lord of the blog

« Global warming | Main | Police shooting »

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Responses

Global warming questions.

So; I have learned that some Canadians were worried about arctic ice melting and drowning Canadians but they have been worrying needlessly because the Arctic is just one big iceberg and therefore won't add much to sea levels. It's still bad news for Canadians though as all those displaced polar bears will head South to Winnipeg!

What I still haven't learned is what the climate was like before the last ice age? Was it as warm as we are predicted to get? Was there any permafrost to melt in pre ice age Siberia and if not why is it a problem if it melts now?

Schools.

Vivienne seeks Grandparents views on why children question previous parenting regimes (or I think that's what she is asking). I'm sure part of the answer is the nature of the human need to question and understand their environment which means all rules are up for constant revision.

However, I think there was less openness in post WW2 Britain and also less willingness to justify and explain rules. This changed radically and quickly in the 1960's.

I think that as long as children get sufficient love and consistency in their early years they will be able to cope with rule changes and the complexity of human relations later in life. Whether the grandparents can cope is a more open question? Any views Vivienne?!

Excluded pupils need extra help. The key question is whether we remove them from the normal school system while they get that help. Interestingly, the daughter of  the mother who was sentenced to a few months imprisonment 3 years ago is reported to be at college now and keen to go to University. So did punishing the parent work?

Iran.

There is too much for me to fully respond to but the following points are relevant. I was suspicious of some of the Iranian opposition groups who (when I talked to them) had either been involved in some pretty dodgy activities themselves or weren't committed to democracy and the rule of law.

Banning groups is always contentious. All democracies have done this and you only do it to protect the very tolerance you are trying to defend. I do watch some of these sites and although they occasionally say they are against violence at other times they appear to condone or support it.

At a time like this and especially when the aim of some of these terrorist groups is to divide us, it is important not to allow a situation to develop where the large majority of the population feel they are not being protected. I think this rather then some evil BNP agenda is what underpins Ingrid's feelings which are fairly common. You won't reassure her by comparing her to the BNP.

A possible alternative to banning could be the use of the Race Relations Act or the proposed religious discrimination Act but it is difficult. They are whipping up fears and talking to a young Arab mother the other day she was far less sympathetic to them then Dan is and far more determined to deport those who reject the values that underpin a free society.

A free society is NOT just a Western society. There are (and have in the past) been many such societies all over the world and it is not true to say that Arab and Muslim societies have always been scorned by the West. See William Dalrympel's book the White Mughals.

There has always been an ebb and flow of conflicts and for a lot of their very long history Jews and Arabs have enjoyed good relations. Religion is in my view (as an atheist) a large part of the problem. Religion is about power just as politics is. That is why there are arguments about the separation of Church and state.

Religious belief and political ideology are, I think, interchangeable. It is no accident that the Communist Party was usually stronger in Catholic countries then in non Catholic countries. 'There is only one Pope in Rome' fitted neatly with the Communist ideology as practiced by the old USSR. There was an inherent contradiction in that but there is in many if not all ideologies and religions.

If I'm struck dead by a thunder bolt you'll know this theory is seriously flawed! If I'm not then I'm right - OK!

Final comment for Tom Drake. I think you are confusing me with Chris Mullin MP. I never claimed to know the identity of the Birmingham pub bombers. Chris did - and I think he did name them but I'm not sure. 

"I was suspicious of some of the Iranian opposition groups who (when I talked to them) had either been involved in some pretty dodgy activities themselves or weren't committed to democracy and the rule of law."

There is one particular group seen as "dodgy" and that is the National Council for the Resistance in Iran (NCRI), the political front of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which is banned in the West as it was associated with the Iraqi Ba'athist regime and was involved in internal oppression in Iraq. Incidentally, the paramilitary Badr Brigades of SCIRI - the Iranian-backed group now in the Iraqi coalition government - were similarly employed as death squads in Iran. SCIRI is no less bad than NCRI - perhaps worse in terms of its ideology - but you are happy to have it in power, Clive. The Badr Brigades have not yet been disbanded and act in the same way as the Basij in Iran: enforcing the state's will through extra-judicial means. We don't hear about it in the West because Western governments don't want to accept the possibility that empowerment of SCIRI is transforming Iraq into another Iran.

The NCRI is not the only Iranian opposition group. In February, centre-left and liberal parties representing Iran's non-Persian minorities - including the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, which is affiliated to the Socialist International - formed the Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran. These groups were not associated with Saddam Hussein and as such are ignored by the West.

I start to lose patience when all Iranian parties are put into the same category of extremist terrorists, distrusted and vilified by Western politicians. But it is Tehran that exported the concept of the suicide bomber, it is Tehran that funds terrorist groups and hosts Hezbollah training camps, it is Tehran that is developing a nuclear arsenal to impose its will on the Middle East, it is Tehran that is executing children in public hangings, it is Tehran that represents the most extreme form of Islamist government.

Clive: Why are you prejudiced against those opposition groups you have not yet met? Do you have more faith in the Iranian regime than its opponents? It is unfair of you to cast aspersions on all Iranian opposition parties because one of them was co-opted by Saddam Hussein.

You appear to believe that the mullahs can somehow be charmed into reforming the political system. But if there is ever to be stability and peace in the Middle East, the region's ethnic minorities must be empowered. Genuine democracy in the region requires a recognition of the diversity of ethnic groups, not just religious identification, and the devolution of power to these groups. This is what Iraq's minorities - the Kurds, Turkomen and Assyrians who make up around a third of the population - are calling for. Iran's ethnic minorities are leading demonstrations against the regime in Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Balochistan, demanding freedom, democracy and secularism. If you are serious about peace in the Middle East, you must listen to them for they are the ones who truly believe in the values you uphold.

Clive, you say "A free society is NOT just a Western society. There are (and have in the past) been many such societies all over the world." I agree. Most people from the Middle East that I meet enjoy debate, feel deep convictions and want to express them freely. They want a democratic society, but don't want to have this imposed on them by the West.

If you are interested in the manifesto of the Congress of Nationalities, you can download it from here: http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/congress-manifesto.pdf
Note that it talks of freedom of thought and association, gender equality, justice, separation of state and religion and combatting terrorism. So why is it hard to drum up interest among Western politicians - apart from a frightening mob of American neo-conservatives? When the peoples of the Middle East start demanding freedom, there is often no-one around who wants to hear them - Western diplomats are too busy negotiating with their oppressors.

I fear the EU is going to sell out to Iran on the issue of human rights in order to strike a deal on nuclear proliferation. This will solve nothing in the long-term. Unless Iranians are given the right to determine the destiny of their own multi-ethnic and multi-faith nation, there can be no guarantee of peace in the Middle East.

Again, I invite you, Clive, to meet some of the democratic opponents of the Iranian regime in London. You can email me at info(at)ahwaz.org.uk, if you are interested. You can listen to them yourself and judge for yourself whether they are genuinely committed to democracy and the rule of law.

Clive,
Ever tried adding a ton of ice to your glass of fruit juice.
I think you need to review your example and your view as to the importance to Canadians and to the rest of the world of the melting of the Artic.

"At a time like this and especially when the aim of some of these terrorist groups is to divide us, it is important not to allow a situation to develop where the large majority of the population feel they are not being protected."

Do you seriously think that the banning of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir will do anything to combat terrorism? Or is it intended to satisfy people with profound unfounded prejudices against Muslims?

"talking to a young Arab mother the other day she was far less sympathetic to them then Dan is and far more determined to deport those who reject the values that underpin a free society."

I've talked to young white mothers who disagree. What on earth does the ethnicity of a person have to do with the validity of an argument? Sikhs have participated in BNP anti-Muslim campaigns, that doesn't make the BNP argument more valid.

Anyway, I clearly stated that I was not "sympathetic" to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir. You've misrepresented me, Clive. My point is that if you ban parties whose values do not fit into your idea of a free society, then society can no longer be regarded as free. What you are arguing for is an end to a free society.

Hizb-ut Tahrir have never advocated attacks on the UK. They are primarily interested in over-turning the governments present in the Muslim world and creating an Islamic super-state. If we are to ban all groups that advocate armed resistance to foreign regimes, then we'd have to ban any group that pledges solidarity with the Zapatistas and the Fateh organisation and even those associated with break-away states such as Somaliland or Transdniestr, who reject internationally recognised sovereignty of governments over their territories. If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is being banned to satisfy the moronic sentiments of some members of the British public, then perhaps we should reintroduce the death penalty to satisfy those who believe it would reduce crime.

As for your argument that Communism appeals to Catholics due to the supposed totalitarian nature of the religion, I think this is a simplistic and a bit bizarre thing to say. Liberation theology in Latin America, advanced by Communist priests, represented a break with the papacy. Catholic priests in El Salvador and elsewhere supported Marxism because they felt it was a solution to the crushing poverty and oppression they witnessed on a daily basis, not because they wanted an authoritarian state. Their morality, informed by their religion, forced them to make political choices. I would suggest that this is the case for Muslims as well, who feel - like non-Muslims - bitter about the Iraq War, regarding it as an affront to their moral values.

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes suddenly looks even more sinister. Now padded jacket, no jumping over ticket barriers and no running from police. They simply grabbed him in his seat and shot him dead. People can twist themselves into the usual knots to find excuses for police brutality, but those of us who've never seen anything but ignorance, racism and brutality and cover-ups from the Metropolitan police know better. At what point do people start using the terms "murder", "execution" and "manslaughter"?

The police need to be restrained and dis-armed until they can prove they're able to handle the powers they already have. Instead it seems the the Metropolitan police is practically writing Home Office policy these days. To whom are we supposed to look for protection from the police? Clearly not to an increasingly unhinged, reactionary and dishonest government that's busy criminalising opinions and cowtowing to an opportunist pro-Israeli lobby by banning non-violent political organisations.

At the same time it seems that the "rules of the game" haven't changed quite far enough to affect the BNP in any way.

If the story in the leaked documents turns out to be an accurate account of what happened, and the story presented at the time of the shooting turns out to be a lie, then at the very least some police officers need to be fired for incompetance, and almost certainly we should be looking at manslaughter charges for the officers involved in the shooting, and the officer in charge of the operation should be looking for a new career.

Given the facts as presented at the time (man resembling a suspect leaves flat under surveillance, wearing suspicious bulky coat in the middle of summer, runs from police into tube station when challenged) I supported the shoot-to-kill action. The ugly truth is that the only way to potentially stop a suicide bomber is to shoot him dead before he can detonate the explosives.

If those facts were not an accurate description of the day's events, and the leaked documents are correct ("suspect" in a demin jacket strolls into tube station, collects a copy of the Metro, puts his ticket through the barriers, and then begins to run when he sees the train approaching, otherwise known as entirely normal behaviour for any regular tube user) then at best the police screwed up in a big way. At worst, they murdered a man.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: