The Bewilderness

A murder in a madresseh

There is a line between corporal punishment and capital punishment: a line that the mullah who ran a particular madresseh crossed over with ease. Yet, the case outlined in the Daily Telegraph displays a set of values that deals not only with love, affection or charity but with religious beliefs that blinded one person to humanism.

A blind seven year old boy was sent by his parents to a madresseh so that he could learn to recite the Qu'ran by heart and become a Hafiz-e-Quran: a well-respected scholar whose achievements are reflected upon the family in this life and bestow salvation in the next:

"We kept pushing him to go because we wanted him to become a religious scholar," sobbed his mother Gulzar Bibi, 28. "We thought he was making the stories up like kids usually do to avoid going to school."

We thought he would be the key to our emancipation on the day of the judgment," she added.

The boy was hung upside down from a fan and beaten to death by a sadistical scholar who fled rather than face the punishment for his crime or to save the child's life. Violence and cowardice are universal sins that have proven ubiquitous across all societies. The perpetrator, Qari Ziauddin, would have acted in this manner whether he was a Victorian school-master, a mediaeval vagabond or a hunter-gatherer of the Khoisan.

Yet, the mother's telling statement would have some detract from her grief. Unconditional love is rare and proves too expensive in poorer, more traditional societies where such feelings are an unaffordable luxury. The murdered child was also a path to status and religious salvation for the parents.  Is their love, their loss, their grief lessened in comparison with ours due to the role and the hopes that their son embodied?

The status of such children is spread through websites that celebrate their achievements. It is not difficult to discover other blind children, handicapped from birth, who can recite the Qu'ran. Perhaps Moulvi Hafiz Syed Noorul Haq was the role-model for their decision.

There is nothing distinctly Islamic that makes this brutal murder appear more or less likely than any other. Individuals murder, in the name of religion, money, anger or hate. Those who would single out such acts as a speciality of the muslims display their own prejudice.

Draper's do it yourself therapy: not rational, just hysterical

Whatever happened to Derek Draper? He has turned up in the Guardian as a psychotherapist and has diagnose the unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. It turns out that Gordon as done nothing wrong and is absolutely blameless. We, the British electorate, are mentally ill.

Behind the relentless criticism lies the more balanced truth: That, sure, Brown has made mistakes but that the main source of his unpopularity is that people blame him for the economic downturn. He is hoping that he will receive reciprocal credit for any subsequent recovery. In the meantime something akin to mass hysteria has gripped the nation.

Sigmund Freud called such an event "crowd behaviour", suggesting that a group can get carried away and exaggerate its responses to the point of irrationality. Other authors have suggested that once the hysteria subsides people regain their individual reason and revise their views, often feeling a little guilty about their part in the collective hyperbole.

Psychology suggests a way for Brown to ride out the storm. Researchers into mass sociogenic illness, to give this phenomenon its clinical name, suggest that, "The most powerful tool is for a calm authority figure to give clear and accurate information repeatedly, and to remain visible and available to provide updates and reassurance". In other words the best antidote is for Brown to exhibit those characteristics he most possesses: being solid, steadfast and serious. Not flash, as the slogan put it - just Gordon. If he soldiers on I suspect that people will begin to realise that the current negativity is out of proportion and that he deserves a more balanced judgment.

Unable to understand the judgment of the electorate, Draper expels agency and wisdom for hysteria and rejection. We all lust after an authority figure who can lead us into the sunny uplands of economic growth. There is a grotesque attachment to the unformed mass about this entire article: and a hint of contempt for an electorate that does not behave as required.

As attitudes have changed, Draper admirably demonstrates that many politicians and spin doctors do not 'get it' and are reduced to incoherent narratives of hysteria to mask their loss of empathy with the voter.

Brown cluster f***s the armed forces

The government has agreed to sign up to the treaty banning cluster bombs. Is there an objection to international arms agreements that attempt to reduce the number of civilian deaths during wartime? Not really, if the objective is feasible and does not have a detrimental effect on our existing arsenal.

Here is where Brown's burnishing of his humanitarian glow comes at the detriment of the armed forces. Destroying our arsenal of cluster weapons will take money out of the Ministry of Defence's budget. There is no money for our soldiers and their equipment, but New Labour's ethical credentials  are unfinanced liabilities.

Secondly, we are dependent  upon an untried and untested system to replace our  capability for destroying armour. Given the procurement record of the armed forces, we  can see a further reduction in our capabilities. No Harriers, no ability to destroy armour:

The MoD confirmed that it did not have any other cluster-type weapon systems. However, a spokesman said that development work was currently under way to produce a replacement system that would not breach the convention but would provide a capability to hit enemy armour – the principal role of the cluster bomb.

The proposed system is the ballistic sensor-fused munition (BSFM) which will be fired by the Army’s self-propelled AS90 artillery. The munitions will be dropped by parachute and use sensors to seek out enemy targets such as tanks and other armoured vehicles as they drift down. Each weapon will have two submunitions.

The Army says that this new “smart” weapon will enable gunners in the artillery regiments to target the enemy with much greater accuracy, thus reducing any “collateral damage” (civilian deaths), although it will still be an indirect-fire weapon, like the cluster bomb.

However, the BSFM will not be ready for operations until 2012, which means the Army will have a capability gap of about four years.

This short-sighted and one-sided decision confirms that the government does reduced our ability to project force and defend ourselves at a time of increased insecurity. 

Breakout from the 'target gulag'

The acting Chief Constable of Surrey, Mark Rowley, has made a public announcement on an initiative by four constabularies to downgrade government targets in favour of public service.

ACC Rowley said: "When the public contact us about minor disputes and incidents, they want practical solutions. They do not want officers to feel compelled to record all incidents as crimes and to always arrest those involved simply to hit targets.

"Quite simply local people's safety, confidence in police and their satisfaction when they call us for help is more important than misleading targets."

He added: "This will mean that some national statistics will show a decrease in our performance this year, which is an outcome we are anticipating and are willing to concede."

Consider the strong signal that this sends to the government. After the disillusionment of the police rank and file with their pay deal, the humiliation of Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary) at the recent conference, and the proposals for increased centralisation, one can see reasons why Chief Constables will break ranks and capitalise on the political weakness of New Labour. The rejection of targets sends a signal to their own officers that common sense prevails over the perversity of state mandated outcomes and asserts the independence of local constabularies over a Home Office that has achieved none of its objectives in reducing crime.

The appearance of a backbone in some of our police is a welcome sight. It also represents the professional rejection of New Labour's policies, by a public sector group that has fared badly under this government. Sadly, the consequence may be to accelerate the government's proposal to control police politically through the central appointment of chief constables.

US Umpire

There is a popular view of US geopolitical dominance that clothes its military commands and huge expenditures as the outreach of empire, metastizing within the bounds of a liberal democracy. The Bush administration has seen a huge increase in the budget of the Pentagon; a natural development during the fighting of wars, declared or undeclared. This is the ultimate source of Big Government, as the 'war on terror' overrides limited government.

An article within Asian Times charts the growth of the Pentagon as a process of imperial militarisation. The key milestones on this path are the increase of Commands to cover all continents and the high ground of space; the development of parallel intelligence structures to marginalise the CIA; and the increased role of the military in disaster relief, within the United States and around the world at large. Some of these changes ring true, if one compares the time of spies with today. The 'special relationship' between the UK and the US is largely irrelevant, as co-operation between intelligence agencies is downgraded under by the increased strength of US military institutions in the White House and on the Hill. Contacts track power:

In the Bush era, the Pentagon has overturned this model. According to a 2006 Congressional report by Senator Richard Lugar, embassies as command posts in the anti-terror campaign, civilian personnel in many embassies now feel occupied by, outnumbered by, and subordinated to military personnel. They see themselves as the second team when it comes to decision-making.

The accretion of power within the military is a consequence of the 'war on terror' and reflects a specific response to the growth of militant Islamism. The present phase of the campaign has proved that neither military nor police approaches to Islamic terrorism are impotent. Yet, the military outweighs the industrial in Eisenhower's complex
.
The United States is not an empire, but the insecurities of a multipolar world may impel hegemony. The current expansion of the Pentagon may be a step in that direction, if they fail to look back at their best contribution as an umpire.

Marching up and down that hill

Gordon Brown is the Grand Old Duke of York. He marches himself up to the top of the hill and looks back down to see that his troops have refused to follow. Then he marches back down. Labour backbench MPs find that they have more power with a weak Prime Minister than they would with any replacement. Is it feasible that they will continue to favour a position of influence under this present government (where their revolts are held)?

The latest revolt has arisen over the increases in vehicle excise duty and petrol taxes. These have been dubbed a 'poll tax on wheels' as motorists, squeezed by increased living costs, face another expense. The government is now considering a review, cloaked by compromise, between their greenwashing and the piratical attempt to seize more taxes.

In the longer term, Gordon Brown is taking a series of blows due to previous decisions agreed by himself or his Chancellor. As the appetite for tax increases has clearly come to an end, we must look carefully at his next move. This will spell out the Prime Minister's potential for flexibility. So far, there has been no policy that could not have not ben implemented by a cautious Blair.

The question arises: a man who has been grooming himself for power over fifteen years, and who believes he has a mission to transform the kingdoms; a man who has the power, an enabling act, to do away with Parliament; a man, who may be psychologically flawed.

Away

I am away for a few days now. Kiev.

Northern Unravels

The Northern Rock saga is beginning to unravel for this government, as the assumptions of economic growth that underpinned the restructuring plan fall away under the deflationary pressures of declining house prices. The current plans involved paying back the government loan and removal of the guarantee by 2011. The timeframe for their removal will now extend into the next decade.

Northern Rock's plans could be further damaged by rival lenders leaving the market. "It becomes more challenging if there are no other lenders out there," Mr Sandler said, adding that the proposal to halve the mortgage book to £50bn and secure 50pc of its funding from retail deposits requires a mortgage redemption rate of 60pc, compared with the bank's historic rate of 40pc.

Mr Sandler added: "There is a risk of adverse selection. Those customers who represent a better credit risk will get mortgages elsewhere. We do expect it will increase the riskiness of our book." He accepted that the bank may have to create a special category of mortgage "in extremis" for highly-indebted clients.

Mr Sandler also disclosed he plans to review the scheme in the third quarter of this year to see whether it needs adapting amid the credit crisis.

Asked why he took the job, he said: "I am not doing this for financial reward. I am doing this because it is something that needs to be done and I was asked to do it by the Government. There is a degree of public-spiritedness, I hope, in my response to that request."

The response of Sandler towards rescuing Northern Rock omits the political calculations on the part of the government but implicitly recognises that the bank was nationalised.

HFEA bill passes

The Human Fertilisation and Embryological Authority bill was voted upon last night in the House of Commons. After some impassioned debate, the issues of human-animal embryos and 'saviour siblings' were voted upon in conscience. Both measures passed with the broad majority of the House. As expected, there was a strong cross-party alliance in favour and a stronger one against:

During three hours of debate, cross-party alliances were formed as MPs   discussed some of the most pressing issues of conscience for a political   generation.

An attempt by critics of embryo research, led by the senior Conservative   Edward Leigh, to ban the technique was defeated by 336 votes to 176, as many   Tory MPs on the front and backbenches sided with the Government plans.

A number of Labour MPs, among them many Catholics, lined up alongside the   majority of Conservatives seeking to block the move.

The arguments from both supporters and opponents were conducted in strongly moral terms. Supporters pointed out that the measures held the potential to ease suffering for a range of illnesses and the freedom to research should be protected, whilst opponents ranged from the 'yuck factor' to deeply held beliefs on the sanctity of life.

The Bill also went further than expected since there are no limitations on the types of hybrid that can be produced. This places Britain as an outlier in terms of biotechnological regulation:

Mark Simmonds, the shadow health minister, supported three hybrid embryos - cytoplasmic hybrids, human transgenic embryos, and chimeras - but he attempted to block true hybrids. These combine human gametes, either egg or sperm, with animal gametes, also either egg or sperm. "The true hybrid is not always at the human end of the spectrum. There is an ethical difference between a cell which is 99% human and one that is 50% human," he said.

His attempt to ban "true hybrids" was rejected by 286 votes to 223, a majority of 63. Tory MPs, who were given a free vote, were encouraged to support Simmonds. But George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, voted in favour of "true hybrids". An attempt by Simmonds to tighten the law on saviour siblings was also rejected.

Iain Dale provides an ill-defined statement of the 'yuck factor', which revolves around some sense of what is human and requires a sense of violation:

On human-animal hybrid embryos I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I would vote against them. The whole concept fills me with a slight sense of horror. I always thought the concept of 'saviour siblings' must be something which involved a mutual support pact involving Wendy and Douglas Alexander, but it appears not. I have slightly more sympathy and understanding of this, but there is something about it which makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I accept that medical advances have brought untold joy to parents who might otherwise never have conceived, and further medical advances have saved untold hundreds of thousands of lives. And yet, I can't reconcile and inner belief I have that tampering with natural human science in this way is wrong. I don't have religious beliefs, but there's still part of me which agrees with religious teachings on this issue.

'Natural human science' does not exist, except in the minds of people like Leon Kass. Yet, this is a good example of attitudes that need to persuaded such measures are appropriate and beneficial, or that your beliefs do not extend to denying the rights of others. If this is a matter of conscience, then so is the right to deny yourself treatments that you shun because they are immoral.

Cameron's take on tax

For those who have maintained a sceptical stance towards David Cameron and the New Model Tory, his latest speech is an acceptable shift. The age of big government, whether perpetrated under Republican or Labour, has disaffected the electorate. Yet, how will Cameron square the "limit of acceptable taxation" with his commitments on expenditure to education and the National Health Service:

"With the rising cost of living, taxpayers can't take any more pain, and the economy can't take any more pain without losing jobs to lower tax competitors." After a decade of "reckless" spending, waste and inefficiency under Labour, the Conservative leader will argue that Britain needs "good housekeeping" and an entirely new method of government that is "careful, not casual" with public money. "We need to start living within our means," he will tell business leaders in Birmingham.

To the populace, Brown's borrowings to finance an increase in the personal allowance was a dithered fudge. Their current approach is to blame Labour for their predicament, and rightly so. Yet, Cameron and his party may have considered unfunded tax cuts to  be a shibboleth that they can now turn against Labour, at a time when the political discourse renders such words nugatory.