is neither funny nor satirical. On the other hand, burning flags, destroying embassies and threatening innocent people are hardly appropriate responses.

Where the article, with its redefinition of freedom to include self-censorship, strays from the reported timeline is its unwillingness to address the campaign that has stimulated and stoked these protests. We know that the protests in Syria were organised by the Mukhabarat, the secret police, in order to defer tensions from the ruling Ba'athist party.

Someone was trying to whip up Islamic fervor in the Syrian capital. Unsigned leaflets and cell phone text messages circulated across the city on Feb. 3, claiming that Danes would be gathering in Copenhagen to desecrate the Quran.

"The unbelievers plan to burn our holy text in their public squares, as a protest against the Muslim boycott of their products," the text message said. "Pass on this message and you shall be rewarded in heaven."

The protests may also have been more than a diversion for Iran and Syria. Denmark will soon be the lead nation on the United Nation Security Council, the body that will deal with Iran's nuclear brinkmanship. There was a message there for all of us.

An Informed Opinion...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali  was the inspiration for the "Submission" film which provoked the murder of Theo Van Gogh. In this article (which seems to be the text of a speech delivered in Berlin) she shows that she is not afraid of telling it as she sees it.

 

We have been flooded with opinions on how tasteless and tactless the cartoons are -- views emphasising that the cartoons only led to violence and discord. What good has come of the cartoons, so many wonder loudly?

Well, publication of the cartoons confirmed that there is widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists and journalists who wish to describe, analyse or criticise intolerant aspects of Islam all over Europe.

It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy. These people – many of whom hold European citizenship – have campaigned for censorship, for boycotts, for violence, and for new laws to ban ‘Islamophobia’.

The cartoons revealed to the public eye that there are countries willing to violate diplomatic rules for political expediency. Evil governments like Saudi Arabia stage “grassroots” movements to boycott Danish milk and yoghurt, while they would mercilessly crash a grassroots movement fighting for the right to vote.

Later, she describes herself as a dissident, and tells us why:

I think that the prophet was wrong to have placed himself and his ideas above critical thought.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have subordinated women to men.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have decreed that gays be murdered.

I think that the prophet Muhammad was wrong to have said that apostates must be killed.

He was wrong in saying that adulterers should be flogged and stoned, and the hands of thieves should be cut off.

He was wrong in saying that those who die in the cause of Allah will be rewarded with paradise.

He was wrong in claiming that a proper society could be built only on his ideas.

The prophet did and said good things. He encouraged charity to others. But I wish to defend the position that he was also disrespectful and insensitive to those who disagreed with him.

I think it is right to make critical drawings and films of Muhammad. It is necessary to write books on him in order to educate ordinary citizens on Muhammad.

This article is fascinating. I've skipped the "J'accuse" piece. I've skipped the discussion of other Islamic dissidents. Go on, read the whole thing.

This Noxious Law

The counter-terrorist effort of Blair's government has always proved a bewildering proposition. The damage wrought to the rule of law and sense of justice in Northern Ireland under the auspices of the 'peace process' has proved that political expediency are the guiding lights of policy. Short term decisions by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, taken to avoid provoking the radicalised Muslim community or, possibly, accusations of racism, may have been fatal to British counter-terrorist efforts.

Now we hear that Abu Hamza is being investigated for links to the 7/7 cell.  The government will be weakened by its unwillingness to allow intercept evidence to become legally admissible. Such evidence mau have convicted Hamza seven years ago , with the reduction in influence that entails. The spin from New Labour, concerning its counter-terrorist effort, is not silencing the  major doubts
surfacing about the policy:

A senior counterterrorist source told The Times that the phone taps strongly suggested that Abu Hamza was “involved in operational terrorist activity”....

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, rejected any change to make intercept evidence admissible a year ago. But the Home Office said the issue was kept “under review”. Recordings of Abu Hamza’s conversations with the Yemeni kidnapper in December 1998 were made by experts from GCHQ, the intelligence listening post. They were made available to British security services and police in early 1999. At the same time a dossier on Abu Hamza was sent by the President of Yemen to Tony Blair.

The new Counter-Terrorist Bill is a ragbag of authoritarian measures and security spin.  The police forces have asked for a 90 day detention period. Why? Because they lack the intelligence to track further cells of radicalised Muslims. Their only answer is lock up 'suspects' although revolving doors and lotteries spring to mind. The counter-terrorist forces are operationally weak in this area and know that they are working behind the curve.

How unedifying that the rules of evidence was used to avoid prosecuting Hamza. Seven years where his bile and incitement to terror influenced many. How sad that, in order to bypass prosecutorial and operational failures, the government turns to laws no better than India's or Zimbabwe's.

Senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India and President of the Bar Association of India Fali S Nariman said, ''We have had preventive detention, as we call it, ever since we've had a constitution.'' Article 22 of the Indian Constitution that was introduced to keep in check the threat of the ''Communist menace'' may have been genuine at the time, but it has been consistently abused in the name of national security ever since, he added.

''The point is not the number of days, but the very fact that you are putting away people on the vaguest suspicion for a sizeable period of time. That is the noxious thing,'' he says.

Symbolic Victory

The World Trade Organisation concluded that the EU's policies towards genetically modified organisms in 2003 breached its rules. The Commission had tightened its assessment rules whilst the case was pending and continues to examine each product with hidebound rigidity, regulation and thoroughgoing slowness.

The possible negative ruling by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is likely to have little impact as the EU's legislative situation has changed significantly since the complaint was originally lodged, according to the commission.

    "The EU has no ban on safe GM products," said a statement issued by the Commission, adding that more than 30 GMO or derived food and feed products have been approved for marketing in the 25-nation bloc so far.

    The original challenge was brought in 2003 by the United States, Canada and Argentina. Those countries argued that the EU's strict policies, including an unofficial GMO moratorium that lasted until 2004, were effectively blocking the import and cultivation of GMO crops into Europe.

    But the Commission has repeatedly said that it now has a clear and fully functioning set of GMO crop approvals rules. Under the rules, GMO can only be placed on the market after having undergone a stringent science-based risk assessment on a case by case basis.

However, the case acts as a shot across the bows. It proved alarming enough for GM Freeze to issue a histrionic press release, shrieking to the converted: pro-Europe, anti-US and not forgetting the pesky corporations. Argentina and Canada melt away as mere US stooges. There is no reference to the content of the case, or whether the ruling had merit within trade law. The very act of complaint is attacked alongside the institutions, as the Luddites possess neither the expertise or the language to engage with the conclusions of the case and provide a rebuttal. If this is their level of criticism, they deserve to lose.

The

US

, supported by

Argentina

and

Canada

, lodged a complaint against

Europe

’s precautionary approach to GM in May 2003 at the World Trade Organisation. The case accuses

Europe

of undue delay in approving new GM products and of unscientific bans of certain crops. The interim decision is set to be sent to the parties today.

 

The ruling puts the spotlight on the

US

and the WTO, accused of using bullying tactics to persuade the EU to ignore the demands of their citizens and force acceptance of unwanted products on to the market. This case also damages the credibility of the WTO which is seen as a secretive, unelected body with enormous powers that puts the financial interests of large corporations above public, health and environmental concerns.

Perhaps the precautionary principle may prove a 'trade barrier', since this is not the most scientific of risk assessment methodologies.

Cameron's Constitutional Purgatives: Purchase Now!

There is little to cheer about from the Tory front benches but Cameron's outburst of Whiggism is one of them. Yesterday, Cameron put forward proposals to strengthen the trend of parliamentary scrutiny that commenced long before Year Zero (1997), with the committee reforms of 1979. Danny Kruger in The Telegraph examined the historical parallel with the Rockingham Whigs battling the patronage of the East India Company, and argued that war-making powers were a distraction:

The real target for rebellion by Parliament should be the executive's arbitrary powers of patronage and appointment. We are increasingly governed not by ourselves or by our MPs, but by a class of functionaries who exercise authority on our behalf. This is the actual struggle that Mr Cameron is wading into, and it is an old one.

The mild surprise and scepticism that the Democracy Task Force of the Tories has received, stems from the inability of critics to look beyond the 'strong state' of Thatcherism, an ironic supporter of big government conservatism. There are even echoes of the Major administration's tinkering, a feeble collegiality that never had the energy to embrace the legal changes  required by the civil service reforms of the last twenty five years.

Nosemonkey, generally supportive, reproduced the Guardian's coverage which emphasised how the reforms could fit naturally into a republican agenda. An alternative, stretching back to organic conceptions of the constitution, draws upon the idea of balance and moderation. When institutions gain exceptional power at the expense of others, there is a corrective, usually achieved through the modification of conventions.

The Conservative leader laid part of the blame at Tony Blair's door, accusing him of having run a "personal, presidential-style" government that showed little respect for Parliament. During the New Labour era the balance of power had tilted much too far in favour of the executive and away from the elected legislature, said Mr Cameron.

Only if people knew that their own MPs could - and would - hold the Government to account on fundamental issues would flagging faith in the system be restored and participation at elections increase.

The Tories have commenced their own constitutional reform programme with a promise to legally circumscribe the powers of the Prime Minister. This may prove as valid as the promise of electoral reform that Blair undertook  before he understood the magnitude of his landslide victory. If they wish to further 'parliamentarism' and curb the growth of quangocracy, they need to take two further steps. Only withdrawal from the European Union and radical decentralisation, with accompanying fiscal raising powers, will remove some economic incentives to further the growth of the state.

And let us not forget that Burke started out as a Whig....

Relativism and the Rule of Law in Britain

The Danish cartoons saga is not over as I write, but I won't address it directly.

Instead, I'll tell a couple of stories regarding the state of Britain, with respect to Freedom of Expression, relations with islamists, and tactics.

Earlier this week, Nick Griffin and J Walter BNP Cannon-Fodder got the verdict of a show trial based on a BBC documentary where they were filmed by an undercover reporter in closed meetings suggesting that islam was a problem in Britain and should be tackled.  They were charged in the first week of the general election campaign in 2005, and went on trial on the same day as the trial of Abu Hamza, a British-based jihadi.  Notably, Griffin predicted British-born muslim terrorists attacking Britain in one of the speeches for which he was charged. The judge said in his summing up that just because Griffin was correct, it didn't affect the case against him.  Anyway,  the two were acquited on some charges, and the jury hung on others.

The Crown Prosecution Service announced that there would be a retrial.  The Show-(trial) must go on!!

Yesterday, I encountered a couple of Socialist Workers Party campaigners collecting signatures against the MRSA super-bug.  (For those not familiar with them, the SWP has a strong following among students and the health workers, and can be relied on to campaign against any war, and for any spending increase.)  I enquired of them their view of the cartoon controversy. 

One claimed "I haven't thought about it much.".  The second claimed that "Denmark is a very racist country".  She still claimed to favour free speech. 

Would the SWP mount a counter demonstration to another murderous picket of the Danish embassy in London?  "It would depend on who else took part".  This relativism (to the others that held an opinion) didn't impress me.

Would they picket a BNP demonstration?  "Of course."

I bring this up because I feel rather strongly (as do others that something should be done about the death threats uttered by the Hizb-ut-Tahrir idiots.  I felt strongly enough that I was going to complain.  Then someone informed me that the BNP is campaigning on this issue.

So, if you would like to avoid association with the BNP, I recommend contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commision about this, since they recommend contacting the Met directly.

Blair's Base in Basra

Once you invade, settle down, set up the democratically elected regime and think about how a small base might send a permanent lesson to those loons across the water in Iran, a permanent commitment is justified. We should have guessed that leaks about withdrawal was a softening up process for the complete opposite:

Ministers and military officials are in negotiations with their American counterparts over the British contribution to the long-term effort to maintain peace and stability in post-Saddam Iraq once the country is handed over to its newly elected government.

The scale of the commitment is yet to be formally agreed, but defence sources confirmed that it could see the UK maintaining a military base in south Iraq, near Basra, which it currently controls, for years to come.

The Americans, who have yet to formally admit to concrete plans for long-term military bases in Iraq once the new government has been established, are expected to maintain at least one, much larger, facility near Baghdad. Critics claim the negotiations are part of a long-term plan to maintain US control over Iraq and its oil reserves, and to establish a valuable permanent presence in the Middle East.

The risks for a disaster are mounting as Iran lights the fuse. Now that the mobs are attacking Danish embassy in Beirut, we can expect further escalation. Still, the Lebanese police proved more effective than the Met:

About 20,000 protesters marched on the consulate, some carrying banners that read "Whoever insults Prophet Mohammad is to be killed" and throwing stones at security forces, who fired teargas and used water cannon to disperse the crowd.

One demonstrator, among those who set the consulate building on fire, was encircled by flames and died after jumping from the third floor, a senior security official said.

 

The protesters attacked three fire engines to stop them from extinguishing the blaze and hung up a banner at the building's entrance reading: "We are ready to sacrifice our children for you, O Prophet Mohammad."

Security forces arrested 174 protesters: 76 Syrians, 38 Lebanese, 35 Palestinians and 25 stateless Bedouins, a police official said.

It is strange that so few protestors arrested were Lebanese. 

Surprised?

The Observer asks:

Meet Jim Wallis, the Chancellor's religious guru    

He doesn't like the Iraq war. And he's no friend of George Bush. So who exactly is the American evangelical pastor and why has Gordon Brown agreed to endorse his latest work?

What is the answer? The first line of the article always helps...

Gordon Brown has personally endorsed a new book on faith in politics which lambasts the 'unjust' Iraq war - and portrays the Chancellor as a great spiritual thinker.

Gordon Brown is a great spiritual thinker. Now I know why the poor must be taxed.

From Competence to Impotence

David Cameron must regret using the European Parliament as the measure of his trust. Without understanding the party political structures he made a promise, that, in hindsight, is proving more complicated than he anticipated. Some adviser received a bawl out.

European parties gain influence and money if they ally together as blocs in the Parliament. If the Tories were to withdraw from the EPP, they would become an inconsequential rump, and lose their voice on parliamentary competences. Some Tory MEPs, used to placing influence above principles, are averse to departing the federal statist centre right. Defections?

Cameron, understanding that withdrawal leaves the Tory MEPS with no home and no voice, is endeavouring to set up a fourth grouping of Eurorealists within the European Parliament.

European Parliament rules prescribe a minimum number of 19 MEPs from 5 different parties for the new eurosceptic faction to be recognised.

So far, only the Czech ODS party of president Vaclav Klaus has emerged as an uncontroversial 'key ally' of the tory project, as one source termed it.

Jan Zahradil, the leader of ODS MEPs, told EUobserver after meeting Mr Hague in Brussels "We expressed our mutual will to work towards the establishment of a democratic, centre-right but non-federalist group," adding that there is "no internal opposition" to such a scheme within the ODS delegation in the parliament.

The new eurosceptic grouping would act as a face-saving measure, disguising the eurosceptic move, and maintaining some European input. Whereas a rump, unable to influence laws, may actually prove more truthful and honest in their assessment of how these pernicious directives impact us. I say withdraw from the EPP, be done with it, and start slaying some sacred EU cows.

The Spiral of Antipathy

It took four months for the calculated campaign against the cartoons in the Jyllands Posten to acquire momentum. Four months before awareness of these cartoons seeped into public consciousness in Muslim countries. Four months before orchestrated protests began to move from deliberate provocation to networked meme. Against a backdrop of anti-semitism and anti-Western discourse, these cartoons have proved a trigger for a wider eruption.

The reaction of various countries has proved educational. The United States has used the opportunity to position itself as a critic of Denmark, hoping to mend fences with the Muslim World, and remain neutral in the demonisation of its  supposed allies.  Bush said "If you are not with  us,  you are against us", but never added the disclaimer that the maxim does not apply to the USA itself.   
Britain has not proved a defender of liberty. The British media have cited the right "not to offend" other religions as the reason for refraining from publication. The cartoons may be provocative, but leaders such as the Guardian's have not sufficiently clarified if it is the avoidance of offending Islamic sensibilities or fear of retaliatory violence that guides their actions. Since the press are travelling in lockstep with the FCO, one detects the hand of the government steering the media to avoid  the provocation that has led to the  burning of embassies in  Syria tonight.

The BBC remains true to form in its anti-Americanism. In its Q & A on the differences between the Islamic world and the West, the blame is partially placed on the United States in its analysis. The 'war on terror' caused this reaction, even though the author, Magdi Abdelhadi, cites other violent reactions on the part of Islamic fanatics to preceived cultural transgressions, two of which took place before 2001. The United States has capitalised on the row, but these cultural divisions preceded the 'war on terror', and there is no evidence that it is this factor which raised this from a local dispute to a global issue. One could just as easily cite global media networks, the rise of a more unified Islamic theology, or awareness within the Middle East of its backwardness in comparison to other countries.


Is this just an isolated incident in the tense relationship between Islam and its secular neighbours to the north, or does it mark another stage in a spiral of antipathy between Islam and the Enlightenment?